To another passage his Lordship declares that the title of the Natives to the soil and sovereignty of New Zealand is indisputable, and has been solemnly recognised by the British Government.” Again, “the admission of their rights, though qualified by the conclusion that the Natives are only small and petty tribes, possessing few political relations to each other, and being incompetent to act or claim in concert is binding on the faith of the British Crown, the Queen, in common with her Majesty’s immediate predecessors, disclaims for herself and her subjects, every pretension to seize on the islands of New Zealand, or to govern them as part of the dominions of Great Britain, without the free and intelligent consent of the Natives, expressed according to their established usages.”

Now, if instructions and right intentions could secure the Aborigines from wrongs, we should be perfectly satisfied. A broader renunciation of all title on the part of the crown to either the sovereignty or the land of this country, prior to cession, could not be expressed. A more unequivocal declaration of the absolute independent of the natives of all foreign control, either with regard to government or property, could not be drawn up. We had supposed, after this, that whatever law was to be passed on the subject would be entirely based on these plain and fundamental doctrines. But what are the doctrines on which the Legislature of New South Wales is actually proceeding? Surely, the very reverse of that of Lord Normanby and of her Majesty. The right of the natives to their own soil as independent property, is at the least threatened. The Government of New Zealand was never openly recognised, it is not but tacitly acknowledged; and it is said that it is alleged, that the Governors of New South Wales had it included in their Commissions, by virtue of which they appointed Magistrates here.” Is it, however, as clear as day, that if Lord Normanby means anything, the commission alluded to had no reference to the natives or their property, but was merely intended to apply to British subjects settled here. To us this point is indubitable. Nothing can be more certain than that the original right of the natives both to territory and soil, is, without any qualifications whatever, recognised by the document before us.

What, then, is the ground of this fear regarding the future fates of the natives? Those fates may be in the hands of both public and private men. We have heard it questioned, we know not how justly, that private Europeans hold here more than one acre in fifty. It may, perhaps, be questioned on the same side whether the natives have, morally or otherwise, derived much real harm from the residence of Europeans among them. We cannot speak on this subject without decisive evidence, although we allow there is no small danger. But when a public functionary, exalted as the Governor of one of the Crown's most important Colonies, lays it down as an axiom which must not be questioned, that the natives have no independent right over their own property, and that the Queen of England holds that right which the natives have not, in spite of her most solemn and indubitable renunciation of it, we own we see no end—looking at the Cape as an example—of the catalogue of miseries which may be entailed on this inoffensive people. We hope that His Excellency will never consent to become the instrument of such a doctrine; and we hope there is virtue enough in the present Ministry to check the mischief. If not, we are sure there is energy enough in the public mind at home to make itself heard and feared.

We honestly confess, that, devoted as we have ever been and hope to be, to the cause of humanity, this is to us a most sacred subject, and we could not excuse ourselves from saying whatever we might think would tell. The lands of New Zealand are brought under the British crown for the professed purpose of protecting the aborigines from injury. Let not that purpose be defeated by Colonial proceedings impugning their right altogether.

If his Excellency Sir George Gipps had merely said that the Queen of England was not legally bound to recognize the titles by which her subjects held land in New Zealand, we should certainly not have much wondered at his opinion. It is not for her Majesty to meddle with the titles of lands in foreign states; they must be determined by the laws and usages under which they are made. Whatever there may be insecure in them those who choose to purchase such property, must bear all risks themselves. Unquestionably they cannot appeal to their own sovereign in their defence.

But if she cannot make such titles good, has she the power legally to invalidate them? and can any thing but a law passed for the purpose by the Imperial Legislature of Great Britain, give her such a power? These are questions of high moment, and on careful consideration of the matter; we feel compelled to give our opinion in the negative. The only thing the Queen can do, without such a law as yet does not exist, is, when appealed to, to act as arbiter in the dispute, and by the light of such evidence as can be adduced, to give decision according to an equitable interpretation of rules recognized in her own dominions.

