New Zealand Gazette AND WELLINGTON SPECTATOR. Wednesday, July 5, 1843.

New Zealand Gazette and Wellington Spectator, Volume IV, Issue 260, 5 July 1843, Page 2

New Zealand Gazette AND WELLINGTON SPECTATOR. Wednesday, July 5, 1843.

The Wellington .Volunteers (for they are something more than special constables, though not quite a Militia,) mustered for inspection on Thermion Elat, on Sunday morning, a'little after 9 o'clock. We are informed that they numbered nearly 400 men. Each corps assembled on its private parade ground,; and marched in ekcellent*"order to the place of rendezvous ; and we are bound to say that their soldier-like appearance and the adroitness displayed by them' m.the few evolutions through which they were put, reflected •the highest- credit on both officers and men. A large proportion 'were well armed, and such as were not, were informed that they would be supplied on application to their command-, ing officers. ' • ■ < We observe a letter in the Colonist of Friday last, professing to be written by one of the working class, in which ,the writer expresses his surprize that so few of his own class should have joined the corps forme 1 for the defence of this place ; and he charges the upper classes with pride in not enlisting themselves in these bodies which are constituted chiefly of working men» or rather we should say, constituted chiefly of manual laborers ; for the upper classes work as well as they do, though not with the hands alone. With regard to the charge of slackness on the part of the working, men, (as he call his class) we think it sufficiently refuted by Sunday's muster. It is probable that the writer of the letter referred to, has never before had experience of circumstances similar to those in which we are placed, when through the negligence of Government-; a large population is left totally undefended, and obliged on a sudden emergency to provide the means of self-defence. If he had had such experience, we think that he would have been, aware that the musters on the present occasion havebeen extremely creditable to the energy of the settlers ; and when the shortness of the days is taken into account which compels them to assemble on -parade at<an hour of the morning when many have gone to their day's work, and at an hour of the afternoon before they have quitted it, we ; are rather surprized to see so many than disappointed at seeing fewer .than might Jiav& hefji. loojse^ for. Nothing could prove their zeal mote distinctly' than the fact that on last ' Friday morning, notwithstanding the heavy rain that was falling, .80 of the Te Aro Corps assembled at the Exchange, and there went through their exercise-. Nor do we think that the charge of pride is better substantiated against the upper class. It is true that not very many of them are- to be found in the three corps which assemble in the morning, but the Rifle Corps which exercises every afternoon at ;4 o'clock,-con-sists almost entirely of that; class. It is natural that those wjio possess arms adapted for this, corps, should prefer joining \t tb joining the others ; and we s.ee no more rea*son for charging them with pride in so doing, than for charging the " working class ""with pride for not Joining. the Rifle Corps. A : Cavalry Corps' has also been formed whicljt consists almost exclusively of. the upper classi and in case of any eugagec-snt with the Natives on the open -ground, would probably prove as effective a force as 'we possess. No distinction has been attempted on any such foolish ground as the writer would insinuate, and if any exists it is only such as the circumstances of the parties, their possession of horses or arms of a particular kind, necessarily give rise to.' In the meantime- the three first mentioned corps are sufficiently provided -with officers, and the addition of any more of the upper classes •to the ranks, would merely take so many from the Rifle or Cavalry Corps, wnere they are probably -.better employed. ' • For. our own,; part, we would gladly see every white man. in Wellington 1 capable of bearing arms, attend our musters ; but such', a thing is not to be expected. In ; ancient days it, was easy, to turn civilians into .soldiers; the tenure by which lands were held obliged almost every one to be constantly prepared 1 !' to follow to the field some, warlike .chief," and all were more or less familiar with military exercises. - Since the introduction «f " standing armiesj and ' the 'lapse of many. 'years of profound peace, "civilians, have lost the habit of rousing .^themselves at a warlike note of preparation ;' they have beaten their swords into ploughshares^ and addicted themselves with the less interruption, to the' cultivation of those peaceful arts which advance the civilization and the .true prosperity of the human race.. ' .■•''''"' There 'was no standing army in England till the reign of William 111. Previously to that times the military defence of the kingdom was provided for either by the obligation of military service laid upon the landowners by

