EARL GBANVILLE'S DESPATCH.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 13, Issue 1075, 17 August 1869, Page 3

EARL GBANVILLE'S DESPATCH.

(From the " London Standard." June 14.) The fact that the present Government, through Lord Granville, has proclaimed an entirely new Colonial policy, has attracted.less attention in England, in the midst of our more exciting domestic concerns, than it deserves. And yet it is surely of some importance to the British publio to learn that the whole basis of their Colonial empire has, by one decree from the Minister in charge, of the Colonies, been formally dissolved. Had the Secretary of State responsible for Ireland proclaimed that, in consequence of the disturbed state of the country, England would be no longer responsible for its Government— had the, First Lord of the Admiralty declared that, owing to the troubles in respect to the department in his care, the vexations connected with the armouring of ships, or the unpleasantness occasioned by the difficulties about guns, he had determined to get rid of the British navy, altogether — or had the Lord Chancellor intimated to the general body of suitors, that in future he .intended to have nothing move to do vrith equity suits, tliere would probably have

been some stir among the British people. "sfet what Lord Granville has done in his New Zealand despatch is precisely a case such as any of those we have ; cited. He, the administrator of the Colonies, has announced that, they must no longer trouble him with their concerns. His particular function, the duty for which he is paid,' and which he is expected to discharge, being, as we might obviously suppose, to take care of the Colonies, Lord Granville tells them that they must go about their busi.ness, for their business is none of.his. To state the case in the plainest-terms, the Colonial Secretary has given warning to the Colonies. He wants to have nobbing to do with them. He repudiates all responsibility in connection with them. They are discharged, turned out of the house, thrown upon the world. They must not depend upon Lord Granville, but learn " self-reliance."

In the common business of domestic life we should hold it not very creditable in the father of a family ;to turn his children out in the street at a moment's warning. We should, regard him as invested with a certain obligation in respect to those whom he has brought into the world, and who have helped to contribute, by their numbers and appearance, to his character as a domestic man. The parish authorities would probably have something to, say to a gentleman who should attempt to inculcate the virtue of " self-reliance " bycasfcing his immature children upon the iyorld with no other endowment upon moral conduct arid hisiiblessiDtg. It is difficult to know in what respect the policy of- the present Government, aa.announced by Lord Granville in his recent New Zealand despatch, differs in iniquity from that which we should hold to be abominable in a private individual. It cannot affect the cowardice, the cruelty, the gross immorality of the present transaction, that New Zealand is at our antipodes, that we have already spent a good deal of money upon it, and that its affairs are at present in a very unhealthy condition. All these ought, by every rule of justice and humanity, to constitute only further claims upon the protection of England. Or are we to assume that a parent is absolved from all duties in respect to his progeny, when they do not become prosperous members of society within a certain given date. If New Zealand is not at the present moment all that a British colony should be, who is responsible for that result P Have we not boasted, out of the family, of its marvellous birth, its rapid development, its beauty, itsf greatness, and its strength, when it was pleasant or useful to us to do so ? And are wo to reject it now when it is fallen, from no fault of its own, but from errors inevitable to its destiny, errors mostly of our own making, into a temporarily unhealthy state ?

