THE 'ARGUS' ON THE NEW ZEALAND QUESTION.

Press, Volume III, Issue 153, 30 April 1863, Page 1

THE 'ARGUS' ON THE NEW ZEALAND QUESTION.

We publish in another column an article from (he Melbourne 'Argus* on the subject of the celebrated address from tho House of Representatives to the Crown last Session, land the criticism of tho ' Times* thereupon. Tho ' Argus' takes tho ultra colonial view of tho question. Its argiunent reduced to a few words in simply as follows: 1. The colonists of New Zealand are incapable of holding the colony, and of defending their lives and properties. 2. The colonists went to New Zealand on the faith of the British Nation that they should be protected, and they have a right to claim that protection in the fulfilment of a national engagement. Now, thero is one mode in which we, who ardently long for the emancipation of this great country from the pitiful condition into which it has been plunged by a military protectorate, view this article and all articles of the same kind; namely—that they are precisely the sort of expositions which will most effectually bring about the end we desire. There have been multitudes of articles from the press in New Zealand of the same character —articles which entirely justify the assertion of the' Times' that, "we have got a good thing and mean to keep it:" —articles which quite excuse Mr. Moorhouse's assertion, that there it no great disposition on tho part of the Northern Island to a* .tate of things %hieh occasions a remarkably lucrative trade, partly at the oxpense of the Mother Country, and partly at the expense of the Middle Island. If these articles are read in England, and if the colonial press be supposed to speak the people's mind, the argument is inevitably suggested to the Mother Country—if all that we have done has resulted in creating such a colony as that, the sooner we alter our system the better. England can only be thoroughly ashamed of a child which one moment blusters for self-government and the next whines for protection. To the two arguments of the ' Argus' wo may simply reply, First: The colonists of New Zealand are perfectly capable of holding the colony, and of defending themselves, without the aid of one man or one shilling. - The colonists of New Zealand number 150,000: the Maori race little over 50,000 —-and are we now to be told, and to tell ourselves, aud to submit to the insult of being assisted in our quarrel with the home Government by having it said—" three Englishmen are at the mercy of one Xfumr "They"—the New Zealand colonists—"are utterly powerless ef their own resources to carry

on such a war as is now threatened in New Zealand. Their whole number in the Northern

Island does not amount to 70,000 of all ages and

sexes, and there is every reason to believe that

tho whole Maori population is .equally numerous while it it certainly far more powerful in the mtmher of available fighting men.*' Passing by the distortion of fact—what a grand and glorious

sentiment for the descendants of the race who fought at Cressy snd Agincourt 1 We—rich, well fed, well clothed, well housed, with the newest appliances of military warfare, and the aid of advanced science in the art of destruction,—we, forsooth, must be patted on the back by our

neighbours when we whine and cry for help

against a decaying race hardly emerged from the

condition of savages, equally* numerous as ©«*■-

selves ! Are we the some people who colonized America with feeble bands of heroes against

countless hordes of savages ? ~What has come

over us that wo are not ashamed of such language ? Imagine, if we con, the amascment of old Miles

Stondish, or Captain John Smith, or Baltimore, or

Pcnn, if they could rise from the grave and read such humiliating nonsense, and were told that such is the stuff of which we are trying to moke

colonies in the nineteenth century.

It makes one almost pray fox war. It makes

ono hope that some contingency may arise which

will call back every roan and cut off every .hilling which we receive from England, and

leave us to work out our own history as we may,-—

that times may come which will barn and scorch

tliis cowardice out of our hearts and teaoh us

that we are still Englishmen.

But for the second point, fc__o position of the

♦Argus' is contrary to fact. -Now Zealand was colonised, if ever a country were so, utterly in

spite of tho Government; in opposition to the

whole wishes, intentions, and efforts of the

Government. So much so that the first colonists

who went to New Zealand were specially warned—

' you go there at your own risk. So far, then, from any strength being added to the position of the ' Argus,' derived from any engagement on the port of England to defend thee colony, the con-i-_ryis'the i fact.

