Captain. They were all that were on board. On Friday last, another Mail bag (the Latest that was put on board at Sydney) was sent to the Post-office, with a message from the Captain that the Mate had mislaid it, without the Captain's knowledge. The Bench fined him in the lowest penalty—£50, as he was ignorant of its being on board his ship.—The mail detained enclosed the Government Despatches.

Mr. [Name obscured] of Matavia Bay, and Mr. Williamson, of Russell, were each fined £30, for retailing spirituous and fermented Liquors without having first obtained a Licence.—Their goods were also seized.

Nov. 6, 1840.

Mr. Hayes, late Postmaster, was fined £30, for detaining Letters that should have been forwarded to their destination several months previously.

SECOND LETTER OF "CIVIS."

To the Editor of the New Zealand Advertiser & Bay of Islands Gazette.

Sir,

The fourth clause enables the Commissioners to examine into and report upon such claims as are submitted to them by Sir George Gipps, and also makes it incumbent upon all parties to send their claims in writing to the Colonial Secretary, within six months after the passing of the Bill, (with an exception in favor of those who are accompanied with £5 for every claim—otherwise, all claims to be null and void.

This is quite in accordance with the preamble. In the first place, the Commissioners are not appointed by the Council of New South Wales, but are nominated by Sir George Gipps. Secondly, they cannot take a single claim into consideration until that claim has his approval.

Let us suppose that Sir George Gipps has a private feeling of enmity or dislike (and that does not seem improbable) to an individual whose claim is thus to be sent in—he throws his claim into his closet, to be there buried in oblivion. The unfortunate claimant not hearing of his claim, naturally wishes to ascertain the reason of its being overlooked, when he is very coolly told by some underling, that His Excellency Sir George Gipps does not approve of it. Again, claims are to be sent in, in writing, to the Colonial Secretary. The claimant's inquiry to this would be, surely not for his approval as well as Sir George Gipps's? No, but for the purpose of extorting beyond the confiscation of a considerable part of his property the sum of £5, besides numerous other sums which we shall have occasion to mention as we proceed. It would be no consolation to us could we be assured that these sums, which, in the aggregate, must rise to a considerable amount, were to form part of the Revenue of this Colony—but this is also denied us, as it is withdrawn from this country to be squandered in New South Wales.

This clause, also, makes it incumbent upon all parties (with an exception in favor of those who are absent beyond seas), to send their claims within six months after the passing of this Bill, and not from its Proclamation in New Zealand, the passage between Sydney and the nearest port (the Bay of Islands,) averages nearly a fortnight, and allowing another fortnight before it is ready, or that an opportunity occurs to forward it—one month out of the six thus elapses before the information of such a Bill having passed can reach the Bay of Islands. How are the residents along the coast then, to be treated, who, perhaps, have no communication with Sydney, or even the Bay of Islands, but twice in the course of the year—and no exception to be made in their favor. No, Sir George Gipps has so framed this Bill must have this; and the inability of many of the poorer holders of land to pay the preliminary fee of £5, and by the insertion of this clause, his object of appropriating and confiscating the greater portion of property in New Zealand, without even an enquiry, is but too plain and apparent.

In reading the heading of the fifth clause, one is at first inclined to say, "Now, at least, we shall find something like probity and fairness in the measure." It is enacted that "in hearing and examining all claims to grants as aforesaid, and reporting on the same, the said Commissioners shall be guided by the real justice and good conscience of the case, without regard to legal forms and solemnities, and shall direct themselves by the best evidence they can procure, or that is laid before them, whether the same be such evidence as the Law would require in other cases or not," &c., &c. All this looks very fair. And if this were to stand as at first sight appears, we should possibly here have a security against oppression. Yet here it is to be remarked, first, that this Act makes it binding not on Sir George Gipps, to whom the whole adjudication is left, but only on the Commissioners, who are furnished with no real powers in the matter to give to the Colonists whatever advantage this clause may imply. How strange an evasion—how miserable a subterfuge! Why did not the Council bind down the person in whose hands the entire business is left, the Governor of New South Wales, to do the thing which was right, and not leave it to him to act just as he would, while the Commissioners, who are, in fact, nothing but puppets, being to all intents and purposes devoid of voluntary agency in the matter, are thus prescribed to? Secondly, the cheerful confidence which might be excited in the minds of the Colonists with regard to the intentions of the Legislature, is at once and most carefully dashed to the ground by the conclusion, "Provided also, that nothing herein contained shall be held to oblige the said Governor to make and deliver any such Grant as aforesaid, unless to His Excellency shall seem fit and proper so to do."

