Confessedly, the affair of the Maria was one. But with all due deference, we must understand on what grounds the manner in which O'Halloran inflicted punishment can be justified. We perfectly coincide with the views of the Register, although, perhaps, we might go a step or two further in the argument than he appears to have done. That the Governor has done wrong both morally and politically, we cannot have a doubt, and we are sure that when things of this nature are better understood, such conduct will be spoken of with universal disapprobation.

At this distance, however, from the scene of contention, we should not have alluded to the matter, had it not borne an affinity—an more than an affinity, to the New Zealand affairs.

The question is, has any Colonial Governor a right, either constitutionally or morally, to treat the Aborigines of his Province in the manner alluded to? We deny it altogether. Low in the local scale as the Australian Natives are admitted to be, they have rights which must not be called in question. Within the British territory they are either subjects of the Crown, or invaders, or the peaceable subjects of a foreign power. On which of these principles is it proposed to treat them? The Southern Australian denies that they are the first, because they have never given their consent. Carry out the idea—did they give their consent to the occupancy of their Territory by a power to them essentially foreign? If they did not, if they could not, what right has a British Governor to punish them for acts of hostility? The aggression in the case of the Maria was a single one, of particular parties, but the aggression of the English in taking their lands, was altogether public and official.

In the infliction of penalties, however, they are neither treated as foreigners nor invaders, nor could they be, if it be admitted to be right that the British should occupy their Territory. They ought, then, to be under the protection of the laws which they are alleged to have broken. Indeed, obedience and protection are always correlative. If British law is to be respected by them, their own must be respected by the British, only taken away in such cases and in such manner as would justify the capital punishment of Englishmen. Otherwise the odds are fearfully against them. Aggression against them can scarce be committed by them, for they have nothing to lose but animal life—all the rest has been in fact denied them. They are not deemed competent to be the possessors of property nor citizens; nor is anything done except in mockery, to qualify them for these privileges. But they are deemed perfectly competent to be capitally punished without legal trial, if they become aggressors.

Such is the particular aspect of this case in reference to the Natives of Australia. The same principles have lain at the foundation of the conduct of all Colonial Administrations, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French, etc., in every Colony yet established. New Zealand is the first field where the British have professedly adopted correct views. In South Australia, the Act of Parliament makes no reference to Native rights. Throughout Australia the Natives are regarded as having no existence, or only a suffered one. Not so here. The Ministry have done right in the recognition of their claims. But even here, a Colonial Governor has been found to be sufficiently imbued with the common misapprehension, to have passed an Act disregarding them altogether.

But never will we give the slightest countenance to this prevailing inhumanity. Fortunately, in this country the rights of the Native and those of the Colonists are so mingled together, that Sir George has little chance of success. But in that the rights of the one should be ceded to those of the other, we shall still refer to New Zealand, the great field on which the strength of the question shall be tried.

And here, too, we trust, the victory shall be gained, not for this spot only, but for the whole of the yet uncivilized portion of the world.

Our attention is called to an advertisement which appears this day in our columns from Mr. Fitzpatrick. Judging from the particulars stated in that document, we should say that the case of his License has been most strangely treated. Of course the Magistrates are at liberty to withhold his license if they judged it proper so to do. But then, as public servants, it is implied that they are to act according to established rules which every one may comprehend. If there is anything untrue in Mr. Fitzpatrick's Memorial, it behoves those in power to shew it, and, if not, they ought to render him the only recompense in their power, for the injuries he has sustained by his disappointment.

If there had been no cases in which Licenses had been granted irrespective of Law, the matter would have appeared in a different light, but there is one case in which, not only the License, but almost the whole conduct of the house is illegal, and that, too, of the very party who is, by the Memorial, charged with negligence in reference to Fitzpatrick. Yet nothing whatever has been done in this case. Is this connivance, or neglect, or partiality, or what? Such things ought not to be—they must not be.

We have been several times told, though we have not yet been able to verify the fact, that the whole of the Licenses have been granted under a Wrong Act. If it be indeed so, the whole of the proceedings are illegal, and ought to be looked into. By the way, the question has been put to us, whether even Mr. Hayes was not fined under an Act which was not passed till after the fault was committed. Such appears to be the impression, and it is essential for the ends of justice that it should be publicly contradicted.

