[ADVERTISEMENT.]

New Zealand Herald and Auckland Gazette, Volume I, Issue 44, 19 January 1842, Page 2

[ADVERTISEMENT.]

To the Editor of the New Zealand Herald am Auckland Gazette. Kororarika, January 10, 1842. Sir, —An address from the residents of these northern districts has already been sent to His Excellency in answer to his letter to the people of Kororarika, representing the certainty that the natives throughout this part of the country are in a state of most dangerous irritation respecting the Government measures. It was adopted at a numerous meeting held at Kororarika, December 15, 1841. It is a most certain fact that the Natives have scarcely a horero in which their grievances are not brought forward; they do not consider themselves as British subjects, and they make a very peculiar remark, “They had thought the Pakehas superior to themselves, and that their persons, their wives and children, and their property were entitled to superior resp.ct, but they now consider them as slaves, because the Governor assumes the right to meddle with their lands; and, unless they resist the Governor in this matter, they will treat them as such. On this ground, the threat is going round among them, that they will kill the white men, and take the white women for themselves. Judge then what must be the feeling of Whites at this moment, while the fiction is put forth at Auckland that there is nothing the matter. The Council may pass what laws it pleases respecting the lands, but they cannot be obeyed. The only safe thing is to let the subject alone. The Kawri Timber notification has excited the natives beyond any calculation. We do not doubt that they will resist the authority of the Government, if there is any attempt to enforce it, and they will not allow lands they sold to be tampered with. Truly the Government and Council have a great task before them, and they appear to be dreamingof Elysium. They will certainly find a more than Herculean labour their lot, if they persist. I am, Sir, respectfnlly yours, &c. &c. RESOLUTIONS. At a Meeting of Landowners and others deeply interested in the Land Question, held at the Russell Hotel, Kororareka, Monday, January 3rd, 1842. Mr. Powditch in the chair ; the following resolutions were unanimously adopted : Moved by Captain Clayton ; seconded by Mr. Robertson— That we do perfectly agree in the opinions and statements now read to the meeting, and which were adopted at a former and more limited meeting of Landowners, as stated at the head, and that we will both confirm them as our own, and affix our signatures. Moved by Mr. Hodgkinson ; seconded by Mr. Makepeace— That we deem it, in the present crisis of the highest importance to put the Legislative Council in possession of our views ; and that, therefore, the Chairman of the present meeting be instructed and directed to forward the document to be laid before the Council, by some suitable member thereof. Moved by Mr. Grenier; seconded by Mr. Quaife — That for the better securing the end we have in view, measures be taken to effect the publication of this document both in New Zealand and in Eng and.

