THE CLEAR POINTS IN THE NEW ZEALAND CASUS BELLI. (From the "Economist," Nov. 24, 1860.)

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XVII, Issue 1377, 22 February 1861, Page 4

THE CLEAR POINTS IN THE NEW ZEALAND CASUS BELLI. (From the "Economist," Nov. 24, 1860.)

Tlic New Zealand statesmen have fairly f lightened English editors by the mass of their published eviduile with regard to the origin of the Maori war. The English politicians here whorepresent the Bishop of Now Zealand's party found their argument mainly ou their own perplexity. 'Can it have been right, 1 ' they say, ' to declare war on a question so intricate • that an Englishman gets lost in the maze?' Even thuss, on the other hand, who incline to support the New Zealand Government and to justify the war.decUio that they cannot see their way through the particular dispute, and profess themselves obliged to found their aigiunent on the broader ground of the ialse idations that have arisen between the settlers and the Maories,and the necessity for a more rational system of dealing with them. The question, however, is too important to settle in this summary manner. If the ecclesiastical party in New Zealand are right in asserting that the war has originated in a. clear and gross injustice, the Home Government ought to send out not only troops amply sufficient to restore order, but a peremptory recall to the present Governor by whose 'authority the war has been declaied. Theresult would of course be a change of Governmant in New Zealand, and a temporary triumph to the ecclesiastical party. "We say that this ought to be done if it be true that the policy of the Governor has been either unjust or reckless. We in England are bound to study the question at issue sufficiently carefully to resolve this doubt. Politicians here cannot with any decency thrust off the responsibility of weighing a question on which the character of Great Britain for equity and mercy undoubtedly depends. It is one of the gravest responsibilities of a. constitutional system in a great empire, that those who form and guide public opinion should wade through much tedious evidence in the interests of justice. If public opinion is in any useful way to check our administration, it must be willing to follow the history of many a political crisis which is too much encumbered with novel difficulties to be, on the surface, attractive. The salient points of the New Zealand war are by no means so intricate as they are often represented. After a very careful study of many of the voluminous documents before us, we can at least present some certain conclusions which seem to us to clear the policy of the ablest Colonial Government we have almost ever had from the charges brought against it. It has been the great misfortune of that Government that it has been served by most incapable military subordinates, — and we have much reason from the evidence before us to fear that General Pratt is but little if any improvement on Colonel Gold. We believe that had the military leaders been competent to thoir task, the policy of the government would have been not only strictly just, but eminently merciful to the natives. The disastrous military result mubt not be allowed to measure the merits of the civil iohcy.

