there are two of some importance. One is that the aboriginals, who do not and cannot in future subsist on alienated land, should earn their living by other pursuits—should, in fact, be awakened to the knowledge that success in the struggle for existence lies in learning handicrafts and pursuing callings which offer a ready and comfortable return for industry. The other is that they should be enabled to purchase land from Europeans at pleasure, if they can, and live alongside them on equal terms.
It is here that there is a strong conflict of feeling. The opinions of those who hold that, according to the best traditions of the British race, there should be absolute freedom of purchase, and that the fit will always prevail and survive, are entitled to the fullest consideration. But we have to recollect that a European race is dominant in the country, that it is in a large numerical minority, that it has resolved to preserve its ascendancy, and is acutely sensitive of any suggestion of social equality with an inferior race which must takes ages to attain the same degree of intelligence. And it is essential not to overlook the importance to the inferior races of their enjoying the sympathy of their superiors, if they are not to be impeded in their evolution. It is therefore urged with emphasis by a strong section of enlightened opinion, inspired with the best feelings, that it is unwise and inexpedient to countenance and aid aboriginals in doing that which will place them in a position calculated to invite social conflict, such as the freedom to acquire land and occupy it in close proximity to European occupiers would lead to. By such thinkers this method of intermingling is regarded with profound misgivings as being liable, not only to disturb good relations, but to deter European settlement.
The Native Affairs Commission, though not entirely unanimous in respect of this question, passed a clear resolution, recording the opinion that restrictions upon the purchase of land by natives are necessary, and
