FOUND wrecked, a CASK, containing certain articles. Whoever can prove property and pay the expense of this advertisement and the other expences, may have the same by applying to Mr. William Wilson, Auctioneer, Kororarika. If not claimed within fourteen days, it will be sold by Public Auction, to defray all expenses.

Kororarika. Aug. 15, 1840.

The New Zealand Advertiser,

AND BAY OF ISLANDS GAZETTE.

KORORARIKA: -AUGUST 20, 1840.

The ground on which the New Zealand Bill, as it passed the second reading, is defensible, if at all, is that which is assumed by the Governor and the Chief Justice in their speeches before the Legislative Council, in reply to Mr. Wentworth and others. The assumption is, that all waste lands within the limits of the Empire belong to the Crown, and that, therefore, no other parties can purchase them except from the Crown. Now, if this doctrine be true, and at the same time be applicable to New Zealand, there is no question that the Bill rests on a solid basis; and however any one may find his interests curtailed, he can have no just reason to complain.

But in the first place there is reason to doubt the truth of the doctrine itself. As it is recognised in the practice of English law, it rests on the basis of feudal tenure, and, therefore, we should think, it has necessary reference only to those countries which are originally subject to that tenure; its application to other countries being only matter of accommodation and expedience.

We mention this merely to shew that the doctrine taken for granted by the Lawyers, is by no means unquestionable as it at first sight appears; and that it is desirable, in every instance of the establishment of a new Colony, that there should be an express Act of the Imperial Legislature, empowering the sovereign to claim all waste lands within a certain district. The necessity for this has been recognized in the case of South Australia. In the case of that Colony, it was not taken for granted that all waste lands appertained to the Crown, but it was enacted, that they should so appertain, the Act itself being to enable his Majesty to found there a British Colony, which he might have done without this provision, if the Crown had a title to the lands by Proclamation.

It may be argued that this is a solitary case, and that in all other instances the practice has been different. It must be admitted, however, that there is too much confusion on the subject to allow the doctrine referred to to pass current without examination; and at the same time it seems clear, that the South Australian Act is an instance of magnificent trifling, and that doctrine be incontrovertible.

And, again, it may be contended, as in fact it is, that America, though not originally under feudal tenure, and repudiating the very name of Monarchy, has, nevertheless, so decidedly assumed the principle, as to furnish an established precedent in all similar cases. First, however, it must be seen, that the Americans have done merely what they judged it expedient to do in their own case. Second, that if they have adopted the principle without examining its basis, it is the more necessary that in this advanced day it should be examined elsewhere, and third, that at least in reference to the British Empire, a single instance of legislation like that in the case of South Australia, is quite sufficient to break the absolute rule of precedent, and to show that the Legislators did not feel quite satisfied with its sufficiency.

Let it not, however, be inferred from these remarks, that we doubt the expediency or even the necessity of the application of this principle to the waste lands of any British Colony. In every point of view, it is necessary and proper, to prevent divisions, to constitute a valid source of titles, and to avert endless litigation. Also, none but Government can carry out to its full extent the true theory of colonization now so generally allowed, and therefore none but the Government should have the disposal of lands which never have been up.

We now come in the second place to enquire how far this doctrine, supposing it established; can be legitimately applied to New Zealand. We freely allow, that placing this country precisely in the position of one of the British Colonies in all respects, the same rule which is indispensable in this one, and that just in proportion as this Colony approaches in likeness to all others, that rule will be applicable and no farther.

Is, then, this country in the same situation with the other Colonies in all material respects? Take the case either of Upper Canada, or of the Cape, or of Van Diemen’s Land, New South Wales, or South Australia. In those countries, from the first planting of the flag, the British rule was absolute; at once. In those instances, too, Englishmen had not settled, as Merchants or Agriculturists, prior to the assumption of the sovereignty or of the lands by the Crown. Nor was any distinct notice taken of Native rights in those cases by the Government—they were regarded as wandering beings, occupying no defined locality, and, therefore, leaving the lands strictly waste—they were not looked on as holding any political relation whatever, either among themselves or with other Nations. The Government might not bestow on them some of its charity—and strange CHARITY most truly it sometimes was—but it never recognised them as holding a place in human nature, or as entitled to anything but disregard. This we may venture to say, is the way in which Aborigines have been treated in the outset of every instance of colonization prior to the present, not excepting even that of South Australia.