the feudal tenures, or by a* militiafaf civilians, catyed out as occasion-requiredn -required by the King or the' Parliament; and the power af calling it out and directing its operations, was as our readers will remember, a principal point of dispute between Charles I. and his Commons, and led perhaps more than any thing else to the civil war/ which ensued. The. fact of a standing army having been introduced by William in.," Is one of the' strongest arguments in favour of the existence of such a body. Many men have sat on the Throne of England, who possessed a character of energy and ability, of the highest order. Had it been otherwise they would not long have, sat there. The weaker ones; the 2nd Edward, the 2nd Richard, the 2nd James, and Ist Charles, were unable to maintain their seat, amidst the troubled elements of which the political atmosphere of Great Britain was composed. /But of all .the able men, who ever filled that seat William 111., the best became it. At once a soldier and a statesman, he exhibited the cool courage of the one, and* the diplomatic foresight! of the other. It has been well observed that he was the first of our rulers who solved the problem of a constitutional monarchy ; and since his time the duties of the British Kings have been easy and natural. Before his reign all was riddle and uncertainty, and the consti-' tution never understood, because never rightly brought into practice. He macadamized a road for Kings, where before all was" dark and unexplored. That such a man, liberal in his politics and gentle in his Government, should have introduced a standing army, is as we have said, a strong point in their" favour. Their introduction was, however, a perpetual bone of contention between him and his Parliament, nor did' the contest cease for several reigns. It was still carried on in that of George I. when Mr. Pulteny spoke so strongly against them in Parliament, that the King, who was much wedded to his army, called for the list of his Privy Council, and with demonstrations of passion, and his-own hand struck his name from the book. One of the strongest arguments in the favour of a standing army, is that urged by Adam Smith the economist. "If you have a militia merely called out from time to time, you spoil," says he. "six. good ploughmen to make six bad soldiers ; but if you have a standing army, v you have five gqod ploughmen and oneeood soldier." And perhaps it is on this '^frncfplf'orthe division of labour that standing ' fttmie's are "best justified.j ustified. j" Something, however, may be said on the other hand. Mr. Paltne'y, (whose mouth George the Ist. tried to stop in the manner before mentioned) urged " that a standing army is a-body of men distinct from the body of the people ; they are governed by different laws ; blind obedience and an entire submission to the orders of their commanding officers is their only principle; by means of standing armies many nations have lost their liberties, and it is impossible that the liberties of the people can long be preserved when a numerous standing army is kept up." The ■ latter statement is perhaps incorrect — when nations have lost their liberties it has not been" so much through the existence of a standing army as through some defect, such as the want of popular representation, which -might have prevented the army being turned against their liberties. Judge Blackstone (who tested by the principles of the period in which he lived' had notions more favourable 4q liberty than they appear when tested by those of our own day) was also averse to standing armies. "Nothing," says he, " ought more to be guarded against in a free state than making the" military power, when such a one is to be kept on foot, too distinct from the.people. It should be wholly composed of natural subjects; it should be enlisted for a short and limited time ; the soldiers should live entermined with the people ; no separate camp, no barracks, no inland .fortresses should be allowedy ' And, perhaps, it might be still better if, by dismissing a stated number' and enlisting' others at every renewal of their term, a circulation could be kept up between the .army ,and the people, -and the citizen and the soldier more connected together." There is a force in circumstances which, cuts many a gordian knot, which it would ■ puzzle logicians and politicians to unravel; and that force of circumstances has determined that a standing army should become a constitutional establishment in Great Britain, and her dependences. That we should, however, both pay servants and do their work is not to be expected ; and we think it is a shameful thing, that while the British nation is pjitto the expehce of providing troops, for the protection of this Colony by far the larger part of us should be compelled also by the neglect, of the Colonial Government to be our own protectors. - •

We have read the article in the Colonist in which a reply to our own on the subject of