The history of New Zealand is plainly written in many Parliamentary books, and it cannot bo unknown even to the Colonial Office. Some thirty years ago it was occupied — irregular of course — by a large number of British settlers. It is absurd to say now that they went there without " any encouragement or invitation " from the British Government. This is not true as a matter of fact, as the public has learnt from Sir William Hutt, one of the first New Zealand pioneers, and it is immaterial if it were true. Most colonies are founded by private enterprise, and very few of them owe their rise to the direct encouragement of the Government. If the men of the Anglo-Saxon race had waited for the invitation or encouragement of the Colonial Office before betaking themselves to distant lands, it is probable that there would Jiave. been now very few colonies to trouble Lord. Granville. Upon the same ground which the Colonial Secretary takes, England is bound to repudiate not only New Zealand, but all Australia and Tasmania excepting Botany, Bay — all North America and all India. If it were true, which it is not, that the Colonial Office gave no encouragement to the first New Zealand settlers, this defect, if it was one, was cured by the Imperial Government itself, when it occupied the Islands in the name of the Queen. Having formally declared New Zealandito be part of the Crown possessions, it is now too late for Lord Granville to question the manner in which the original occupation was made. The very fact stated by the Colonial Secretary, in his dispatch, that the Imperial Government "considered itself responsible for placing the relations between the British subjects and the natives on a reasonable basis, and for securing order among the settlers," is the foundation of the claim which New Zealand now advances. This responsibility cannot be said to have terminated, noivcan it be said that one of the parties to the bargain has a right to withdraw, from it at its own pleasure and for its own convenience. Precisely the same responsibility continues as that which the Imperial Government confesses to have undertaken in the original days. Order has not been secured among the settlers. The relations between the British subjeots and the natives have not been settled on a reasonable basis. They are still notoriously unsettled, not only in spite but in consequence of the Imperial policy. And even if there is no longer any obligation to the British subjects, there certainly is one to the natives, who may fairly complain that the conditions on which they surrendered the islands to the British Crown have been violated — that they engaged themselves to be subject to the Queen, not to be subject to the European settlers, or to any local government. The Treaty of "Waitangi, under which the Maoris bound themselves to become subjects of the British Crown; was signed in Eebruary, 1840. Besponsible government in New Zealand was only introduced in 1856, and it was not until 1863, after the Waikato war had commenced, that the control of native affairs was forced upon the Colonial Legislature, in spite of their protest that this was " a task too great to be undertaken by the colonists.' For at least twentythreeyears, therefore, the Imperial Government nad the sole management of the "relations between British subjects and the natives." If that management waa not successful there is no one responsible for its ill success but the Imperial authorities, who often acted in their dealings with the Maoris in defiance of local opinion. It cannot be doubted that the duty of settling the affairs of the colony oh a reasonable basis was an Imperial obligation. It is precisely this obligation which the colonists allege still continues ; and it is on account of this obligation, which was violently transferred from the Imperial Government to the Colonial Legislature six years ago, that the claim iFtiow made up- j on the Imperial Government. The colonists, so far from being unreasonable, are even moderate in their demands. They do not desire help in the shape of a large military contingent, although the enemies whom they have to fight are clearly quite as much the enemies of the Empire as of the Colony ; and although, while an English soldier would cost . them only £40 a year, they have to pay at the rate of £150 a year for every man in arms raised in the Colony. They ask only that they may use the general credit of the Empire for the raising of a loan to meet their war expenses. They have incurred a heavy debt already of some £3,000,000 through the Maori wars, the result of Imperial policy, and they very fairly urge, as w_e think,

that they ought not to be expected to meet the expenses of an Imperial war entirely out of their own resources. That, at least, it is both unjust and unnecessary to hint that they should pay 6 and 7 per cent for the use of money for their defence, when they could get it for 3 or 4 upon an Imperial guarantee. The plea of consideration for the British taxpayer is one utterly inapt, although naturally very popular in this country. ! The British taxpayer may think it '"hard that he should have to contribute to the expenses of a campaign against the Maoris ; but this is one of the obligations incidental, and inevitable to a great Colonial empire. The British taxpayer cannot have all the glory, the profit, and the strength of a large Colonial connection— and we maintain that he has all three — without paying something in return. At least he should have thought of the cost of his luxuries before the bill was sent in. The British taxpayer enjoys innumerable benefits, directly and indirectly, from the colon ; es. They contribute to swell his cmlii. to increase his business, to minister to his wants.** A British colony, if it has no other use, is a community of customers for British goods. We use it as a place for draughting off poor relations, for redeeming bur family fortunes, for relieving the Struggle of life at home. Byvjust as much as a colony is an outlet for British enterprise and a market for British industry, it is: a source of wealth to the mother country. The British taxpayer shares in all this profit. His own burden- is made lighter to, him through the colonies. What, then, can be more reasonable than that he should contribute an infinitesimal sum a year to the maintenance of the colonies against external enemies P The additional weight of a New Zealand guarantee upon the British taxpayer is altogether inappreciable. Not even Mr. Lowe, the great financial prestidigitateur, could tell us how much a head of expense we should incur by a New Zealand guarantee. Every one may calculate the risk for himself, and the security is in our own hands. The money is wanted, to defend New Zealand against the Maoris, and there can be no reasonable apprehension as to the result. To declare that this is no affair of ours ; to proclaim that it is a colonial obligation, as distinct from an Imperial one, to defend New Zealand against the natives, is virtually to announce the dissolution of the empire. The claim of the New Zealand colonists upon the Imperial Government is precisely the same as that of any other colony menaced by foreign invasion ; and if it is not our business to ensure the possession of the island to the British settlers, still less is it our business to take cave of India against an invasion of Afffhans, or of Canada against an inroad of 'enians.