The New Zealand Advertiser, AND BAY OF ISLANDS GAZETTE. KORORARIKA:-Sept. 3, 1840.

New Zealand Advertiser and Bay of Islands Gazette, Volume I, Issue XIII, 3 September 1840, Page 2

The New Zealand Advertiser, AND BAY OF ISLANDS GAZETTE. KORORARIKA:-Sept. 3, 1840.

It is rather remarkable that a bijl op so important a subject as New Zealand, should, now it lias'passed, obtain scarcely ev.ou an incidental' notice ' iti the public papers. We should "have expected t<> find ilie Act itself copied into - the Sydney Journals. However,'we neithei find any abstract of it, nor'any observations made oil its principles-and eio'Ctni.-nts. 1% e ha- e half an impression-, tit -utili we may tie wrous, that the Act wilt never be brought into operation, till a court. motion of it'h.is been sought at 'home Vet, it .-eoiiis desirable fhat tlie suliject should be canvassed ini every side at the present moment, in order that ns few erto.s may exist in its ptaclicai application ns .possible, tt e mtNt. then for the pteseitl presume, tlpyt the alterations tnentioiieij.in the minutes of Conned were finally adopted.Our renders will hive noticed the alteration in. the preamble, respectingthe right of the Natives to sell their land. -This alteration has one very .important effect. .It destioys- the absurd and most object ion - able doctrine - against which we have writr reu in our recent Numbers- ' It teuot;-* nibes the indepeiide ce ot the Natives in the proprietary of their laini. A-tid we therefore ho.ie, tliaL it secures them against umiatutul and arbitral y rnfi ingniueiit. liut the alteration is rather ansnrd in . another point of view. T'hepowerof a .proprietor to.sell is idle,, without.the power of a purchaser to liuv. As far ns nsing and keeping their laud is co-rcctuel, they ate* es

tlir»v have been. fre? anti imh’Jjertcltnt — : |,..,t in regar.l lo soiling u, even utter th« admission tit;.tlteir . right tii (to so, the&are . j,( bonds. f.H ,lif.y elm -sell only to .one: jiarty—'h. fi B.t\ii>sii Crown. N«w,\ye.grieve, to find such iucmisisteucies iu Ao.is of/ LjH-i>li)tiJie, tor th>-\ have the : ;effeot jot‘j making legislation, even in impot taut cases, ’ a. lanull «iirSt,</ck, i;; •'< • ; -i ’ 14ui perhaps., >ve .are inerror in thpisjre*.marks. Tlt,e dyclur.aii.oiv is-sim,pty*g thati a. legal title, cannot be given.hg. I ha isatiors* . Tit's uiu’y. >t, ;tlip Crown .is to he; the only p.qijolkiserT—■-lyhiphq.Wts,apprehend, to lie ilie, , meaning <>f. lh?, clause or, that" theCrow.il will ujjpw. its subjects to. pur-.-chase,only reserving its.rigjxtjo dinfirm the/ p u r cii ;i - e Itccordina, iff tlif pj-esu tiled .equity of the case. >V.b,n, tji,e:(>.ct; comes before us, the. doubt we may,jig, r^moived; At | iresent we suspect ihattheG oyernmeot; here 'may interpret the clause either way, that is, may adopt , the more restricted : of; tlir; more liberal * iew of the. matter, ad libit , turn. . Nor is the above,the only doubt yet on, our minds respecting tlie application of thei pieuutbie. Opes it relato to the purchase of lands during the . independence of ,tjii@ country or does .>t merely apply to it as subject 10 the Bi itisli Cinwu ;? If to the former, we submit lha' it is.only the liberal enn-tmeti -u of she cla,u-e -which is consistent , wuh either the claims of,equity, the. British Constitution,, pr.tjiefprmer perfect National i ulependienoe. of; New, Zealand,. Another thing should be most clearly: asceriah'ed. and understood. \Vhat are. the'lauds, which Europeans may tiot buy;, except with the direct, sanction, of the crown ? Is it till lands cultivated and uncultivated alike ? If so, we suggest that; tlie privileges ot "British subjects are not likely, to be enjoyed by the Natives. Expressly, the law iti.question- and the laws of New South Wales on the same point, apply only to : waste’’ lands, .hands, therefore, itnjerany degreeofculti.vation by a Native hand, seem distinctly removed from the jurisdiction of this law. W e suggest these pojuts t 9 be duly considered before the law conies into use, and we most earnestly hope that the rule fff interpretation will always be in the spirit of Lord Normauby’s instructions. We apprehend that the question is better iinrlurs|obd in'England than it is .at Sydney. Another alteration to be remarked,,,is the removal of the absoluteness of the .limit as to the quantity of laud to be possessed. A discretionary power is given to the Lieuteuaut Governor in some casgs. So far it is good, . And we cannot help, Ifeing of opinion, that ,a moderate quantity of land ought to satisfy.any but a covetous aud ambitious person. Still, we think, the placing any legal restriction at all is ..unnecessary, and, therefore, foolish and impolitic. A price fixed upon.all laiifJ.hehl or purchased, aud, a tux upon ali land, owned and not u-ed, would,of itself, limit possession, far mure i-tleciuiilly lliari any restricting clans ? can do. Nor are we sure that an\ other p'an is hintedutin the Marquis of No rnian >y’.- inspections. M<neo> er, we are decidedly oppo ed to all legal restrictions on any commercial or agricultural enterprise which is uot in its nature; iniijuitoui. . Ad ..itLing. however, that some legal limit is desirable, the quantity of land to.be hold iii iliis country wjiicli is to lie so determined, cannot, be well understood in such :i couiitjy as Austrnlin. .Wo refer .our Headers' back to the idler ol ‘’A distant Settlor” in our Oth and iOtli Numbers, for s one very judicious remarks on this subject. There is one alteration in tlie Bill of the most important character, and wliieli will do' very much to reconcile all parties to it, —it is that 'regarding' the removal of the Government claim to headlands, dire. As'far.'as'at present appears, we do not j see' that’ any objection can be eute. tamed aguinsitlic Acliiii this point. in fine, though urn cucuut help feeling

gratification, with our fellow-C.dorrists,-(hui. the i Bill has -been sllOrii of ils itHist mischievous qualities, we Cannot Ipit *ntpress our i sincere conviction, that laws of such m, igniiude and consequence oiigfrt no-t to be passed by a Legislature, constituted like-that: of New South Wales. ■ fn ‘the present case, :ihat of a new Colony* in no: waV like-, those of > Australia; iu‘ our judgment, othe luipeiial 'Legislature 1 alonecan be competent: to enact.