THE PROPOSED ALTERATIONS IN THE LAND REGULATIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume II, Issue 1127, 25 June 1867, Page 7

THE PROPOSED ALTERATIONS IN THE LAND REGULATIONS.

To the EdiLor of the New Zealand Herald. Sib, —With yonr permission I would offer a few remarks on the debate on this subject in the Provincial Council. The " forty-acre " system can scarcely be said to have had a fair trial, seeing that the war interrupted its course considerably. As a system it should be viewed in two aspects, Emigration and Settlement (or Colonization) ; bb an emigration scheme it succeeded, as a colonization scheme it has not. This island is in a different position from any other British Colony, in that it has no publio lands, until they are made such by purchase ; consequently I main ain that we cannot afford to give land for nothing. Hence I would Bnggest that if we give land at all, it should only he to those who will improve it ; that the issue of land orders indiscriminately should cease ; that only agriculturists, or those intending to become such, should rcceive them; and that beneficial occupation should he the condition, failing which, no grant to be issued. Could not beneficial occupation he defined and enforced ? Suppose the fencing of one-fourth part with a substantial fence? Or the laying down in grass (not 6ham, but real) of one-eighth part ? Or the actual cultivation of one-eighth ? Would not either of the e conditions be simple and certain ? If one exception were to be made, owing to the disparity of the sexes, it might be advisable to encourage female immigration by giving land orders to respectable single women, without the condition of compulsory occupation. To talk of encouraging emigration by "free-trade " (direct purchase is ridiculous, as any one acquainted "with the subject knows that a new-comer would not have a shadow of a chance to buy a farm from the Maoris, except through a third party, at whose mercy the newcomer would consequently be. To encourage people to come by telling them they could readily buy from the Maoris, 'would be indeed attracting them by false pretences. The talk of " selling the land for what it will fetch, if only a penny an acre," is most absurd, especially at a time when ready money is scarce, and credit restricted. Let our few men who have ■" plenty of available cash " be satisfied Tfith the chances of speculating profitably in Maori land, and not oppose bo bitterly the attempts of the Government to attract settlers by providing land in moderate f-ized lots at a reasonable price. Of what use to " a Bcore of capitalists" would the nominal purchase of this island be, if there was no other population P Would population have come, if the colony had not been nominally under the protection of the British flag ? Although we are not actually protected by the British flag, we are so nominally, and it is only after arrival that people learn the difference. Would a few of the Buckland or Graham type get on so comfortably with the Maoris, if there was not the moral support that attends the neighbourhood of large bodies of European population ? Thoae who blame the " forty-acre system " for the State of affairß here, will perheps explain how it happens that Canterbury, with her immense fructs of grass, and high price of land (£2 the acre) is as badly off in many respects, and feels the commercial panic even more than Auckland. Or nearer home -tfawke's Bay, which had also large tracts of fine grazing land, and haa immense flocks of Bheep; •whose land regulations were administered in the very opposite spirit to those of Auckland, viz., ic the spirit

that gave runs to a very low yearly rental, and followed that by affording every facility to tho ruuholdera to obtain tho freehold of their runs at a very low rate ; and has also been remarkably favoured in almost total exemption from the expense and losses of war; has given no land away t > "forty-acre men," and but a very limited quantity to ex-military men ; how how is it that Hawku'sßay Provincohas boen already in greater straits for cash than Auckland ? Tho " Wool Kings " have had their own way in both Canterbury and Hawkc's Bay, (as in other of the Provinces) yet somehow that has not saved them from tlio "pressure of tho times"; why do they assume it would in Auckland ? It is edifying to read of a man " who does not believe in marriage," offering tho (former) law against acquiring Maori land as a reason, why people would see their children bastards rather than beggars. Tho experience gained by successive c.rpcrimentsivtihnt lino ought to be valuable. Even during tho existence of the law alluded to. I am not irwaro that the Government have, during tho last thirteen years, interfere !to tho injury or deprived of their rights any of tho numerous families of half-castes in this Province. Another fallacy often repeated by the " old hands,' 1 that none of tho old settlers had any difficulty with the Maoris about their laud purchases, it is easily explained ; " these old settlers had no support from tho Government, but rather hindrance; consequently they were obliged tu keep tho Maoris sweet, as their only support without that they could do nothing ; so they either kept tho Maoris on their side, or failing that, kept out of court, as defeat was certain under such circumstances and notwithstanding the assertion of the old hands I maintain that many a purchaser has had " considerable difficulty" with his vendors, and such difficulty, although frequently, was not always, arranged to tho satisfaction of tho purchaser; and when so arranged it was by additional bucksliesh in some sliapo. But if Government had been bound to support the purchaser (as it must have done if it sanctioned and confirmed tho titles,) it would often enough have been called in to interfere as tho public would have learned to their cost. It is as icrll not to be too confident on this score even yet. Some allusions to the East Coast. Titles Act also need explanation. There the natives had not as far as I know, a shadow of grievance; there the 'Government only interfered in a friendly way, supplying; magistrates and schools, &c. ; there the old hands lived, bought and sold, speculated in land or women, and 110 prohibition was enforced ; practically they were all but independent; yet they took up arms, drove officials, missionaries, and traders way. They were vanquished ; and if the Government have confiscated the land of those who thus " without cftuso " quarrelled with us, who has any right to find fault ? In all ages, the " liberty, life, and land," of the vanquished were at the disposal of the conquerors ; especially was this the rule with the Maori race ; and in this case of all others, it was deserved that it should be so. Apologising for the length of this, —I am, &c., Elector. Newton, 22nd June, 18G7.