the Land Claims' is' attempted, but we cannot say that it at ' all pimsettW the? opinion which we have formed upon it.*' We still think that the view which we took is the right one, and unless our conteraporaiy can find some more - substantial defects in our case than he has yet found, we must still adhere to it.. We shall take his objections in the order in which we find them, only premising that we do not argue the matter as the Company's advocate as he insinuates, and that if our conclusions relieve that body from the liability to which he conceives it to be subject, it is merely because the liability" is shewn to be upon the Government. , Our contemporary charges us with incon-* sisteucy in defending the New Zealand Company, and alleging at the same time that Government acted wrong in attributing to the Natives the right of disposing of their territories as if th£y had been an independent people ; " for," says he, " the. Government only did what the New Zealand Company set them the example of doing." But this proves no inconsistency in our views. There was a great distinction between the Company and the Government, which our contemporary overlooks. . .The" Government had in themselves, as the representatives of the British people, all the rights which the discovery of these islands conferred upon them by the well known law of nations — that is to say, the right of occupying the discovered country, of subjecting it to British sovereignty, and disposing of the lands -without asking permission of its uncivilized inhabitants. The New Zealand, Company, a body of private merchants, had no such rights ; the onjy way in which they could obtain land, was by dealing with the Natives, and treating them as if they possessed the privileges of civilized people. As private individuals, this was the only course they dould adopt ; the Government, on the other head, had rights vested in them, which enabled them to have adopted a different course, which it ought to have done ; but, instead of doing so, it enfeebled. itself, denuded itself of the right of discovery, and followed the example of the private trader, whose powers of action were entirely different, and much more limited. Because it did so, we say that it is bound to protect us from the Native claims, which could have had no shadow of legal .existence, if Government had not wilfully descended from its advantageous position — a position ia which tk« Company never stood. Is there inconsistency in this ? The next- point in which we are assailed is the proviso in the Land Orders, by which the Company refused to guarantee the titles against the acts of the Government, or af.yJnst any acts but their own. Our contemporary asks whether we know "that these .uand Orders were not issued till after the purchase was completed, and that they formed no part of the original purchase," We are aware that they were not issued till after the purchase money was paid, but notwithstanding that we conceive that they form part of the original agreement, by which our contemporary means the Company's prospectus. They are expressly referred to in it ; the purchasers are, in fact, only styled purchasers of Laud Orders ; it is distinctly stated that they shall be taken as conclusive evidence of title ; and several other matters are mentioned respecting them. But even if this did not constitute them a part of the original contract, the purchasers have done so themselves by retrospection ; they adopted them, when issued, without objection ; they transferred them to others ; they selected land under them, and acted upon them in a variety of ways. We are willing to believe that our contemporary's ' disclaimer of legal ability to decide the question, is as 'true as "it is modest ; but even he must know that the prospectus, the Land Orders, and their adoption, must all be looked at in ascertaining what is really the contract. This may be a line of reasoning which our contemporary will term special pleading;.* designation which we have often heard applied to a strict enquiry into facts, and an announcement of disagreeable truths. It is not t necessary, however, to have recourse to what is so disagreeable -to our contemporary. He himself furnisKes us,, with a much shorter and more conclusive reply. The prospectus to which he so triumphantly refers, as over-riding the obnoxious proviso in the Land Orders, does itself contain that very proviso. "The Land Orders," it says, " are to be received as sufficient conveyances and conclusive evidence of the Company's title; and the Company are not to be considered as guaranteeing the' title, except as against their own acts and the acts of those deriving under or in trust for them." It is impossible that our contemporary can have read the prospectus, or he wouhV never have referred us to a document which is fatal to his own case, and carries- ours one step further than we ourselves thought necessary. The third point on which the Colonist touches, is the contract between the Company t and Government ; which he looks upon as

