AUCKLAND, TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1864.

New Zealand Herald, Volume I, Issue 147, 3 May 1864, Page 3

AUCKLAND, TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1864.

Thf. lletnbci's ot" the Aborigines Pro-n-c.ion Society .;ro, it seems, in the same haze o? eonl'ti;-;eu with respect to "Xew Zet-laiid tiHnira as they e\ r er were, and have "jiveit expression to their opinions in another memorial, which, this time, they have addressed to the Duke of Newcastle, prayine; that the Queen's assent may be withheld from "The Xevv Zealand Settlements Bill. Isiio." AVe do not suppose that any amount of ai'viiiMont or reason would cause the i;enllele. ;i who siuncd iiieir names to this tncmorial. ;-.- iho pi-itv w liich they represent, to alter liti-ir opinions one jot, but in the memorial bcloi i' us is so much of untruthfulness and specious tni;-i cprcscmat ion. retlect intj; on till' cliartteter of 1 lie colonists, that we cannot allow it to pass without pointing out the errors into which they have fallen, and the injustice which such accusations cast upon ourselves. The memorialists set forth with the following remark :■ That, for its .-weepiue, ami indiscriminate character thi- measure .-lands without a parallel in the history ol modern legislation. \\"e turn to the colonics of Britain past and present, America, New- Holland, the Cape. Tasmania, and what do we lind—not eoutisimiioii. rcoitialed by law. dealt out with ttu-ivv. ;ind so tempered as lo civilize and enrich the inferior race- -not eontiseation introduced as a punishment for treaties broken, and wanton revolt from a sovereign!y whieh had once been accepted and acknowledged, and then contemptuously rejected— bur we iimi the more sweeping measure of extermination resorted to. as in America and 'ia.-inania. i'or lite acquisition of the land of the natives, or. as in New Holland, the claims of the aboriginal inhaliitants altimetiier iirnoivd. If we turn lo the nearest parallel which our own country affords in modern times, we shall find in "force, in 1 re - htid. an Act which bears a great 'similarity to The " New ZeaiaudScttlomcnls Act" in one of its phases, thouirh what difference docs exist, lies in the Lifealei- stringency of the Irish Act : and this Act to which we allude is the " Knciimherci! Kstaics Act."" a measure which Las pioviii the regeneration of Irelan.!. The Irish landlord*, like the Maori Chiefs, ■owned tracts ot' country which were eom-]:r.-:ti\e!v useless lo 11n ntselves. and nnpioiiucii\e ;o the ci■mmrnily. Tlie "' lhict.mliKil Esl;itis Ait'' wt nt turther than tiie Niw Zia!:.i;d 'Ilii!, for it iii.-,i.~;h ,t on the nl-.'in'.i s;..!e ..1 these ] ro] lilies by their owners. t!;;.t tin v in iuht tail into 1 lie hands of ca| iiaiists who would an.l could profitably use li.im. "NVe, in New Zialantl. do not wish to •-,> so far ;:s this. r l lie loval Maori may liohi the land which he "possesses, whether he can use it or not. but we do reunite, and this is no mote 11-an is enforcul from English landowners themselves thai where the exigencies of the State di maud a portion of 11.e i state of an individual lor public purposes li.at tiie owner must alienate the same fur ;: lid! and fail- i niu| < nsal ion. Such demands will i.oi be made, as i he memorial imphis. jot- the purpose of selling 1 he lands lo deli i:v the i-xpen.-t s of t he war. hut for 1 he purposes of planting semi-military setllen)i i:t in ]articuiar cases wl.tic Mich are lii'ie.-.-ai v to s. cine lie future peace of the cc in, try Wiih regaiii in ill.' sieiner |hase in our coniisciitioii .-chime, the disposal of the lands of I'ihel natives, the tin moritilists tire eijtially in error, it is simplv in f true 'J hat notbinc short of ibe id -..iiile conii-calion of all the lanes owned by ibe n bcl inb.s I- ...ntcmplate.i by the -\iw Zoilaii.i l.ioi. rum. nl. and thai this police la.- receiveit the di liberate sanction ot the General A.-s.-mlily. And that J he ma,iv thousand- of natives whom it will render h. in, le-s wand.i ,r.-. will scarcely allow themselves tob.diiv.n forth without an effort to avert their doom. The Act does not. contemplate absolute confiscation in any shape. It does not sanction the confiscation of all the lands owned bv rebel tribes, for where in rebel tribes individuals shall be found who have not directly or indirectly assisled in the rebellion, their individual rights will be respected, and in the ease of the actual rebels themselves, it is intended to set, apart, one hundred acres of land for each adult, for which he will receive a crown grant, and which, under such circumstances, wi'lacl itally in vcrv many cases far exceed in value the wholeof the iandsof wiiieh it formed:! purl ion, while they were yet unmarketable and valueless—a howling wilderness, uncultivated by the Maori himself, and barred from l he use of the European colonist. There will be no driving forth of" homeless wanderers,"' no urging to desperation, for, commercially speaking, this very coiifiscalion will be a gain lo the actual rebels 1 hemsehes. Neither will this punishment, if we may so call it, of the rebels Lead to tin; inik-.'inite prolongation of hostilities, and the ultimate oxti rminat.'on of the wholeof tin: Maori race inhabiting the .North Inland. Nor is it true t hat Its inevitable ctfect will bo to drivo the natives of the Sm-th lsl,n,J into a btaio of hopeless despair and rebellion. ' At iiotrie. the Aborigines Protect ion Society argue this ipteslion theoretically. .Here we are aide to give the sound practical answer and point to tlie very contrary eil'ect as a denial to any such assertion. Av'hat has been I ho effect north of Auckland 'f That, where, previously to tiie passing of this Act. and to the discussion of the principles contained in it, the Natives north of Auckland were in a, state of agitation, uncertain in their own minds which part to espouse, the dread of losing their lands has rendered them pro fuse iii their professions of loyalty, and has rendered the promulgators of rebellion and Waikato canards, as in the case of Pirimona, to be no longer welcome. A re our allies Waati

