[New Zealand Herald, 4th March, 1893.]

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Two matters require some reply—(1) the effect of the Treaty of Waitangi, referred to by yourself, and" (2) alleged Native opposition—by bullets, etc. The Treaty of Waitangi—which certainly ought not to be broken down by legislation—did this: On the one hand, the Maoris ceded to the Queen the full sovereignty of New Zealand with all that that implies, and also a right of preemption of such land as the Natives themselves wished to sell. On the other hand, the Maoris, in consideration thereof, were declared British subjects, with all the rights, duties, and privileges of such, and were guaranteed protection and the peaceable possession of their land, etc. Literally, of course, the Maoris have never had, and do not now have possession in any proper sense of more than a fraction of the Native territory; they do not use it in any way; it is a waste howling wilderness, on which scarcely any of them ever set foot. Will any reasonable man contend that what the Crown became bound to do was to exercise its Sovereign power to retard or prevent this waste howling wilderness from being used? Or that the Maoris themselves intended anything else than that they were to be helped to turn it to account? The preemption given to the Queen, and the sales of vast tracts thereafter, proves the intention and object of the Natives. The very founding page 4 of the colony implied it. The scheme of vesting the land in the Crown in trust is not intended to deprive them of this waste bowling wilderness, hut to give them that Which as British subjects they are entitled to, viz., a suitable method of dealing with their land and turning it to account. If their land belonged to English people how would the law deal with it on the application Of anyone interested? It is admitted on all hands that it is impracticable to subdivide and cut out each man's share; and in that case the English law of partition provides that such land shall either continue to be held and dealt with in common, or if that be inexpedient that it shall he disposed of and the proceeds divided. Unquestionably the Native owners, as a rule, are as anxious as Europeans to have the land dealt with it they only were shown how to do so in some useful and efficient way. The scheme pro-posed is that efficient way; and under it their real interests will be far more effectively conserved than ever they have been or than they ever can be under any other method. And this would not create Maori landlordism, for the State would be the landlord, if any-one, just as in the case of Crown land.

Will the Maori oppose this reasonable plan? The bullet bogey has been heard of before, but the type of Maori who at one time might have used the bullet is not now existent. The modern Maori knows better, and will take care of his own skin. Even if opposed, which I emphatically maintain he is not, the modem Maori is little Influenced by sentiment. He, like the European, prefers money; only show him how, for his land, he can get a money return, and he will fall in with the plan at once. It is an unjustifiable assumption that the Natives will not fall in with the plan proposed. The times are ripe for it. They know their land must now be used; they are fully alive to the imminence of taxation of their land [see evidence given before Native Land Commission in 1891]; and they only want to have the proposed plan put before them to jump at it. On the West Coast the Natives urged that all their extensive reserves there should be taken out of their names and vested in the Public Trustee, to be dealt with for them. It gave the utmost satisfaction. Why should it be assumed that other Native owners will not thankfully accept as good an arrangement, if not a better? Opposition, after all, is only a bogey, even when sincerely put forward by such good men as Dr Maun-sell, who I suspect only think of, and live as it were in, long past times.—I am, &c.,