But now, is this the way in which Lord Normanby’s instructions lead us to view New Zealand? Assuredly not. It is true, that the Proclamations assert the dominion of her Majesty over the whole of the Islands denominated New Zealand; as far as the Middle and Southern Islands are concerned, it is true that that dominion is made as absolute and fixed as in the case of the other Colonies. But then it is imagined that there are few inhabitants there to exercise the sovereignty, or to occupy the soil. But with regard to this Northern Island, the British rule is not absolute, either in the quality of its Government, or in its territorial application. The Proclamation relates first of all, not to Natives, but to Europeans, and then, only, to such Natives as cede their sovereignty—even the sale of their lands to the Crown being perfectly optional. And among the Natives the influence of our Government must necessarily be qualified by their own usages. Moreover, the express and most unequivocal declaration of the Crown establishes the National and political character and perfect independence, not only of this whole people prior to the arrival of the Governor here, but even now of all those Chiefs who do not choose to dispose of their lands, or to yield up their sovereignty in the most unconstrained manner. Now, these considerations distinguish so essentially between this and other British Colonies on the points at issue, that it becomes impossible clearly to apply the doctrine under consideration to this Island.

Moreover, the lands which have been acquired here by British subjects have been bought from Natives in their state of perfect independence. If squatters have set themselves down on waste lands in other Colonies, they have taken that which actually belonged to the Crown. But settlers here have done no such thing. They have taken lands to which the Crown never pretended to have any claim, and they have taken it of those persons whose alone it most clearly was. If their purchase have not been equitable, that is another question—but the Crown cannot dispossess them by the assertion of its own right, for itself has most solemnly and voluntarily denied that right.

And again, the Natives are very remarkably cared for in the instance before us. They are looked on as an intelligent, partially civilized, and interesting people. Here again is a broad distinction between this country and Australia, and the rule established there cannot hold here.

It must, not, however, be lost sight of, that it is the waste lands alone to which the Crown lays that claim, the precedent for which existing in the case of America, has been, so eloquently pleaded by the Governor of New South Wales. Now, we have too freely to admit, that the United States Government has not been very scrupulous in its interpretation of the term "waste," whenever it has fixed its eagle gaze on any desirable portion of territory. Shall we follow so goodly an example? In the other Colonies, "waste lands" are those which either have no inhabitants at all—in which case the phrase alone is strictly applicable—or else are occupied only by wandering tribes who make no fixed use of the soil or productions of any portion of it. Where shall we find such lands as these in this Island? We know not. We believe that every inch is claimed by a specific proprietor, who derives either subsistence or emolument from the soil. In our view then, we leave it for others to judge how far we are right, the whole of the arguments in favor of the proceedings at Sydney are irrelevant, and we feel quite persuaded that those arguments will not be adopted by the British Parliament. We hope not by the Government here nor by the Ministry at home.

It is matter of not a little surprise that almost every public department in relation to this place, remains in statu quo. How long it will be before our post-office business is regularly conducted, we are left to conjecture. At present we might almost as well be without either post-master or post-office, the one being divorced from the other, and almost without any connexion. Nor are we better off in reference to the means of conveying letters from one locality to another. The pecuniary loss, and other very great inconveniences which arise from this state of things, are much to be deprecated. We earnestly hope that his Excellency will speedily devise some remedy. Since writing the above, we have heard that a post-office is immediately to be fixed, and other public departments rectified.

The wet weather makes the want of English "accommodations" rather severely felt in New Zealand. It is much to be desired that brickmakers and bricklayers should find their way to this place. Tents, sheds, and houses without chimneys, are no very pleasant things, when the rain falls in torrents. Here is plenty of clay for bricks, and plenty of shells for lime. Perhaps timber would be cheaper, if bricks could be substituted for wood. This place has made most rapid progress during the past year; and it therefore appears that all persons connected with building would find abundant employment and good pay. When once the Government is fairly established, the demand for workmen of this description will be very great in all the settlements of New Zealand. Timber is at present about 38s. a hundred, wholesale, on the Beach. Bricks, we have heard, are, when procurable, as high as £6 a thousand.

Since our Leader was written and partly in type, the Victoria's mail has brought us intelligence of the passing of the New...