merely, a confirmation to a certain extent of the Company's purchases from the Natives, while" we take-its intention to be not a confirmation, but a new- and independent grant, substituted for 'what the Company professed to have obtained from the Natives, but their Tight to obtain which, Government denies and supercedes. Any one who refers to the parliamentary and official documents will see displayed on the part of the Government, a sensitive and excessive jealousy of any pcr r son dealing with the Natives but itself. It is under the influence of this feeling that the contract appears to us to have been framed. " We ciaim for ourselves 'I says Government, " the absolute right of pre-emption. If any on has attempted to be beforehand with us in purchasing from the Natives wepronounce him an interloper, and declare his purchases null and void. But in consideration of its appearing that you, the Company, acted with honest intentions, and have made, and intend to, make heavy outlays, we will in a spirit of justice, make you a new and independent grant (not a confirmation) under which you will 'please to consider that your title is derived f^pm us and not from the Natives."' This is the reading. which, looking not only at the contract but at all the other documents w,hich manifest the spirit of the Government, we think the correct one. .Our contemporary it seems thinks otherwise, but as he assigns no reason why his interpretation should be the correct one we shall take the liberty of abiding by our own: The only remaining point on which our contemporary assails us, is an alleged inconsistency in our insisting that Government is bound to satisfy the Natives if any one is, when .we have, as he ohserves, ourselves printed a clause from the contract between Government and the Company, by which the former disclaims all liability to make good the agreements for the sale of land entered' into by the latter, "it being understood that the Company will from the land so to be granted to them as aforesaid," (that is the land which the Government is to grant,) "fulfill and carry into effect all such sales." Here again there is no inconsistency on our part. The Government it is true insists that the Company shall fulfill its contracts, but it expressly says, " out of the land to he granted to the Company by Government ;" and we contend that Government is bound to make such a grant as will enable the Company, to fulfill their contracts without paying the Natives for an additional grant. But even if this disclaimer of liability on the part of Government were stronger than it is, we Settlers have nothing to do with it. They rest their case upon a liability incumbent on the Government from which no disclaimer" of its own, nor any power less than Parliament could liberate it ; the liability, namely, which arises frcm its having improperly surrendered the rights vested in the British nation by the discovery of these islands, rights which Government ought to have exercised, but of which it foolishly despoiled itself, and the nou-exercise of which has reduced us to our present equivocal position. A man might disclaim the payment of his debts, but he would not thereby lessen his liability to pay them, and no disclaimer of Government can deprive the Settlers of the light to call upon it to put them in as good a position, as they would have been in, if it had originally acted as it ought to have done. Where then is the inconsistency with which we are a second time charged ? We observe a statement in more than one of our contemporary's articles on this subject, to the effect that the New Zealand Company have done nothing for this Settlement, except take the trouble of laying out the Landowners' money. We cannot think that our contemporary wilfully misleads his readers, but they are much misled if they believe this. We hope some day to be in a position to enter at more length into (he. details of the Company'i expenditure. At present we shall only remind- ou^ readers, that the Company commenced'optrations'with a' paid up capital of £200,000 none of which came out of .the pockets the Landowners.. When the people of Wellington learn vvhat proportion of this private capital has been expended' in this Settlement, we suspect that \hey will 'find that the Company has, done stmething more than " take the> trouble of lading out the Landowners money." • , We' are accused oi? sneering ' at the landowners. We did not lo so. We are ourselves one of them, and also interested in the land in other ways than absoluie ownership. It was not likely'that we should sneer at ourselves. What we did deride was toe manner in which our cotemporar'y had heralded their claims, a manneriiot at all calculate to benefit, their cause. Neither did we sty, as the Colonist says for us, that they were bound to satisfy the Natives. What we did ky was that they were as much bound to do so \s the Company h, but we added that we saw ip reason why either of them should do it. '.. We observe no answer to our observations

on the total inefficacy of any payments to the Natives, on the certainty of fresh demands, and the insuficiency of the sum spoken of to meet even those which exist. To require payments to be made which would not settle the question would be absurd. Government and Government alone can settle it without making any.

In " conclusion, we regret much the tone which our cotemporary has adopted in the discussion of this question. It is one on which we see no occasion for an appeal to passion. To charge us with being a retained advocate, a special pleader, a distorter of facts, a garbler of evidence, a plagiarist of the Colonist's ideas, blundering under extraordinary misconceptions, and guilty of quibbling and gross misrepresentation; and. to speak of the noblemen and gentlemen who constitute the board of .Directors of the Company, as only accessible to motives of shame, and guilty of dishonourable parsimony, is not the way to lead to a fair and rational discussion of the subject ; nor is it, we should hope, in accordance with the tone of mind of the more respectable portion of the supporters of the Colonist. The Use of such expressions proves nothing but that he who uses them has lost his temper, ' and in the present instance they indicate rather- some private pique on the part of the writer, than establish any just ground for condemning those against whom they are levelled,. '

We congratulate our fellow Colonists on the power they now possess of procuring flour, the produce of our own capital and our own enterprize. The agriculturalists of the Huttarenow sending iv their wheat,' to be ground in Wellington. The quantity, indeed is but small, because the culture of grain is as yet but an exj eriment ; not indeed as to any "doubt of the capabilities of the soil in the Hutt district, but whether under the enormous expences' of clearing the land — high wages, and impassable roads — the growth of the " staff of life " will be attended with any reasonable rate, of profit. The quality, however, of the wheat we have seen, is equal to any produced in England, and it should consequently make as fine flour. Although the colour may not be so purely white as that at Valparaiso,' since- we have no regular mill yet erected, we will venture to assert it will be sweeter, and "go further " as housewifes say, end that the best household bread if not the " finest, wheaten " may be made from it. Be this, however, as it may, we look upon every pound expended in its purchase, as a pound sterling retained in the Colony, which otherwise would be exported to Chili, Sydney, or the speculators know where. So Long as we send our money away to purchase necessary food, so long are we collectively and individually on the high road to ruin. Every one sees and knows this, and- therefore every one' who regards merely his own interest, should be glad to pay eve,n something more for Native coin or flour, than for such as he goes to purchase in Chili or Sydney. In the one case, his money remains in the Colony, and is applied to pay labourers for raising more food. In the other, it is " transported beyond seas," it is never seen or heard of again, and is leaving us " poor indeed." We look on the consumption of "Native produce, as the only means of saving what capital is still left us, and we shall return to the subject in an early number.