TO HIS EXCELLENCY CAPTAIN HOBSON, R. N. &c.&c.&c.

New Zealand Herald and Auckland Gazette, Volume I, Issue 47, 29 January 1842, Page 2

TO HIS EXCELLENCY CAPTAIN HOBSON, R. N. &c.&c.&c.

Sik—-Having been kindly permitted by your Excellency to address you on the subject of the Land Claims' Bill, I now avail myself of the opportunity of making known to your Excellency as freely, and as fully as possible, not only my own sentiments, but I believe also those of the majority of the other claimants with whom I have been in communication regarding this most important measure. In submitting to your Excellency my opinion on the subject of the final and equitable arrangement of the claims to land in this Colony, I would take the liberty of stating that I have endeavoured, as far as possible, to divest myself of all personal feeling in the matter, and to view the question solely on its own merits. The equitable adjustment of the claims to land in New Zealand, is perhaps the most difficult and intricate measure that has ever been submitted to a Colonial Legislature, The claims are so numerous, the interests so varied, the customs and usages, the ideas of right of property of the native and European population are so different, and in many cases so much opposed to one another, and the effects of any law that may be enacted so difficult to be foreseen, either as regards the future prosperity of the European or Native population, that the person undertaking the task of equitably adjusting all the contending claims and

interests, would not only require the nicest perception of right and wrong, the most intimate acquaintance with Colonial History and Colonial Legislation, but the most sound and'comprehensive knowledge of ail the great and general principles of colonization.

In coming to the consideration of this question then, it will be at once apparent, that our only guide must be the general principles of moral equity. It will be necessary in the first place, to inquire into the customs and usages of the native population, and respect them in every instance wherein they shall have been found to be in accordance with the principles of moral equity.— This part of the subject will, of course, only relate to the consideration of the fairness or unfairness of the contracts, made by the original purchasers of land, with the native population or owners of the soil. In determining this point, we to be aware of the difference between the two parties, as regards their standing in society, and the effects likely to be produced upon the happiness and comfort of each, by the partial or total deprivation of property. The one has, comparatively speaking, few wants, and these are easily supplied. If he have nothing but his spade, his tomahawk, and his fishing net, he is independent and comfortable. The wants of the European are many—his

connexions and relations in society are numerous —loss or deprivation of property may not only involve him in ruin and misery for life, but may also prove extremely injurious to a numerous circle of relatives, friends, and dependents.

The next point to be considered, after having ascertained who are the bona fide purchasers of land, is the question of how far the allowing or disallowing of their titles to land, in whole cr in part, would affect. Ist—The present interests of the purchasers themselves. 2d—The present interests of the rest of the European population. 3d—The present interests of the Aborigines. And lastly—The future prosperity of the whole colonv.

The consideration of these different heads will necessarily involve the proper principles of colonization—a subject on which unfortunately verv few are agreed. It would be taking too great a liberty with your Excellency, and would be an unwarrantable presumption on my part, to enter largely upon this subject. I may, however, be permitted to advert shortly to the two great systems, viz.: The old or supported system, and the new and self-supporting system. I need scarcely observe to your Excellency, that all the British Colonies with the exception of two, South Australia and New Zealand, have been founded on the old plan of depending for a time upon the Mother Country : nor need I advert to the great success with which this system has hitherto been attended, or the prosperity which the settlers have enjoyed under it. The new system has been, until lately, a matter of experiment, and the most sanguine hopes were cherished with regard to the result. While one party regarded the discovery, as it was called, to be so great as to deservedly entitle the inventor to be placed in the same rank with the most distinguished philosophers and benfactory of the human race; others again take an opposite view, accused him of interested motives, and condemned the system in whole. The truth in this, as in almost every case, lies between the two extremes. The new system is certainly no longer a matter of experiment. It has been tried and found not to have succeeded.— Though this has been unhappily the case, I feel persuaded that a modification of the two systems would be found to work better than either. The idea of founding and supporting a colony from 'the revenue arising from the sale of Crown Lands, has been entertained from observing the immense amount of money that has found its way into the Treasury chest of New South Wales, in this manner. The true cause of this, however, was entirely

unnoticed. It was not, for a time at least, perceived that the money apparently paid for the waste lands of the Colony, was in fact the price, and much less than half the real value, of the convict labour which was given with the land, — When convicts ceased to be assigned with land in New South Wales, the revenue from the sale of Crown Lands also ceased, and their value has very much fallen in'the estimation of the Colonists, whatever it may be still in the eyes of the Home Government. While I cordially agree with the principle of devoting the whole, or the greater portion of the revenue arising from the sale of the waste lands of the Crown, to the purpose of emigration, I am still firmly convinced of the utter absurdity of entertaining the idea for one moment? that the waste lands of an infant colony are of sufficient value to warrant any person in depending upon the revenue arising from their sale, as a means of even defraying the current expenditure of the Colonial Government itself, without taking into account emigration at all. He who will expect that by raising the price of land, and in this manner compelling the first few settlers to pay at a high rate for waste and uncultivated lands, with the expectation of procuring from them the means of carrying on the Government, and the introduction of fresh emigrants, shall most assuredly dis_ cover that ere long he will only have succeeded in raining the original settlers, and effectually preventing others from coming to that colony, on account of the reported misery and poverty of the first settlers. After this necessary digression, I would now return to the consideration of the effects of confirming in whole, the titles to lands purchased from the natives, as far as the present interests of the purchasers themselves are concerned, Leaving the question of right of interference on the part of the British Government altogether untouched, I believe that the majority of the purchasers of land,, who are really interested in the 'p: :.t a .J ndvui.VAiiii.rt of riye errmsnyj entirely coincide with your Excellency in the belie that it would be detrimental to the interests of the purchasers themselves, as a body, to confirm their title indiscriminately to the whole of their real or pretended purchases. I need only mention two) acknowledged facts to convince any rational the truth of this statement. The first is, that, waste lands have no real value ; they are either occupied and cultivated, or in the vicinity of cultivated land. The second is, that a grea t number of persons who claim the largest tracts of land in New Zealand, have neither the means nor the intention of going to the expense of forming settlements upon such lands, by importing suitable from England or any other country. Hence it must necessarily follow that a small tract of lard, in a settled country, is in reality, though not in appearance, of much greater value than a larger tract of wild uncultivated country, without the means of improving it; and that it would be decidedly the interest of the person owning such waste land, to make over a portion of it either to the government or to individuals, who would undertake to form settlements in the vicinity of his property, and by so doing, not only give it a real but a marketable value. [to be continued.]