It may be questioned, and very justly, whether in reference to lands already occupied by Europeans, by purchase from the Natives during their national independence, it is at all in the power of the Legislature of New South Wales to limit the quantity. My opinion is, that no such power exists. It is admitted, that with regard to future purchases or grants from the Crown, such a power must be conceded. Say, a person occupies 6000 acres, by deed that the Chiefs acknowledge to be by their own custom decidedly valid, and this was purchased prior to any idea being formed of the establishment of any European Government here. It is not in the power of any Colonial Legislature to apply a Law of its own to interfere with the extent or tenure of such property: Law enacted a limit might do it, if no inferior or local Legislature could be thus competent, without being expressly empowered, not by the Crown per se, but by the Imperial Parliament, for this simple reason, that every act of such interference, great or small, is an infringement of Native independence and national faith, involving the possibility of war, which is the concern of the Nation and its Representatives assembled in Parliament, and not of a particular portion of the Empire. It may, then, most fairly be concluded, that this clause which limits (except in particular cases) the Grants of Land which shall be made to retrospective claimants, is altogether illegal, and could not stand in any Court of Justice.

The quantity of land to which one is limited may be a matter of much discussion, some believing that 3000 acres is quite enough for any purpose, others believing that at present for grazing purposes it is far too little to secure success. On this point the opinion of the writer had better not be ventured. It may be remarked, however, with safety that if the object of Sir George Gipps had been correct Legislation, he would have sent down to enquire on the spot what would be a proper quantity, and not legislate first, and leave the subject to be disputed afterwards. In fact, there is no question that he adopted rules, already familiar to him, in reference to countries so totally unlike this, that neither he, nor any other member of the Council, could be a competent judge of the matter.—Even the exception is objectionable, as it leaves it completely in the power of the Governor, to favor his friends, and to thwart whomsoever he will.

There is one very important part of this clause so completely ambiguous, that it is impossible for the wisest conjecture to embrace a conclusion respecting the intentions of the framer. The Commissioners are directed in every case, to enquire into and set forth so far as it shall be possible to ascertain the same, the price or valuable consideration, with the sterling value thereof paid for the land claimed, to any of the said Chiefs or Tribes or any Aboriginal inhabitant of New Zealand without taking into consideration the price or valuable consideration which may have been given by every subsequent purchaser. Surely one can from these words form a certain opinion whether such subsequent purchaser may send in his claim, or not, or whether he has any reasonable prospect of obtaining a Grant. They seem to imply the contrary—and in that case, how dreadful a wrong must be committed, where a very large portion of the Settlers are not the original purchasers of lands they claim. With equal justice might a Law be formed in England to unset almost all the titles to land in existence here, for who would feel secured from the highest Lord to the lowest peasant, if Laws were thus to become retrospective in their application, and should reach back as far as arbitrary power may choose to carry them? Although original purchases of acquisition might be characterised by fraud or violence, it is dangerous thing to tamper with settlements long passed, and he is not fit for a Legislator who knows not this.

But I may have another word on this point—for this week I bid you farewell,

Civis.

(Continued from our last.)

Had this question remained on the original footing which the Government had once pretended to place it, that of an independent state, no question could have arisen as to the legality of any fair purchase then made, or otherwise the same rule must have been extended to the Sandwich Islands, if they were made over in fee to the British Crown; and now under its protection and upon this ground British subjects could be dispossessed of any property they own under the pretence of the preemption never having been offered to that Crown. The same must be carried out in conquered Countries in which special treaties had not reserved the rights of the then inhabitants, perhaps in the early occupation of many parts of America. And this point seems to be conceded in the instructions, that claims should be guaranteed under Schedule A, in which instructions the rights of the occupiers are tacitly acknowledged, subject to protection therein extended to the Natives from unjust or otherwise fraudulent purchasers. That the Settlers themselves had the same view of the case is evidenced by the fact, that many of them petitioned the British Government to take possession of the country, and...