THE MAORI WAR.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 13, Issue 1063, 6 July 1869, Page 3

THE MAORI WAR.

INtBBBSTINCHiECTDRB BY THE REV.

"Thb Maori War (says the Southern, Cross) was the subject of a most interesting and instructive lecture delivered by the,-Eev. J.Bullor, Chairman of the Northern (Wesleyan) District, in the Assem-bly-toom of the Young Men's Christian Association last evening. The long residence of the reverend gentleman in New Zealand, his intimate knowledge of the Maori language, character, and customs, his clear, . practical, and comprehensive views, the. study, which for many years past lie has devoted to the important questions on which he treats, and his presumably impartial and unbiassed position as a Christian minister who has won the universal respect of the community, add' immense weight and importance to his opinions. We can remember the masterly, and almost prophetic letter- of the llev. John Whiteley ; but able as that letter was, it did not pretend to deal with the subject bo comprehensively as the lecture delivered last evening doefl. In it the cause of the colctoists is set forth in & powerfuHight, .particularly when the rev. leoturer deals* with the war in its moral aipeets, and shows a strikingly forcible comparison between the natives and spoilt childrens % ?Wfe > jecomraend the lecture as one of the most interesting ever delivered In Auckland,

The Rev. J, Bullerv having been introduced by the Chairman, same forward and said:— - .-.-■ -\ ■•.■- •:•■'-' ■■' - "--'■ -■> •'■ <■>-

The story of the Maori war is not soon told." .The .generation following" willhear. t]*e tales of suffering which, their fathers' .endured ; 'deeds, of. rapine which the Maoris perpetrated; and acts of daring which could be performed only by brave warriors. " The incidents of war are as thrilling as they are sad. When the de^ tails oftthis war shall be known, many a. heartsidkening scene -will be revealed. But neither chivalry, valour, nor cruelty can be limited to one side. Front tho Maori standpoint, as well asfrom our own, there have been deeds that must -com* mand respect, if not admiration, as well as such as will elicit horror. But it is not of such, things, that I intend to speak. The romance of war 1 must leave to others., Nor am I competent to treat this subject in several other aspects. There' : is' the military aspect. Professional men must deal with this. In their eyes good military reasons may, for ought' I kno.w» justify every step that has been taken,- although common sense cannot perceiv.e ijhenK Who, but professionals, can explain why so large a force should have been so long in the country and done so little ? Whocaiisay why that, when there were opportunities for striking a telling b10w,,, not a shot/should be fired ? And, without staying- tbhbtice many other inexplicable movements, who can tell why our colonial forces IshOuld be transferred, at great cost, from one coast to .another, in each case leaving an audacious enemy behind them? To tfi'e uninitiated it seems a mockery to say the campaign is ended when Titokowarucanfbam at will over the deserted farms of our ill-fated settlers, while our men aYe in pursuit of Te Kooti, who was reported to be killed, but is alive again. For;^these;-andoiJher. things equally mys« ' teribus to^ ordinary minds, there may perhaps; bejßXfc|llent military reasons. But I cannoT&i'sbuss this question. I confess myself equally unable to understand wha£ may.be called the political aspect: of , tup Maori war." I am not a staiesmati, and therefore know nothing of statecraft. 16 would be seeming arrogance for^ffie to question the wisdom of certain^' lines of action, however puzzling to my uninformed judgment. As for instance, why M*pns should be permitted to killone another without any interference on our part; anil then, { when a quarrel arose respecting, tlie title j» an insignificant piece of land, we should rush into a costly and bloody war, instead of submitting the dispute to a patient judicial investigation. Or why, in;th^e conduct of this unhappy war, having taken many active spirits and made them prisoners, instead of keeping them as Kojiita'geW' until a permanent peace should be established, they were allowed to escape to<*einfbrce the enemy, reduce our prestige/" and 1 intensify their hostility. And also, whon certain blocks of land were confiscated, they should be left comparatively undefended' against the incursions of the ejected but unsubdued, tribes ; or when a mijltarv advantage has been gained, it has so rarejy,4f ever, been followed up, but accepted! as ah; end of the war ; or while the murderers of men, women,, and chil-dren-find a refuge in tlie bosoms of their people,, no attempt should be, made to vindicate the law. : 1 say for that and other things may jiave good reasons ; . and I therefore :wiM not incur the charge of presumption, .by^calling them in .question. l£ I' allude to^tbe^e things it will nofwas ii politician'; I shall confine myself to what I may term the moral aspect of the war, and from this view 1 shall find enough *» to>/say< ';■ to '■ tax your patience. Should I be tedious I hope the importance of the subject w,ili be admitted as an excuse.. I ask for a patient hearing, and if I Advance any thing which may be opposed to ttie convictions of any one, present, I shall be happy at tne close of the lecture, arfd by th;o li; pcrmiEißion ; of the Chairman, to*o|>ly^ta&|y questions that maybe pertineji|^6^lie* occasion. From the position I assm^e, T feel no diffidence in speaking pl|iinljj; (^ ; '*if a residence of more than 33 yearsiij^ew Zfealand, a kriowledge.of the Maori .language and character, asd an a^tefttivtf study of 'every stage in our 'color-' niai. history, are sufficient to enable any. l one^toamv^at acohclusiou, then I mayy be permitted to do sol I was well acquainted with the state of the Maori people wJienV'itQß4O f the Treaty of Waitangi wasVccepfied by ; them. -From that time I have watched with interest the course of events, and I claim, for nothing more than . the power 'of a'cbninion naind, and the consciousness of an honest purpose, when I venture to discuss the moral aspects of whWiaikiiOwn as the ''Maori war."

