of the question. We wish that principle only may determine the question.

The view of the case which we think has been nearly overlooked, is the moral one, and in taking this we must contend, that we have by far the strongest ground. We admit, that on the European side, actual law, if there be any, will principally decide the affair, although we still doubt whether law must not be made in England expressly for the purpose. Every one will, however, see, that the real question which must be determined is, whether the Natives had, and whether they were the only persons who had proprietary right in the soil prior to the settlement of Europeans here? On the right answer to this question will depend entirely the equitable arrangement of present disputes. But this question is of vast consequence to the interests of moral equity and philanthropy, independently of its connexion with European relations. It is then in reference to this view of the case, that we have felt it incumbent upon us to take the matter up.

We fully believe, that wherever Englishmen are, they are accountable for their conduct, and that the Constitution they acknowledge has a right to exercise its authority over them. We most decidedly maintain, that they cannot do anything which implies the assumption of sovereignty, without placing themselves in a state of independence of, and opposition to, the claims of the British Constitution on them. To possess property, however, is one thing, to become sovereigns of territory another. If to "Colonize" is merely to possess landed property in a foreign state, and to cultivate it, we believe there is no principle of the British Constitution violated by their so doing. But if to "Colonize" implies the establishment of law which in aid personal punishment, or exact lines, or in any way affect liberty or property—all which can be done legitimately only in the name of sovereign authority—then we fully acknowledge, that a decided breach of allegiance has been committed. Now, it appears to us, that in the legislative movements on this subject, there is a very strong tendency to mingle these two points, which so essentially differ. If Englishmen merely hold land in New Zealand, we cannot see that there has been any breach of English law in their so doing, provided the Natives had a right to sell, and provided also they have not been defrauded; and an express law must be passed in England to condemn or to punish their conduct, before they can be ever legally dispossessed.

Had, then, the Natives a right to sell? His Excellency Sir George Gipps declares they had not. His words are—“He had always thought it universally acknowledged, that until savages had rendered the soil of their country productive by cultivation for the uses of man, they could not possess any individual property in that country, and possessing none themselves, could not of course give such property to others.”—This amounts to a syllogism, the conclusion of which we fully admit, if the premises are correct, and these must be carefully examined.

There are two grounds on which the Native right in the soil is denied at Sydney—the one, that the country belongs to Great Britain—the other as above, that where there is no cultivation there is no proper and legislative possession.

In examining the former of these grounds, it is to be considered how and where the country came into the hands of Great Britain. At Sydney it appears to be contended, that the whole of the Islands are claimed on the ground of discovery. But they are not so, if we understand the Proclamation in the "Gazette Extraordinary" and in our second Number, aright. The Northern Island is claimed by cession from the Natives. This, we apprehend, applies chiefly to the sovereignty. The land is to be purchased for the Crown. Now, surely, all this unnecessarily implies an acknowledgment on the part of the British Ministers, that the Crown had neither authority nor possession here which could affect the Native right, till the act of cession took place. The gift of a Flag to the Natives may be regarded altogether as a corroboratory circumstance. The land, then, of this Northern Island, was entirely in the hands of the Aborigines, and to whom else could it belong? Let it be remembered still, that we are taking the view of this case which morality dictates, and then let us be permitted to say, that we do not conceive the right of discovery (any more than that of conquest—another word for robbery) to rest with regard to the Natives, on any equitable foundation. Discovery may give one Nation a priority of claim to another, but it cannot establish an absolute claim, where there are aboriginal inhabitants. It belongs to them, and to them only. If by mutual wars, or any other cause, they become extinct, the first discoverer may equitably take possession, but we cannot conceive how it can be done otherwise. In our view it is a case so clear, that it scarcely admits of reasoning.

The law of equity makes no difference in the moral rights of civilized and uncivilized men. The capacity of possession is, even in English law, the rule of right, and every one is deemed so capable, who is not either morally excluded by crime, or physically by insanity. Ignorance is nothing. Why should it not be so in the case of Aborigines? Be it that some of them are debased in every conceivable form. Their right to that which God has given them, must not be questioned on this account by any nation more wise, more organized, or more powerful than they. As to the other ground on which this right is denied, we feel not a little surprised that in this day of enlightenment, a politician should even have uttered it. The Natives do not cultivate the land—therefore, any other Nation may come and take the proprietorship of it away. Might not the midnight robber say precisely the same thing of the hoarded gold of the miser? We know not where the limit will be, if such a rule as this be adopted. In fact, we are too well aware, that it has been under the cover of some such principle as this, that almost wherever European colonization has been extended, the Native races have been deprived of subsistence and exterminated.