But let us not treat this question in a spirit of

recrimination. Let ns assume that we have all

one interest—England and the Colony. Let us

assume that there ia one thing to be done in

which all are agreed, namely, that the Colony shall be defended, that Britisli law shall be ox-

tended over tho islands, that tlie old savage race

B-all bo incorporated witli the conquerors,

and that a nation shall spring up worthy of tho parent empire. How can this best be done? How have we done it before P How did we colo-

nize America ? Did we send money and troops

to the early settlements of America?— Nothing of

the kind. Tlie c6lo__-ts of America would havo

despised and rejected such assistance: had they

accepted it, it would have Corrupted them as it is

corrupting us. This is a gj*eat fact in history. Those who talk to us as if we wero propounding

some strange or novel doctrine fraught with injustice to the colonies, had better learn where

these ideas first rose.

The idea of sending troops to defend British

colonists is merely a part of the ctttvict system.

The idea has ingrained itself into onr minds in

this part of the world of the necessity of British troops, because we hare always seen thorn here; but, in truth, they were first sent merely to hold

the convicts in bondage of "whom the Australian

colonies were first formed. We never see a

British soldier in the streets of a colonial town, without thinking—there ia the last lingering badge of convictdona.

We start, then, with the Indisputable fact that an Imperial army is not essential to the founding and preservation of a colony, even in the midst of countless hordes of savage tribes, because the greatest colonies in the world were founded under precisely such -im___*_nce», without such aid.

Bow can we best defend the colony? We hare

tried tho Imperial system j are wo not sick of it ? Havo we not had enough jot of Golds and Desparg*, and Pratts and Murrays? Wo some-

times hear it said—the late war would have been

settlod at once if we had had General Cameron in

command instead of Colonel Gold. But why

shut our oyes to the fact that, in the distant out* lying portions of the Empire, tho Golds are tlie

rulo, the Camerons tho exception. Tho necessary

inherent feebleness of a groat central system of

Government at its extremities lias been the theme of politicians. Edmund Burke perpetually recurs to it. It cannot be helped: and the

government of an army partakes of the same

feebleness as the civil government of a state. If reverses occur—if incompetence is displayed—if danger threatens—in the presence or neighbourhood of tho central power the remedy can be applied; but at tho other side of the world red tape

must be respected j tho evil must be perpetuated;

there is no remedy.

Hence the absolute control of the military power of tho colony by the Government of the colony is a necossity of government which can

never bo violated without disaster. The im-

potonce of our Government in tho control of tho

troops is at tho root of all our difficulties in New Zealand. When, then, wo call on England to

defend us, believe this— she cannot. Sixteen

thousand miles of ocean bear witness to the fruit-

lossness of the attempt. She may send us troops,

__t*they will be ill commanded; they will bo unsuited to our mode of warfare, helpless in the

bush, ignorant of the ways of the Natives. They

aro a costly, cumborsome, unmanageable force. The rule will be disaster, tho oxception success.

If the work of defence is to be well done,

thoroughly done, cheaply done, it must be done by local forces under the immediate control of

the local Government.

The only question is then, who is to pay ? We are not aware that any politician or statesman has yet asserted that England should pay nothing towards the cost of defending the colonies. All

Mr. Godley claimed was that tho contribution of

England should be a settled and fixed proportion of the cost, proportioned to the interest which

England may be supposed to have in the maintenance of the integrity of the Empire, ond in the reservation in her own hands of the power of

making peace and war. At present the contribution of England to each colony is ridiculously disproportionate to its interest in each. The Resolutions which were moved in opposition to the Address proposed by the Government last Session, declared that a special ambassador should be sent to England to negociate a final settlement with the Home Government of the money part of the question. Had that been carried—had the colony then come forward and manfully under* taken the whole responsibflity of m_mt_nj n g the British name and power in New Zealand, good terms might, without doubt, have been made with the Imperial Government for bearing a fair share of the cost, on condition of being h-trafbrward relieved from the burden of n_un«__w{ n g 311 army of undefined magnitude within the colony. Whether that wiU be done at a later period is doubtfuL From the tone taken by the colony and thei spirit in which it has been met, indeed was sure to be met, by the English press, it is likely that England will relieve herself of a great

part of tho burden without recognizing aip __*- responding claim. If sho does do so,.we shall hay*

no one but oursolves to blame. Our own press.

with tho assistance of the 'Argus,' may well

provoke a spirit in which but scant justice will be

dealt out.