Mr. Busby having submitted to the meeting a draft of a Petition to the Queen, was requested to make it general, and let it lie at Kororarika for signatures ; after which it was moved by Dr. Ford, and seconded by Mr. Quaife — That this document be presented to the Home Goverhment in the form of an appendix to the Petition to the Queen, now read by Mr. Busby. [Prefixed to this document is a petition from the Chairman praying that it may be read in Council by J. R. Clendon Esq.] Opinions adopted at a Meeting of Landowners, at Kororarika, on Monday Dec. 27th, 1841 ; with regard to that part of His Excellency the Governor’s Speech before the Council, relating to the settlement of the Land Claims of New Zealand. We perfectly agree with His Excellency, that “ the Act passed by the Governor and Council of New South Wales, and subsequently adopted by the local Legislature, ought to be wholly remodelled.” Nor is the sentiment new to us, for the Memorial and Protest extensively signed last year on the publication of that Act, and printed in the Newspapers, will testify th* then general opinion that the Act was totally foreign to the nature of the case in which it was framed to regulate, and altogether inapplicable to the actual circumstances of New Zealand. We nowrepeat our conviction, that the Act as it stands can never be applied in practice, and that the only attenmpt to apply it must, as was then asserted, create universal dissatisfaction among the natives and among those Europeans who had settled here prior to the arrival of his Excellency. But although that Act, must inevitably fail if it be not repealed, we conceive that the plan proposed to be substituted for it is equally wrong in principle, and much more dangerous in its tendency ; and moreover that it will unavoidably entail issues of a most disastrous character. We object to this plap on the following general and particular grounds. The first ground is general and all comprehending; and we take our stand upon it as one of the most importance. We believe it is not in the power of any Legislature,much less a Colonial ancl subordinate one, to annul those great principles of moral justice and good faith, on which every law must be founded in order to give it force. Now the law of property is, considered a per se, a. direct and unavoidable result of those great prin * ciples : and that law cannot be infringed without involving’an attack upon the very basis and framework ot Society. This would be the case naturally, the moment society was constituted, even under the rudest forms, bnt where an express contract and guarantee is resorted to, the obligation acquires a double force. To apply this remark . The present plan does r«ot remove the fundamental enor of the Sydney Act, which consists in the virtual denial ot the Aboriginal independent right in Sovereignty and landed property, and prior to the treaty of cessio®; but, on the contrary, it actually recognises that error as truth, ane proceeds upon the assumption. And yet nature tells us, and if this were not sufficient, Her Majesty’s Ministers most strongly ■essert, that that right was [absolute and indefeasible, and that Her Maje ty, for herself and her successsors, entirely repudiates all claim on New Zealand not distinctly resting on the free and intelligent consent of the natives. But the natives never pretended, and were never asked, to disclaim the right to their soil retrospectively, so as to disannul the acts resulting from their absolute and unrestrained proprietorship. The only title then of the Crown to this country is founded on the treaty of cession ; and interpreted by this undeniable truth, the presumption prior to that act is a manifest and pure absurdity. From these considerations, it arises that any plan admitting this absurdity, and the present plan in particular is contrary to moral justice, to national faith, to the pledges contained in the treaty of cession and other proceedings and documents of that date. It is also contrary to the Marquis of Normanby and Lord John Russell’s strongly expressed decisions, and to various other public and parliamentary statements made by persons in authority. , . Now, if the Government intend to recognise the obligations which rests upon it to deal with the natives according to justice ana good faith, and to admit their perfect independence in Sovereignty and property before Captffin Hobson’s arrival, and it is bound equally and as a necessary consequence to confirm every bona-fide purchase from these prior to that event. The establishment of a Consul and other acts recognising this as a foreign state, assuring us this that we should never be interfered with by the Crown, was a principal inducement with many to purchase; and it is impossible for the one of these to be allowed without the other, to legislate so as to transfer the property,or any portion of it, thus held by the natives or purchased from them, either to the Crown or any other parties, without the free and unconstrained consent of the occupiers, is there-

