AUCKLAND CHRONICLE. Wednesday, December 21, 1842. THE TAURANGA AFFAIR.

Auckland Chronicle and New Zealand Colonist, Volume 1, Issue 7, 21 December 1842, Page 2

AUCKLAND CHRONICLE. Wednesday, December 21, 1842. THE TAURANGA AFFAIR.

We cannot find language to express our regret that, so soon after the death of Captain Hobson, occasion should have arisen for putting the Queen's troops in a menacing attitude towards any portion of the Native population of these Islands. Whatever opinion may be formed of his general administration of the affairs of the Colony, all good men will award to the first Governor of New Zealand the praise of having been actuated by an enlightened and humane policy in all his dealings with its Native inhabitants. Setting aside all considerations of right and justice on the one hand, and crime and provocation on the other, — whether the occasion does or does not require and justify the employment of a military force—all who are alive to the interests of this Colony must he aware that nothing is more certainly calculated to give a check to its progress than a feeling at Home (whether well or ill founded it matters not,) that between the two races there is danger of actual collision. For this reason the recent marching of the troops to Tauranga must, under any circumstances, be a subject of regret. Though we ourselves know that, unless we seek it, there is not the most distant chance of disturbance with the Natives, it will not be easy to convince our friends at Home of the fact, when they find that, for some reason or another, a Military force, with all its warlike equipments, has been marched into the field. Believing that the present disturbance at Tauranga was nothing more than what is of almost daily occurrence in the

interior—a Native quarrel according to Native custom; we deemed it wise, for the sake of the welfare of the Colony, not to give it any prominent notice. Not being thoroughly acquainted with the merits of the case, we of course abstain from offering any comments upon it. As we cannot believe that the account published in our Saturday’s paper puts us perfectly in possession of the case, we shall still abstain from expressing any opinion on that subject. But, as it forms the subject of general conversation, we can no longer with propriety continue silent. With the thoughtless—with young and ardent spirits—with those who think little of justice and the rights of others; who hold the doctrine that “might is right,”—happily but a few— the late military movement finds favor. With such, we need not say, we have no sympathy. With the sticklers for authority, also, it has its advocates; — they tell us that the “Instructions” direct that “the savage practices of human sacrifice and of cannibalism must be promptly and decisively interdicted;” but they omit to tell us to what limits that interdiction is intended to be applied. They have themselves, perhaps, yet to learn, that such atrocities are not to be tolerated “within any part of the dominions of the British Crown." It is well known that the Chinese eat dogs, and massacre their children; but we imagine that is no reason why our few troops should be despatched to China to put down the savage practice.

The opinions of by far the most important class remain to be noticed. There are not wanting those who view the proceeding with concern and alarm; – not from fears for personal safety, but alarm for the honor of the British Crown, —alarm for the interests of humanity. They fear that, on the founding of another new Colony, a Secretary of State may still have to say, “it is impossible to cast the eye over the map of the globe, and to discover so much as a single spot where civilized man, brought into contact with tribes differing from themselves widely, in physical structure, and greatly inferior to themselves in military prowess and social arts, have abstained from oppressions and other evil practices.” They urge that Captain Hobson was commissioned to proceed to New Zealand, not to seize and usurp, but to treat for the sovereignty of the country. They quote the solemn declaration of Her Majesty’s Colonial Minister, that “The Queen, in common with Her Majesty’s immediate predecessor, disclaims, for herself and for her subjects, every pretension to seize on the Islands of New Zealand, or to govern them as part of the dominion of Great Britain, unless the free and intelligent consent of the Natives, expressed according to their established usages, shall be first obtained and that Captain Hobson “was authorized to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty’s sovereign authority over the whole, or any part of those Islands which they may be willing to place under Her Majesty’s dominion,” and “That though, in his negociations, difficulties were to be anticipated, yet, that the impediments were to be gradually overcome by the exercise, on his part, of mildness, justice, and perfect sincerity in his intercourse with them.”—As the natives of Maketu have always unequivocally refused to acknowledge the Queen’s sovereignty, it is contended that any interference, on our part, with their native customs, would neither be consistent with the views of the British Government, nor with justice to a race whose independence has been distinctly recognized. For these reasoners we entertain the greatest respect. In their facts and arguments in the abstract, we have every disposition to concur. With them, we think that a course of policy, distinguished by “mildness and justice,” will prove much more effectual in obtaining the recognition of British sovereignty, among those who have hitherto refused to acknowledge

it, than any attempts to secure it by military force.

But, in an eager desire to be jest, there is danger of injustice. We should not condemn the absent, and unheard. We can scarcely be suspected of being the apologist of Mr. Shortland. Common fairness however, requires that we should suspend our judgments until we learn the whole case. “Audi alteram partem." The reasoning above quoted may be sound in itself yet not applicable to the case in question. We incline to think that Mr. Shortland is an unwilling actor in the scene, and that he most devoutly regrets the occasion that took him out of his way to Tauranga. If, as it may turn out, Mr. Shortland arrived there in the midst of a quarrel between two hostile tribes, likely to lead to an exterminating warfare ; —and if the district of Tauranga be a part of the British dominions, and the Tauranga natives being the weaker party, have appealed to him for the protection of British authority; being too, without the assistance of his responsible advisers, we can well conceive the Officer Administering the Government to have been placed in a situation of considerable difficulty. We should remember that it is much easier to judge harshly than to act wisely.— With his friendly disposition towards the Aborigines, we should be unjust not to say that, we believe nothing but the most pressing necessity will drive him to the actual employment of military force. We have the most confident expectation, at the same time, that the affair will be amicably adjusted by friendly negotiation. With perfect truth, we can assure our distant readers, that no portion of Her Majesty's subjects enjoy greater security of person and property than ourselves.

We cannot conclude without making a remark on the immense importance of all our actions with reference to their effect upon the New Zealanders. Before we came into the country ourselves, we sent Missionaries, and circulated the Bible amongst them, to propagate the Christian Religion. We ourselves have now come amongst them professing Christianity. Let us all remember, in or out of office, that our religion will be judged, not bv our preaching or professions, but by our practice. “It is well known,” says a distinguished living writer, “that the greatest obstruction to Christianity in heathen countries, is the palpable and undeniable depravity of Christian nations. They abhor our religion, because we are such unhappy specimens of it. They are unable to read our books, but they can read our lives. The Indian of both hemispheres has reason to set down the Christian as little better than himself. He associates with the name, perfidy, fraud,— rapacity,—and slaughter.*** Would much be gained to heathen countries, were we to make them precisely what Natives called Christian now are ? That the change would be beneficial we grant; but how many dark stains would remain on their character? They would continue to fight and shed blood as they do now; to resent injuries as hotly, and to worship present gain and distinction, and to pursue the common business of life on the principles of undisguised selfishness.”