The fifsfc question that comes up is this — who is responsible for the war ? What wereits antecedent causes— the remote as well as. .the direct? How is it. that; after twenty yeajfs colonisation' the war, now nfee' y'Ms 'old^came to pass P The question, in one of these forms, is. asked by many. Different answers are giveii. Some will tell you, " It v all owing to the missionaries." The poor missionaries — messengers of peace — are charged by many as the instigators of war! ; I nm not ashamed to own that I belong to this class, ahd^ plead . •?'■ not guilty.'' I have the hpnor to be an old missionary, and the pleasure of being acquainted with nearly every'Pi'btestarit rnissio'nary in the land ; l^te9ftfeWA^(?i 1 «'x I I'n.prf^ to, meet the charge with an indignant denial. I will not say that nb missionary has been iiidiscreefc^that none have erred in' judgr menfr— nor do I profess to endorse every ofttn|an,f ox apj>Vs fee jof revery. ; act : of j c very ; missionary. Let each be judged on .the) merits of liis own case. But, this I say, that so far from missionaries being accoKstaftJe'tor'tiie war; it can be prbvMl that thejf'huvo been the friends of the co-'i lojjj^as well jis the benefactors of the J^S^^ !^^t M SAi^\\itiiii'iiL& Maoris 'tliemX gejEjpjl^l^^ tlie^itw^mijr'and^e.ven . murder them?? I admit -all this Vwhilo it proves nothing

agninst them, unless it be that they are the supporters of British sovereignty. No Maori will- say; that missionaries counselled, war, or in any way encouraged it. lib is true that many tribes "MVe renounced Christianity, and abandoned their . former relation-' to 'their. -missionary pastors ; but on what ground P Simply- because it was by the advice of the missionaries that'they consented'to receive the representative'of the British crown. But for the influenoe of the missionaries, Captain Hobson could hardly have succeeded in obtaining this fine country as a dependency of the Imperial Goyornment. . The , -, Maoris know this, and it is made the, fulcrum, on which tho lever of disaffection towards the Government uplifts them from their former position towards their missionaries. Will you permit me to look itUo the charges which are commonly preferred against us. We do not enter the arena with our accusers in the public journals, for we cannot use the weapons of scurrility. which they so dexterously handle.. From the flippant. scoffer we appeal to the sober-minded. The popular prejudices which have been excited against the missionaries may, I believe, be reduced to three t — : 1. That they were jealous of colonisa-. tion, lest their own influence should bo lost. '..'■•■

