Deal of their power in grave titles necessarily involves their ever independent. If they had any, it is the British pretended to have no authority over the land. The question of their imperial civilization has nothing to do with the manor—they might keep their land, or sell it, or give it away whensoever and to whomsoever they would, and their acts could not be called in question. But their acts are called in question, and even denied by this Bill, and, therefore, it is perfectly evident that it and their original and independent right are incompatible. Either, then, the British Ministers must declare their adherence to their institutions on this point by cancelling the Act, or deal as in almost every former case of Colonization, by pursuing the Aboriginal and only rightful possessors of the land to extermination.

Not only is the essential principle of this Law destructive of Native property, there is not a single provision in it to remove or qualify this conclusion. The "instructions" point out that the Colonial Government is not to acquire an acre of land as property, but by purchase, and not by want of authority but by the cession of Native sovereignty. Those, Chiefs, then, who have not ceded the latter, are still independent sovereigns, and those who have not sold the former have an independent right over it still, acknowledged by the Crown. But there is not the slightest mention of this point in Sir George Gipps’ Act. The whole country is dealt with as to the landed property and sovereignty of the country, without check or control, were stripped of Native claimants. The "instructions" and the Bill are essentially at variance, and the latter cannot be continued without the destruction of the former.

The Crown, by this Act, is made to claim the whole landed property which in this country has been acquired from the Natives by every class of Europeans. That claim is laid, to all land fit for Townships, &c., &c. Why? In order that the Government may acquire revenue for some purpose or other by the sale of such lands. Now, this is inconsistent altogether with the very object of the British authority here, the protection of the Native rights. Why is there not a provision in the Act, that all Lands thus taken from Europeans shall be fully, without the deduction of a single acre, restored to the Aboriginal possessors? Though this might be an exaggerated and distorted use of his Lordship’s principle, it would, nevertheless, be the consistent carrying out of that principle. But the Act sets aside this application altogether, and enables government to seize, for its own use, every inch of ground in this country. We are bold, however, to say, that the Crown cannot legally take a single acre but by purchase; and if the Commissioners set aside the pretensions of any European claimant, the property must revert to the Natives—it cannot go to the Crown.

For these reasons we sincerely believe that this Act will not be confirmed by the Government at home—but there is another reason or two which may touch more closely than the merely general feeling of philanthropy.

Let us suppose the Act to be strictly applied, what would be its effect in regard to the Crown of England? First of all—there would be arrayed against it the whole force of the Philanthropists in Great Britain and Ireland, who have heard too much of the oppression of Aborigines in other Colonies, not to be fully awake with regard to their treatment here. The authorised denial and the foreseeable usurpation of Aboriginal property in land, have been the foundation of every proceeding which has issued in the sacrifice of Natives. This is well known and well understood in England. And the Parliament, acting under the impulse of the Philanthropic body, would soon place the Crown beyond the means of accomplishing its intentions.

But if the Parliament should and the Philanthropists themselves, what would the effect be? It cannot be concealed, that there is jealousy on the part of the French with regard to the Colonization of this country. Nor is it to be withheld, that there are many French people in this country who have acquired and are acquiring property to this very hour, and who have the secret assurance of the French Crown, that their claims to it shall be sustained. Now, if the Act be applied at all, it must be applied to them as well as others, and its application would inevitably cause dispute, which, if carried out, would end in war—and would the British public, persuaded as it is at this moment with the belief that war is, essentially, a criminal thing—would that public, we ask, sanction a war occasioned by so stupid a cause?

The position of things here could not be less unpleasing. The French would claim their lands, and the English would claim theirs on the very same grounds. If the former were granted, and not the latter, it would be to conciliate the French in opposition to the English Colonists. If neither, the Government at home would be opposed to the entire body of Colonists in this Country of British subjects not less than foreigners. In the meantime, the Act which authorises this risk, would have the effect of cutting off the Natives from sympathy with the British authority, under which their right has been altogether set aside. And thus, the confirmation of this Act at home, and its application here, would involve consequences the most calamitous which it is possible for the human mind to foresee, in the array of every interest and feeling, Aboriginal, Foreign, and English against the Acts of the Crown.