fore a gross breach of moral justice, and cannot be allowed to be legitimately in tha power of any legislature. ' In contending thus against the plan put forth in His Excellency’s speed), we take our decided stand on this broad and unquestionable truth, that the Legislature of New Zealand can have no lawful power to interfere with the property existing as snch before the treaty of cession. From this general ground we come to consider the particular bearings and consequences of the plan—and here we trace numerous evils. It appears to us contrary to the intentions of the Ministers of the Crown, that any Colonial authority should assume to be competent to enact, repeal, and re-enact, and to settle the titles to and in this country as it may deem right or expedient, inasmuch as they have sent out from England a commission expressly to investigate the matter, which commission is intended only to determine the real and bona fide purchases, in order to confirm them. There seems no other possible way of doing impartial justice to the old purchasers of land, than to allow them to hold, not on lease, but as strictly their own, the very lands they satisfactorily prove themselves to have purchased. To substitute any other lands, without the consent of the purchasers is no other thing than an act of robbery. A very great confusion must arise with regard to property held in trust for the half-caste children of European fathers and native mothers, by the adoption of the present plan. No distinct rule can be easily drawn which shall not involve them in the fate of their male parent; a course whioh would certainlyexcite great irritation among their Maori relatives, and lead to interminable disputes. The persons who have long oocupied farms in the interior could not receive any compensation adequate to the loss they must suffer in the deprivation of those farms, inasmuch as a few acres of suburban land, unless so close as to form a part of the town to which they are supposed to be approximate, which could not be the case except in very few instances, would be available neither for building nor agriculture • whi.e the divisions of their property into partly suburban, and partly agricultural sections, would in a great many instances prevent the concentration oftheir efforts, swamp their means, and endanger or destroy .the fruits of their well directed industry. The holding of the farms which they have purchased and cultivated, in order to provide an inheritance fontheir children, on a lease from the Government from any period of time, and especially subject to the arbitrary will of any Governor who might declare that he wanted the land for other purposes, would be always felt as a grievance, and deprive the mind of its motives to enterprising labour, and expenditure of capital. The supposition is also singularly absurd that any length of lease could compensate for the distinction of a freehold right. The professed object of concentrating the population would be as much defeated by allowing occupants to hold their farms on lease as by giv” ing them freehold possession of the same. Does His Excellency, we may be permitted to ask, intent. to give back the vacated lands to the natives ? If not, the centralizing of population is impossible. In this plan, like the Sydney act, the confusions of proof, in claims of first, second and third hand .purchases, where the property has been sold and resold several times at an advance, is left entirely without remedy. 3 The proposed reservation of alternate suburban allotments appears to us fraught with pernicious consequences. It would entirely prevent the junction of two or more to form small farms. It would tend to raise a tax on the pocket of the ultimate purchaser of a reserved allotment, to the advantage of the government, by giving the land an artificial value. The right of any government, put in trust as it is entirely for the public weal, to •"Op l suc h a course may be fairly questioned. Moreover the fencing and other expenses connected with separate allotments would be much greater than if any person might take all his allotments in contiguity. . Tb . e P' 3 ” “ not Practicable. The government IS not, and for a very long period cannot be, in possession of suburban and other land sufficient free from native claims, to meet the demand which , e P lan Would create, and the suspension of the allocations would lead to such a suspension of industry and well directed labours in the agricultural department, as would consume capital, and ruin all the advantages the colony might have derived it that suspension had not taken place. Let it be lemembered that two years suspense have already been endured, and the consequences both to individuals and the community, have been fearfully disastrous. A second period of equal, or even far less, must destroy the last vestige of hope of a re- ' ane P‘ au therefore entirely destroy itself by entailing universal ruin.

The distinction proposed between the Missionaries and other parties is founded on a fiction of most pernicious tendency. As far as the Missionaries are farmers, they stand, in relation to the state, in the same position as all other farmers do. Viewed in a religious light the distinction assumes a serious aspect, as implying the right of the state to reward one religious body more than another, or to foster religion with the encouragement of state support. Considered as Colonists, the Missionaries do not stand alone in their merit, for all the old settlers have done as much to prepare the country for colonization as they have. The distinction will have an invidious effect both on the favoured and neglected parties. Religion is not a sufficient cause for the difference of treatment, and temporal reasons exist, at least equally, in both cases. The Government claim to the exclusive right of forming settlements and townships, is a pretension of the most despotic-tin d iniquitous character ; nor can we for an instant consent to it. First, it is contrary to all British usage, as far as we are acquainted with it. In England towns have uniformly arisen from the necessities of the people, from the union of private persons for manufacture and commerce, and not from Government and artificial efforts to found them. The charters have been given after the towns have been founded. Government, does not interfere with the right of private persons to make settlements on their own property if they see fit, nor could it do so without a breach of the first laws of justice in matters of property . Next, in point of fact it would he exceedingly impolitic, even if the power were legitimate, to exercise a prerogative like that just named. The mere existence of such a law would create embarrassment. If not carried into force, it would cause disrespect for the laws and the person who enacts them ; but if put in execution, it would repress enterprise and unduly limit the wealth both of the community and of the individuals comprising it* It would promote land jobbing of the worst description in the authorised settlements, and increase the immediate revenue to government at the expense of its future resources. Moreover, when towns are built on any other principle than the mutual endeavour and the combination of persons in commerce, the prosperity is not real and substantial, All townships got up and supported artificially, fail of real success, just in that proportion in which trade is not the basis of the union. When towns naturally arise by the gradual assembling of men on the same spot for trade, every thing, builaings, population, town land in occupation, and commerce, will be exactly proportionate, but not so on the principle now acted on by Government. The trade is not-co-extensive with the land occupied, the buildings erected, and depopulation collected together-r-and yet the amount of trade alone is the true test of prosperity. All towns lying under the incumbrance of such a system, will find their prosperity impeded, till in the course o events they can throw off the incubus. Now we* have only to extend the idea to the entire prohibi " tion of all efforts on the part of settlers to for** 1 townships according to their necessity, and the whole trade of the colony will be limited to a small number of localities, and those under the check of a ruinous system exhausting their resources and fettering their energies. On these grounds, we think the proposition of giving to the government the absolute and exclusive right to form settlements and townships a most preposterous one. But we may add, that in this country it will be entirely impracticable to carryout such a law, and that therefore it would be foolish to legislate on the matter. Trade with the natives cannot be limited to any authorised localities without so interfering with them as either to destroy it, or to excite their aversion. Nor is the country so formed by nature that any physical power at the disposal of the Government will be able to compete with the determination of settlers. -They will either leave the country or settle where they pleas?. Merchants and traders have their owu reasons for choosing their localities, derived from infallible experience, and not from any artificial plan or authoritative prescription. v Whatever dangers have been experienced by the old settlers in times past from the natives or are now again experienced, the present universal ferment of the native mind, particularly on account of the measures of Government, must not only now again be suffered in all their force, but in a vastly greater degree by new settlers placed on the vacated lands by government orders, inasmuch as they will entirely, and in a juncture of peculiar irritation, want that sympathy and reciprocal confidence with the natives which the older settlers all acknowledge to have been the only hedge oftheir security. The natives, already extremely angry and jealous on the subject of the Government pretensions to the original and sovereign right to the lands of this country, and other consequential causes, could inevitably be driven into outrage by the forcible placing among them, on lands they