This charge may be dismissed as not proved v I have never heard a tittle of evidence in support of it.. Whatever influence missionaries had waspurel^.mpral, arid nothing could 1 deprive them or this but the demoralisation of the natives. 'No' dottbt their influence for good was power-' ' Mat the time when Governor Hpbson : arrived; and. -I repeat, it w&s owing thereunto, very much at least, that his political mission was successful. That . influence ; was directed to moral ends, as it .had been organised by moral means. Had the new element — the political— always acted on the same principles which were so triumphant in missionary conduct, wo should have reason to rejoice, not that their influence ia weakened, but that, it was strengthened by the policy of the string arm of law whenever occasion required its exercise. , What were those principles of conduct I will presently explain. It is fashionable to sp^eak of the missionary enterprise, as a failure — to deride what is called the sham Christianity of the Maoris ; to sneer at the Exeter Hall sentiments ! I shall not enlarge upon these things, but must enter my protest against the use of such terms, Notwithstanding the present unhappy state of things, I can cite ample evidence to the effect that up to a certain point, at least, the mission was no failure but a success. The viciousness of many of the natives is in spite of better knowledge. If this proves the failure of the mission in New Zealand, then the vices of London life will equally prove the failure of Christianity there. I submit that the rational way of looking at this question is, first, to inquire what was the character of the Maoris when missionaries came among them ; then to ascertain their condition when, after they had laboured for a quarter of a century, a new state of things arose through colonisation in 1840. It is well known that at tho , first date they were a nation of ferocious cannibals, among whom no one could venture to live but at the peril of his life. At the date of the second period, we have the testimony of intelligent travellers, of the first Governors of the colony, and of the natives. themselves, that they had become, comparatively a peaceable, an educated, and a civilised people. Life and property wero sacred, hospitality was universal, Christian ordinances were common, ,and the love of war had given- place to a desire for ■'commerce. This change—to say nothing of the higher forms of Christian 1 character— had been wrought exclusively by missionary agency. For many years after the birth of the colony, as all the old settlers know, a large and lucrative trade was supported, not only in. Auckland but on both coasts, which was the foundation of ample fortunes to not a few of our enterprising countrymen. The imputation of jealousy to the missionaries is absurd. Colonisation of some kind and by some foreign Power was inevitable. It was not a matter of- mere choice, now that the natives had become humanised by Christianity. The missionaries, had they wished, * could not prevent it. But as Englishmen, ■as well as Christian men, they decidedly preferred British rule and protection to on alien supremacy or a lawless occupancy. : and accordingly, as a matter of fact,. they did throw' all their influence- in the scale of colonisation under the . 'shadow of ,oiir Q,ueen Victoria. 2. Instead of usingthe English language, the missionary perpetuates the miserable -jargon of the Maori tongue. The very able lecture on missions that was given hero last week contains the echo of that prejudice. In theory it is convincing,.in practice impossible. The missionaries would have been fools had they attempted it. It would be easy to show the rank absurdity of pretending to force upon a peoplo, until their commerce with the English proved to them the importance of it, a language so exceedingly difficult to acquire, in. the place of their own, which, allow me to say, is not after all such a useless dialect as some imagine. I could show you that it possesses a force, a poetry, and a nicety by iio means despicable. ;< But whatever its demerits, it was: the only medium by which instruction could be conveyed to their minds, ; and to the philologist, as well as to the Christian, the Maori version of the Holy Bible is au object of the deepest interest. All intelligent men, whether missionaries or others, must be equally alive to tlie great advantage of the English language, not only as a means of intercourse, but as a field for research. The natives themselves now begin to understand its value, and whatever they know of it thoy have acquired in .the schools which have been under tho direction of missionaries and no others. I could take you on any duy to a Maori settlement on the bank of the Waipa, where you may see a superior Maori woman teaching a small Maori boarding school in English, and which teacher can write you a letter in English which would be no discredit to one of our fair countrywomon. And Martha Barton has a brother who talks English, and fulfils tho duties of clerk in the Resident Magistrate's Court in the Waikato. These, as well as others, learnt all that they know in one of our mission schools. . I quote this to show that it was not indifference on tho part of missionaries that withheld the English tongue from tho Maori people. It was only the utter uselessness of attempting to teaoh. them what they could not acquire without severe application, while they could perceive no motive for such application. 3. The missionaries traded in native lands. ; . I am. aware that this has now become a . trite'saying even among some of the natives themselves— "You missionaries were, teaching us to lodk up to heaven, but your own eyes were all the time directed to the earth." It is only of late that such a thing was heard among them, ,and there, is good reason to believe it did not originate with them: But the question remains, is it true P ' And, if true, was it wrong? Well, lam ready to meet this. I admit at once that some missionaries did buy Maori lauds, and a few of them, large tracts of land ; but I ask did they inffiefc any injustice on anyone by so do-