Let it be understood by the Public, both here and in every part of the Queen’s dominions, and by the world at large, that we (and those connected with us) do not possess an inch of land in this country that we wish most earnestly to see British authority established here on a firm and satisfactory footing—that we would do anything we could to aid the Government in carrying out the benevolent intentions of the Ministry—but we are aiming only at truth and righteousness. But we do foresee those difficulties to which we have adverted, and we dare not, in conscience, refrain from expressing our apprehension. We are confident in the intentions of the Ministry. We feel equally sure of the rectitude and good feeling of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor. We would say, therefore—let no moment be lost in sending home a Memorial. There is a Society in England, which will be aroused when it shall be made known there that the rights of the New Zealanders are not provided for.

The worst enactment of the whole Commissioners’ Act—is that which places everything at the disposal of George Gipps. No person besides the Governor has the slightest power—the Commissioners are but a directory at his discretion. First—Sir George is not obliged to place any given claim before the Commissioners. In every case in which he may have a prejudice—and his prejudices are rather comprehensive—he may bury the claim in the oblivion of his closet. Second—he is not obliged to time during which any claim shall be investigated, that he can suspend the affair, with all the consequences which hang upon it, just as long as he pleases. Third—he is not obliged to cause the Commission to sit in New Zealand at all, he may keep it, if he pleases, at Sydney, under his own influence, far from the means of collecting evidence, and to the great expense and detriment of the claimants. Fourth—when a claim has been favorably reported, he may quash it, or do what he pleases with it.

With regard to that part which relates to Townships, we do not see anything which requires that Townships already formed should not remain in the hands of present occupants. But the wording is so that it may be interpreted either way. The only thing we can say, is, that it is not the interest of the Government to empty the whole hive of bees at once.

The Ministry have, doubtless, given the Governor large powers, in reference to this case, though, we believe, his has not fulfilled their intentions. And it may be asked—is it constitutional for any subject of the British Crown to possess a power so absolute and irresponsible as this in any case whatever? No, nor is it so understood in England. An appeal can be made to Parliament. The Ministers implied to the House to sanction their plan, and, therefore, that House is accessible on the subject. We cannot conceive of British subjects being placed beyond the control or protection of Parliament. THE IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT IS OMNIPOTENT.

Concluded from our last.

But, truly, the disadvantages already referred to, are, themselves, sufficient to show the admirable capabilities of this country. With all the uncertainties arising out of the Land question, and other causes—here is this spot growing in the number of its inhabitants and its places of business and not infrequently the quantity of goods sold is enormous. A Bank, comprising within its list of shareholders and directors most respectable names—is now a work. We need not speak of the Merchants, who are of so much longer standing than ourselves. We have at Kororareka—smiths, shoemakers, carpenters and builders, butchers, bakers, plumbers and glaziers, lawyers and a demand for more—and these have collected gradually, and of themselves, without that hot bed forcing, which has been found necessary to make other Colonies.

Are not these things, we ask, inherent evidences of the general judgment as to the suitableness of this place for British settlers? What we have said is just simple fact, and no more—and the truth of it is known to many at Sydney. It must not be doubted, however, that the circumstances of this Colony demand—and that most imperatively—an immediate settlement of every department of public affairs. The effect of the Land upon property here has been like that of the hot winds of Australia upon vegetable and animal existence—it has withered everything—and if the present cramped state of our Government, is the effect of its dependence on Sydney for direction and aid, the sooner that dependence is at an end the better. We are well persuaded that it cannot be necessary for us to be placed in so unpleasant a predicament. If an alteration do not soon take place, no appeal to the Home Government on the part of the Colonists will be inevitable.

A meeting was held on Monday at Jones’s Hotel, to consider the best means of promoting the stability and prosperity of the township of Kororareka. A deputation was appointed to wait on His Excellency Captain Hobson, on the subject. We shall have an opportunity of adverting to the object of the meeting when His Excellency’s answer is received.

It is whispered that the Commission is decided to sit at Sydney. If so, the expense of substantiating a claim will render an attempt impracticable in the case of every resident, to say nothing of the increased uncertainty as to its issue. An Act to supercede claims altogether would have been safer.