It is with such a purpose, and such a purpose alone, when a foreign state comes into her hands, she can suspend the titles she judges to be defective, till they can be fairly examined. And in a comparatively wild country like this, we admit that she may fairly, on the apprehension of their invalidity, suspend all titles in this manner and for this purpose. Then, she can institute a tribunal, before which all the titles she has suspended can be tried, and she may do this in such a manner as may seem fit to her wisdom. Thus, far, we feel she can legally go. But we are quite convinced, that she can not, on any grounds, that can be recognised as right, take to herself, without purchase, any land in the previous possession of another. If any title be proved defective before her tribunal, she must restore the property to the former possessor. If not, it must be adjudged to him who holds it. She cannot take it herself without the full consent of the owner, whether he be Native or European.

There is a good idea in one of the latest Sydney Gazettes, respecting the proper materials for the constitution of the Court of Claims. The writer contends, that it would not be proper to commit the interests of parties to an absolute Commission—that Commissioners should be sent from England to act as judges, and that a Colonial jury should be appointed to give a verdict according to the equity of the case. We regret to find from the speech of the Chief Justice, that such a plan is not likely to be adopted, and that parties are deemed to have no right to this consideration. In our opinion they have a most decided moral right, if not a legal one. In the event of the ultimate adoption of such a course, we suggest that the jury should be selected from all the neighbouring colonies, in order to prevent any undue preponderance towards any prejudices which may be supposed to exist in New South Wales. It is of importance to the interests of this community, that satisfaction should be felt with regard to the decisions of the Court of Claims.

We are informed that the Anna Watson has been chartered by the Government, for the purpose of conveying down workmen and others to the Thames, as a preparatory step to the foundation of the Capital there. We have not heard that the precise locality is fixed on.

Our readers will not fail to notice a remark in the letter from Mangonui, respecting the quantity of produce raised and disposed of by the natives of Oorum. We have heard similar remark from other quarters. The public will form its own judgment of the letter itself. We have published it, because it seems materially to bear upon the great question of native right. It ought to be known at Sydney and in England, that the principle assumed by the Legislature of New South Wales, that where there is no cultivation there is no strict proprietorship; even if this, which it is not, has no application to the natives of this island. We might venture to say that we should not be in the happiest situation, if our vegetables and pork were not provided by the Mauries.

We call attention to the advertisement in our columns respecting the election of Directors for the Bank on the 1st September. As the establishment of a Bank here must be regarded as an important era in the commercial history of the Bay of Islands, it is greatly to be hoped that a Directory will be chosen befitting the magnitude and utility of the enterprize. Enlarged and practical knowledge of the principles of trading, and especially of the money department is highly requisite in the Director of a Bank. In addition to this must be regarded as of mutuary importance, unbending integrity, and well-judged liberality. On the possession of these qualifications in the Directory, generally, will the success and usefulness of the undertaking greatly depend. We urge these considerations on the shareholders.

Extract from letter dated Mercury Bay, 4th August, from James Wood, Esq., Commander of H. M. S. Buffalo: Sir,—It is with great concern that I acquaint you with the total wreck of H. M. Ship Buffalo, by driving on shore here in a dreadful gale of wind on the morning of the 28th ult. all hands are saved except one man and a boy drowned —Charles Moore, John Carnis.”

To the Editor of the New Zealand Advertiser and Bay of Islands Gazette. My dear Sir, Several enquiries having been made as to the reason of the non-publication of the proceedings of the meeting hold at Wood's Hotel, of Landed Proprietors, on Friday, the 24th July last, for the purpose of establishing in New Zealand, a branch of the Sydney New Zealand Association, I beg leave through the medium of your columns to state, that in consequence of its being apprehended that some of the resolutions agreed to at that meeting would create dissension amongst the New Zealand landed proprietors, I was requested by several highly respectable subscribers not to publish the proceedings until another meeting had been held, for the purpose of re-considering the objectionable resolutions. I remain, my dear Sir, your obedient servant, Chas. S. Brewer.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Advertiser and Bay of Islands Gazette. Letter of 'A Distant Settler' concluded. But not to rob others of all opportunity of more particularly displaying these points of the question, let us proceed to the other equally important point of grazing; Without a considerable portion of adventurers in this important branch, the price of cattle, must be enormously raised, both to the farmer and the butcher, and, consequently the high price of meat become distressing to our own population, and by discouraging foreign shipping, by which this country has been hitherto advantaged, destroy that market which, by its reciprocal commerce, would otherwise soon raise in this country a population and resource capable of maintaining its own expenses, and, by consequence, soon become a precious jewel in the Crown of England.