acknowledge to have sold, and maintain they had a right to sell, of new settlers instead of the old, and in their view legitimate occupants —thus endangering in their apprehension their own possessions. It is stated in justification of the present plan, that the claims to land are so extensive and numerous, that no land would be left for the purpose of settlement under Government, and for the natives, if those claims were allowed, even, we presume, according to the principle of allowing four acres for every pound actually paid by the purchaser. It is thus, in the first place, evident that the Government intends to gain land by the proposed commutation ; and, consequently, not to go to the extent, in giving grants, authorised and required by that principle ; and thus the settlers will be thrown, not on the law of the case, but on the capricious mercy of the Government. On the other hand, if for- every hundred acres proved, the settler shall have his quantity partly in Suburban, and partly in Agricultural sections, as put forth in his Excellency’s speech,we do not see that the plan provides any remedy for the difficulty in question. But we believe there are two egregious mistakes in this matter. The first is, thst a very fictitious view is held forth to the public of the quantity of land claimed—a view derived from the present non-surveyed state of thefarms, and, consequently not at all to be relied on. The second is, that the purpose of colonizing this country is to form an extensive English settlement, and that, therefore, the Government must have the lands to dispose of. We conceive, in opposition to this, that the published purpose of the Ministers in sending out Capt. Hobson, was to protect the natives and the settlers already He was not sent hither to put forth any schemes subversive of this grand object, but, on the contrary, to do every thing in subserviency to it. Hence, the introduction of new settlers is not to be detrimental to the old, but in perfect accordance with the general interests and in a manner calculated to promote them, We cannot therefore perceive that there isunynecesf or Government to have a large quantity of land at its disposal for the introduction of new emigrants, if the original purpose of its coming be not compatible therewith. With regard to the alleged difficulty of getting the present settlements surveyed, we believe that it would be nearly equal either way, with the additional difficulty on the proposed plan, that the settlers would be in a state of total uncertainty and incapacity to cultivate, which would not be the case by allowing them to continue where they are, though obliged to wait ever so long for the survey and settlement of their boundaries. Besides it is unquestionable in our view that plans might -be suggested for the speedy survey of all the claims in New Zealand, But we must confess we see no necessity for so much haste in the matter. In fine, we only ask that Government will return to first principles, and simply fulfil its primary objects and engagements, and the overwhelming host of difficulties now besetting the whole questions, and increasing at every onward step, will at once disappear as by the wand of a magician.