While on these subjects we may add, that we do not see the propriety of prosecuting in any case in which the prosecution is conducted under an Act which has never been published within the Colony. Every Act applying to New Zealand ought to be made known through some medium or other, and were we a Magistrate we would not consent to the injustice of punishing men for they know not what.

Our readers may not be aware that at Waiumio, about three miles from the village of Kawakawa, valuable Marble is found in masses of gigantic dimensions. These masses rise abruptly from the ground in isolated grandeur, and greatly resemble monastic and castellated structures, with ruined pinnacles and towers. One lofty range of disjointed crags is peculiarly romantic, luxuriant foliage hangs gracefully from its sides and projecting summits, fantastic fragments represent mullions and broken arches, and the pile itself forcibly recalls to recollection the celebrated remains of the Abbey of Fountains, in Yorkshire. About five years ago Mr. Waterhouse, during his first visit to New Zealand, hearing from Mr. M'Rae that some curious Rocks were to be seen at Waiumio, proceeded thither, and ascertained their composition to be carbonate of lime, fit for various useful and ornamental purposes. Mr. Waterhouse has since been informed that the nature of the stone had been long known to the Mission. Lieutenant Scott, late of the 53rd, who recently visited Waiumio, has expressed himself exceedingly gratified; and relates the accounts he had repeatedly received of the value of the material and singular beauty of the place, were by no means exaggerated. A pale rose-pink is the prevailing color of the marble. We have seen some handsome specimens.

The following prices were realized at Messrs. Henry Thompson & Co. sale last inst.:—Kawa Kawa, 4d each, 1s per lb; butter 1s to 1s 4d; English cheese in tins from 1s 3d to 1s 8d per lb; bottled ale from 13s to 14s; half cases gin 13s to 14s; Negrohead tobacco 3s per lb; salt from £4 10s to £8 per ton; Manilla segars 13s per 1000; Paddock from 25s to 32s per bolt; split pease 8d to 3 1/2d per lb; first quality biscuit 35s to 37s 0d per 100 lbs., 2nd do 30s.

Several communications are this week deferred for want of room. We have important matter on the New Zealand Question for next week. Sydney papers containing interesting matter have been received by the Diana up to the 12th inst.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE.

ARRIVED.
21—James Stewart, of St. John’s, N.B., 600 tons, Captain Duleit, from the whaling grounds of Kamtschatka, out seven months, having on board 1300 barrels of black, 300 barrels of sperm oil, and 9 tons of whalebone.—Agents, Henry Thompson & Co.
Nov. 21—The barque “Cuba,” on her way from Sydney to Port Nicholson.
21—The schooner Harl, from the Thames.
23—The brig Diana, Captain Milne, from Sydney.

SAILED.
Nov. 22—The brig Caroline, Captain Woodin, for Hokianga and Hobart Town.
25—The Cuba for Port Nicholson.

HOKIANGA SHIPPING.

Arrived.
Nov. 12—Earl of Lonsdale from the Bay of Islands.

Sailed.
Nov. 11—Harvest Home, for Port Phillip.
11—Cecilia for Launceston.
17—Flying Fish for Bay of Islands.
18—Bengal Merchant for Sydney.

Ships in Harbour.
Platina for Sydney—M. Marriner, agent.
Earl of Lonsdale—Peter Monroe and M. Marriner, agents.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Advertiser and Bay of Islands Gazette.
Sir,—It may be proper to enquire into the effects which must necessarily arise from the strict application of that portion of the 5th clause, which requires that the Commissioners shall not take into consideration any other price paid for the land except in the first purchase of it from the Natives.

Let it be granted that any given case be adjudged a valid and equitable one—of course it will follow, that the party originally purchasing had a right to transfer his property for his own advantage. Hence the same rule which establishes his right (I.e., in equity—for by this clause the Commissioners are to overlook legal niceties) would establish that of the person who purchased from him, and so on subsequently. Now, as in most cases such transfer of property does not take place but in consideration of profit, each subsequent purchaser of the land would pay a higher price for it than his predecessor; and this would especially be the case as it became improved, and rendered by circumstances more available for commerce or other enterprise. It would hence follow that the increased value is inseparable from the idea of the land title, and as that increased value belongs to the present occupant, and not to any prior one, his just and legitimate interests will require that the sums he has paid should be considered when the question of equivalent grant, or compensation comes under review; and under any other view of the case, an act of wrong will be committed on the very person for whom, alone, the government is now legislating.