Right to land property is of two kinds, _National_ and _Individual_.
Both are founded on _Utility_, that is, the advantage of mankind.
_National or Government Right_ exists only where there is a presiding
responsible government competent to treat with other governments, and
to obey international law, and able to put down pirates and freebooters
within the territory of the state. National or Government Right is
evidently founded on the _utility_ of government power, and of national
responsibility. _Individual Right_, or appropriation of land, arises
from actual occupancy of the lands, more especially cultivation by
labour. _Individual Right_ is founded on land being more advantageously
employed and cultivated when divided and appropriated than when held
in common, and on the claim which a person acquires to any article,
not belonging to another, by expending his labour upon it. In some
instances land has been cultivated in common by the tribe or district
inhabitants, and sometimes the government has engrossed this right of
property in land, and farmed it out in portions; but neither plan has
been found to promote improvement so well as individual appropriation.
The natives of New Zealand themselves admit, and every stranger who has
been amongst them corroborates the fact, that they are incapable of
combining and forming any thing like a responsible government fitted
to treat with other governments, and to observe international law, or
even to maintain any proper government authority within the territory
of New Zealand. They have, therefore, no _national or government right_
to the New Zealand territory, and have only _individual right_ to those
parts which they cultivate or derive some benefit from by occupancy. A
native of New Zealand has no _right_ to the unappropriated wilderness
of New Zealand more than any other person who may be standing beside
him in that wilderness. But as the natives of New Zealand, in common
with the natives of New South Wales and Tasmania, have got a sense of
_right_ to these unappropriated territories, it is well to purchase
their good will to the occupancy of these,--that is, their forbearance
from molesting the occupiers; because, to take possession without
doing so might lead to the sacrifice of life, and because it is even
cheaper to hire their forbearance than to compel it by force. Any one
purchasing their good will to a portion of territory has no _right_,
however, to that territory, further than not to be molested by the
natives; and unless he himself has settled on the grounds, grazed
them with stock or cultivated them--the quantity of ground bearing a
reasonable proportion to his stock or means of cultivating--he has no
right to prevent any individual from taking occupancy and cultivating,
and thus becoming _rightfully_ possessed of the same lands. Any one who
has purchased the forbearance of the natives, and failed to occupy, and
who out of revenge may instigate the natives against the person who
does occupy, is manifestly guilty and answerable for the consequences.
It is useless here to assert the _right_ which the imperative necessity
of an overflowing population gives to spread over and occupy the waste
portions of the earth. This _right_ has been acknowledged and acted
upon in all ages; and the _right_ to any territory, not having a
population capable of forming a presiding responsible government, is
recognised to belong to the nation which has first discovered and taken
formal occupancy.
No Company in London can assume a government right over New Zealand,
which, by first formal occupancy by Captain Cook, belongs of recognised
_right_ to the crown of Great Britain. Still less can this company
receive any _government right_, or _individual right_, to lands in New
Zealand from the natives, who, we have shewn, have no such _rights_
to give, except in regard to the small portions which the natives
have acquired _individual right_ to by cultivation. The New Zealand
Land Company in London have, indeed, the good sense to be aware of
this,--that they can give no guarantee to the possession of the lands
they are selling;--taking good care in their conveyance to the buyers
to specify, “_and the Company are not to be considered as guaranteeing
the title except as against their own acts and the acts of those
deriving title under and in trust for them_.”
Any attempt of capitalists in London or elsewhere forming New Zealand
Land Companies, to monopolize whole provinces of New Zealand, by
purchasing the good will of the natives at a mere nominal price, ought,
therefore, not to stand in the way of emigrants going out and occupying
any of these lands which the London or Home Companies or their
assignees may not have become possessed of by actual occupancy, that
is, by the lands being apportioned amongst and occupied by settlers, in
numbers something commensurate to the extent of grounds. The British
Government and Legislature will surely look to this?[14]
To allow any company of home capitalists to monopolize the territory
of New Zealand in this way, would be to subject the colonization of
New Zealand _to such a tax_ as the company might choose to lay upon
it (at present L.1 per acre is the tax, minus such a portion of it as
they may choose to expend upon carrying out emigrants, and the price
they may pay for the good-will of the natives). This tax, or price of
L.1 per acre, nearly four times the government price of land in the
United States, by depriving the emigrant of his little capital, so very
necessary to his success as a settler, will act as a great barrier to
colonization, and prevent that fine country from becoming speedily of
paramount value to Britain.[15]
Should the New Zealand Land Company of London capitalists go on
purchasing the good-will of the lands they are selling only, and not
attempt to engross or monopolize large portions of New Zealand, to the
exclusion of emigrants who will not consent to pay to them their heavy
monopoly price or tax, and if they shall employ 75 per cent. of the
price they charge for the lands in fitting out colonizing expeditions,
consisting of a proper assortment of emigrants, as they have done in
the first instance, _but which they refuse to go on doing_; or, if they
shall dispose of the lands at a price nearly equal to the government
price of the United States for fresh lands, and not take to themselves
beyond a fair interest for the capital they may lie out of, allotting
the residue for the internal improvement of the colony (roads, bridges,
&c.), and for civilizing and ameliorating the condition of the natives,
their agency in promoting New Zealand colonization may be of very great
utility, by giving confidence and security to emigrants. If this is the
line they are to pursue, the Scots Company will do every thing they may
have in their power to further the London Company’s objects, and will
no doubt be met by the London Company in the same spirit. New Zealand
will afford more than a sufficient field for the exertions of both.