ing? I have, never heard of a case in wjiich they took any 'unfair advahtagq, or in which the owners were : not fully satisfied with tho bargain. The land, indeed, in those days had no marketable value at all. It was worth absolutely nothing uu.til made so ; but, as far as I know, the missionaries gave as much in payment as did anyone else, and far more than most others. That some of those lands have -since acquired a yaluo, is the accident of • colonisation. If anyone will say that they • desired colonisation for this purpose, it must be admitted that they could not in that case have been enemies to colonisation. I wish, however, to be clearly understood. I never bought land from tho Maoris, nor did any one of the agents of the Society I represent, unless it were for the honajide purpose of a mission station. Therefore. l ieei tho more 'free to express myself on a matter which has been made the unjust occasion of throwing odium on the proceeding's of many excellent men. I ofier no opinion on the expediency of missionaries purchasing land from natives/ But I . contend that -no one has a right to complain of those good men that!. did so. .They acted under the sanction of their' directors in London. They bought, not with a view to commercial speculation,, but. for the purpose of making future provision for their numerous children, ana sometimes in. 'the 1 interest of peace, by satisfying, the, claims of contending rivals, thereby. preventing bloodshed,, And I. aski whether their families and descendants ore" not -as va-luable-a-.class of settlers as ..any others, and even as jmportaut -a •contribution, to the wellrbe^ng of the country—the .land of their birth. If anyone can show that any missionary obtained land" unrighteously — that he did: so as a matter of- mero financial gain, or that he,d.id not fully satisfy, every claimant — then I have not a word to say in his defence. I- never heard of such a caae ; and I repeat that, whatever , maybe thought of it as a question. of Christian expediency, on abstract principles I have yet to learn what is to be said against it.. Have I made out a case in favor of the misrepresented missionaries ? I will not pretend to say how much tho colony owes to them, only that, but for them, there would have been no colony at all ! I will not inquire whether the Christianity of the Maoris was a " sham ;" but, at all events, it had softened their manners, reformed their customs, and made them peaceablo and honest ; so that foreigners could 'live among them with safety and profit. But I caunot let the slang term of " Exetor Hall" pass without a caveat. It has obtained currency from the unfortunate phrase, of the late Lord Macaulay, who onco referred to what -he called " the bray of Exeter Hall," and, as the eloquent Punshon said, in his lecture on that eminent man, " Its last bray was in his own praise." What, then, is meant by the vague term "Exeter Hall "? Why do not writers and speakers call things by their right names, " a spade — a spade "? To vilify Exeter Hall- is to abuse all the Christianity of England. Will it be said that also is a " sham " ? Some years ago there dmanated from the Aborigines Protection Society an unfortunate document, which, circulating among the Maoris, was no doubt mischievous in its effects. That, I believe, is the foundation of the "Exeter Hall" phrase, as now used. I have nothing to say of the said address to the Maoris, excepting that it Was a grave, mistake on the part of wellmeaning but misguided. men.

| I have occupied your time, I fear, too long on the alleged mischief caused by .missionaries. I now turn to another an.swer to the question, To whom is the- war owing P: It is evident from the tone of *the English press, and even from the. papers in some parts of New Zealand, an impression extensively prevails that the colonists are chargeable with- tho consequences of the Maori, war; that, lust of gain and greed of land, induced the settlers of the Northern Island to force hostilities, 1 and then .perpetuate them. While by many of the. settlers the missionaries arc blamed; they, in their turn, are .unjustly condemned.. No doubt there are bad men in. the colony. I know that some malicious spirits have done their best to foster groundless suspicions in .the Maori mind. They are as much the enemies of the. colony as they are destroyers of the natives. But, taken as a community, theNewZealand colonists compare favourably with those of any country for intelligence, respectability; and character. To charge thenrwith desiring war is ridiculous. What could they gain by it ? Till very lately it was not in ' their power to obtain land but from the Crown. Set aside a few fortunate contractors and some needy place-hunters, and all the resthave. been great sufferers by the war. They are entitled to the sympathy, and do not merit the censure, of England. Against the gains of the few place tho losses of tho many, and then strike the balance in tho form of a huge, a terrible disaster. The burden of excessive taxation is as nothing compared with the* devastation of happy homes, the utter ruin of fair prospects, aud tho bitter loss of beloved sons. At this moment there are many solitary families continually exposed to spoliation aad death. What had they to gain by war P. Gain ! No, the settlers have everything to. risk, and not a few have lost their all, and many have lost their lives. To charge our settlers with the greed of land is idle. They desired land : to be sure they did. What else did they come here for ? Did they leave their country only for their couutry's good? Did they nob expatriate themselves from the dear old home that they might, extend the glory of the British empire, by adding another" gem to our monarch's 'crown, in building up a nation on tho virgin soil of this beautiful country P : Is it supposed they could do this without acquiring land? But, I ask, did the settlers get land -did they Avish to get land— in any other way than by fair and honourable purchase P I challenge anyone to say so. Nor could they have douo so, if they would. Whatever they gave for it was its full value. They iuflicted no wrong upon the natives by buying from them what they could not use. Thoy cannot "put 'their fingers upon the map of New Zealand and poiut to a single acre which has been wrested from thorn, uuless it be as the penalty of rebellion. And Igo further than this. I ask if it was not in the order of God's providence that a colonising people, like the AngloSaxons, should relievo the overcrowded population of the mother country by emigrating to this "Britain of the South," and utilising the fertile wastes which the savage inhabitants could not appropriate? Millions of • acres of well- watered plains and luxuriant forests invited their enterprise. When would the natives have built bridges, made roads, settled towns P Was this fine portion of tho Lord's earth to be a perpetual preserve for wild pigs P. I do not think so. Again, by what title did the native tribes claim all the unoccupied territory p That" they did so, we know ; and to attempt to dispossess thorn in any other way than by treaty would have boew neither right nor politic. But, after all, could they by themselves ever have fulfilled the conditions of their title, "to multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it?" They could not.' Aud for these reasons I always thought that a superior race would help thoin to aooomplish the Divine purpose. ; (To be continued.) : .