But who is to decide in what cases the Natives have so cultivated as to secure their title? and what is it which constitutes cultivation? If the Natives subsist on the natural animal and vegetable productions of the soil, is it not the same thing in effect to all intents and purposes, as if they dug or ploughed? The degree of labor they bestow on their ground is at their own disposal. If the ground supports them it is necessary to them, and being necessary, it constitutes a legitimate article of property, which cannot be denied them without injury. These observations apply to the Aborigines of every country; but with regard to the New Zealanders it is to be remarked, that they have cultivated land for years back, to an extent, sufficient not only for their personal maintenance, but even for the purposes of commerce. That they have not brought all the capabilities of the soil into requisition, is of no consequence to the argument.

On the whole, we are fully convinced that this doctrine is utterly incompatible with the natural rights of man. It appears to us, too, that the rule of duty between man and man, is the very same which is incumbent on one community in relation to another. As to precedent, it is nothing; it has not an atom of weight in the moral consideration of the matter. We know how European nations have acted, how, even in many instances, England has acted heretofore. But, if precedent is to be the rule, every species of injustice will be perpetrated afresh.

But no, a re-perusal of the Marquis of Normanby’s instructions has fully convinced us, that her Majesty’s Ministers have not, in this instance, authorised the adoption of the principles we have combated.

In our advertising columns will be found a copy of the Resolutions entered into at a General Meeting of the Shareholders of the Bank, held on Saturday last. It will be seen that the Shareholders have wisely resolved to extend their Capital Stock, and that in compliance with the wishes of a large and highly influential portion of the Commercial Community of Sydney, 1500 of the new Shares have been allotted for immediate sale in the Colony, The remaining 3,500 being left at the discretion of the Directors to be disposed of as the exigencies of the Establishment may require. The advantages arising from this measure are evident. It must be plain to every man, that the sum of five thousand pounds which the first instalment will place at the disposal of the Directors would be quite too small to meet even the present wants of this growing community; and when we look at the astonishing changes which a few months have produced in the face of affairs in New Zealand, we apprehend that even the additional £5,000 which the new Shares must produce, will be found insufficient for the transactions of the Bank before the period when a second instalment can be called for. The Election of Directors will take place on the first of September, and the operations of the Bank commence immediately, and all who are interested in the prosperity of this Colony, or who, being engaged in mercantile affairs, have found their energies cramped, and their business impeded for want of a proper circulating medium, will rejoice in the success of this institution, and hail its establishment, as an era in the Commercial History of this Country.

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

Sir, —After the elaborate speech of the Governor of New South Wales, it may be only proper for the most learned Lawyers to discuss the legality of the proceedings and claims on the Land question in this country; and as I have been hitherto but a mere settler, of very humble pretensions, I cannot presume to give any opinion upon that, to us, very momentous affair. Yet, as you have, I think, in some former Number, couched information generally on every subject relating to this country, fit for public discussion, and more especially, as the latter part of Governor Gipps speech infers an extension of the Royal Grace in the exercise of its prerogative, and in which the Colonial Council have contemplated, in confirming the in this country, I will venture to submit from my experience, some few observations on that part of the question, leaving it to the legal gentlemen and other able settlers, to extend these notes or to discuss the same, and the other numerous points which can be brought forward in support of a much greater extension of the Royal Grace.

I shall first premise that many in New South Wales, even in the Council, must know, that grass does not abound in this country as in that Colony. And, consequently, it must require a much larger portion of land to support any given number of cattle. That quantity of land which, by my experience, I deem necessary to support cattle is, at 100 acres for each head. Besides, the very scanty grass to be found in places abandoned of cultivation, cattle and sheep will eat at times of the year the young fern, but prefer the shrubs and some succulent plums in the outskirts of the woods; the range required becomes, therefore, very extensive, to allow...