We proceed then to lay before ouv readers such points as we deem clearly established concerning the origin of this war. They will, wo think, justify the Colonial Government of New Zealand in the course which it has pursued. In the first place, a pretended conspiracy, the special seeking after the particular and long-coveted piece of land, whioh has been imputed to the New Zealand Government by its ecclesiastical adversaries there, and by one of our own contemporaries here, seems to be without the slightest foundation. It has been lutimated that the Governor went to Taranaki with his eye upon a particular piece of valuable laud, long desired by the settlers there, and which he was determined to attain for them ; thai for this purposo he held a meeting explaining to the natives the wish of the Government to buy any laud which the nativo proprietors were willing to sell, m caso they could make a good title to it and not otherwise ; that ono proprietor of the coveted block was in attendance^ and eager to make an offer o£ sale which was as eageily accepted ; that no sciupulous examination into the claims of others ever took place at all ; and that, in short, the whole proceedings of the Governor were aimed at this one purchase, and conducted on a previous understanding with the native vendor. Now this is certainly not tiue. It is established with absolute ceitamty, by tho debates m tho House of Representatives in New Zealand, that the Governoi was pursuing no new couise at Taiauaki, — that he had previously announced exactly the same policy with regaid to a sale of laud at Auckland, — that he did no more in this caso than m that, — that the Prime minister was absolutely ignorant of the mtontiou of any nativo to offer laud for sale at Taranaki, — that scarcely two or three Euiopeans were awaio of it even in the colony ; in short, that the special offer in question was quite an unpremeditated lesult of the Governor's geneial laud policy, and was not an an'ierc pense'e m his mind at the time he announced that policy in Taranaki. This, which vitally aftects the moral and good faith of the Governor in the matter, is put beyond all doubt by the evidence which is transmitted and the debates in the New Zealand Assembly. Next it is put beyond all doubt that the purchase of the land in qubtion was effected by the same officers, the same methods of inquiry, on the same pnnciples, and with even gi eater care, than previous purchases of blocks of land in the some neighbourhood. The Waitara block, now in dispute, was bought after precisely the same kind of investigation as the Bell block, of the purchase of which the Bishop expressed his formal approval in a pastoral letter to his churches at New Plymouth in 1855. Yet on this block also the rebel chief Wu emu Kingi made some claim, demanding a money compensation, which, as he could make out no title, was disallowed, — with the consent apparently of the ecclesiastical critics of the Government, since this purchase had the Bishop's full approval. The title to the land now in dispute, though exactly of the same kind, and investigated with even gi eater care, is condemned by the same parties not merely as inadequately made out m detail, but as resting on the authonty of officers of the Crown, instead of on the decision of an independent Court. That the Government has long been anxious to establish a Court expressly for investigating native land questions, has been known ever since 1858. The difficulties in the way aie not of its making. But why shoidd the jurisdiction of officers which was qiute satisfactory five years ago.be suddenly disputed as wholly unjust now ? Thirdly, it is certain that not only all the occupying tenauts of the land in question, but many others beside,have been made parties to the sale. The land is for the most part quite uncultivated, m many parts of it " the thistles standing so thick that a horseman cannot pass," — and no title is set up to it by any one living upon it which has not been satisfied. Many of the emigrant Ngatiawa in Queen Charlotte's Sound, at Wellington, and elsewhere, have also been consulted, and their agreement to the sale obtained. The challenge to all claimants was printed, eight or nme months previous to the sale, in the native paper the "Maori Messenger," and the claims of all claimants carefully examined, and this by the very officers who have hitherto been regarded as fast friends to the natives, — and who have effected the purchase of from 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 of acres in New Zealand, with no important subsequent dispute. Fourthly, in spite of Archdeacon Hadfield's assertion to the contrary in his recent pamphlet, it becomes abundantly evident that W. Kingi has never asserted and does not now assert, any individual propnetaiy right to the laud in question. No one can read Archdeacon Hadheld's cross-examination before the New Zealand House of Assembly, nor the letters put in from W. Kingi to himself in which such a claim was said to be made, without being fully satisfied of tins. No peisonal claim is anywhere made. A tubal claim is appaiently abserted, but nothing more. Such a tubal claim had never been pressed m the previous pmclia&es of the Bell block and other blocks of land. The Laud Commisoiouer went over the laud m the first instance with a bi other of W Kingi's and heard from him the statement of the diffeient claims to the land. And, accoidmg to the express statement of the hi other of the present lebel leader, his own claims weie chiefly North of the Waitaia uver, and not in the present block. At all events, sixty acres of land were excluded from tins purchase on the expiess giound that Kingi had some doubtful claims to it, and even Archdeacon Hadfield admits that he cannot say how far Kmgi's claim was oi was not limited to these sixty acres. Fifthly, Archdeacoa Hadfield's assertion that only ten or twelve natives with any valid claim to the laud had agreed to the sale, while peihaps 90 or 100 otheid with vahd claims had not agieed to it at all, is not supported by a particle of evideuce. There may, no doubt, be more thau that number of emigrant natives willing to make a claim, if they thought they could get any good by it. But this is all. It is clear from his cross examination that Aichdeacon Hadfield is supiemely lgnoiant on all the local details of the question, — that natives who knew him to be friendly to Kiugi and opposed to the British Government had assured bun that there weie that number of claimants, andsofoith. But such declarations from absentee natives who only vaguely assert that some of their ancestors had lived there, and had thus transmitted them a right, goes for very little. From the evidence of the Chief Land Commissioner, it is clear that native land-claims to distant waste lands are the vaguest things in the world. Mr. Mac Lean mentions one case in which a native told him that he thought he had a claim to some of the disputed land, and asked him to investigate it for him. Hs did so, and the Maori was disappointed to find how trivial it was The only value that these absentee claims really have is derived from the desire of the English to purchase. Otherwise they would never be remembered at all. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the recent purchase was made with any less care or justice than any other purchase on the New Zealand soil. Lastly, it is demonstrated that the real opposition made by W. Kingi was grounded on his general dislike to the encroachments of the English. A letter from him to the Governor, dated 11th February, 1859, distinctly lays down the boundaries beyond which he will Dot permit the English to buy land. There is no question of title in this letter ; it is a question of the limits of the English settlement. After tracing the division line through a long hsfc of places, he pioceeds: — " The boundaries of the land which is for " ourselves is at Mokau, These lands will not be " given by us into the Governor's and your hands, " lest we resemble the sea-birds which perch upon a "rock : when the tide flows, the rock is covered by " the sea, and the birds take flight, for they have no "resting place." This letter makes perfectly clear the true ground of W. Kmgi's opposition. And we must say that, after an anxious examination of Archdeacon Hadfield's position, we do not believe that it is substantiated by any one tangible fact.