Kukatai and "Wi Nero iu the South less staunch and loyal? or are our gallant A raw-as whom wo have officered and armed, and who are fighting side by side with our I own troops, less confident in our genorosity I ami fair intentions? At Hawke's Bay we ! lind '.lie't urbulenllv inclined natives over- ! ruled by the more cautious members of the , tribe- and why? because the latter will not \ incur the penalty of the loss of their lands. Wherever in fact tlie natives remain loyal | this feeling will be found more or less to j spring from the example which has been j made in W'aikato, and the knowledge that , in the case of their own rebellion the same ! measure of retribution will be meted to them. Equally is the Aborigines 'I'rotection Society in error, when its representatives state that Your tiieiiioiialists would remark that, mi kind of grace is uttered to natives who may lie willing at once to lay down their nrius ; t lint there is no nUcupt to deiine tiie varioiu degrees of guilt, and to apportion the punishment equitably ; und that there is a total absence of that clemency" which oug'ht ever to be exhibited by a civilised "nation in its dealings with a subject raco. At the time when they, in heard of the passing of this measure through fhe General Assembly, the Bill was not yet law— and necessarily any proclamation a! that time on the part of the Colonial government would have been unwarranted and premature. That the accusation contained in the above i|iiotatiou from the memorial is false and unjust, we. in New Zealand, know, t'ov we have had months since before us a plain synopsis of t be conditions of surrender, and a clear definition of the various degrees of guilt and the equitable apportionment of ihe punishment allotted lo each shade of rebellion. This proclamation lnts moreover been printed in the native language and has been extensively circulated in Maori districts througotlt The Northern island. As to the total absence of clemency we .an only remark, as we have done before, lhat the- colonists of New Zealand have been patient and long suffering, that they have submitted to injustice and humiliation for the sake of living m amity with their native neighbors, and that they have done all that they were allowed to do iu attempting to reclaim the natives from barbarism lo civilisation. ] f. however, is meant by the remark that our conduct towards them in the prosecution of the war 1 has been marked by cruelty, then we must emphatically deny the truth of any such assertion. Slanderers we have amongst us who. for the very purpose of placing .-t text in the mouths ot such men as these memorialists, will not hesitate to assert, as. did the : A. «• y.riiitiitilcr. of the n's troops engai ged at Oraknu :- - I ll't,,,it„ — .;'ni,,i n-iihn „—slaughter. .1, and manv I ehildo n slain, alv .■ iuM the tivphie.-. of Orakaii, and ••eivili/aticn" in piiisiih. ~r as it r, turned from the clia-c. „„,,im<l /,'.»,//■ hi, .«/,«./,■„,/ I hi- ii;„t„,l,;i " hir- //,'(•/.'/..>." as thev lav upon the gieiind whele thev had fallen. The pi ople of Kngland however do not know that in all attacks on Maori pahs there will be. as was the case at Kangiriri. some 1 women killed, and for the simple reason that j the fighting garrison consists of members of j both sexes, and lhat it is utterly impossible j to prevent the bursting of a shell in a rille j pit. in which are both men and women. j from killing either indiscriminately. In ' due time no doubt the object 'for which : the above paragraph was printed hut never i substantiated in the J\'i ir Znil/un/rr will be | attained, and we shall find the Aborigines ■■ i'l'otcel ion Society endeavouring tn raise a ' howl nf indignation in Kugiaiid against the | troops and 1 lie colonists, and charging us i with, crimes that would evin cause a I'i/.arro jlo blush. | In whatever statement the memorial puts 1 forth we have the same patent misrepresentation, arising we believe and t rust. less from design than from absolute ignorance of, an.l the possession of bigot led ideas upon I be subject under discussion. Tlieincmorial allu.lesto i the guarantee given to the natives by the I treaty of Witangi. of nudist m hod possession i of their iat.ds end rights, but intirely for- ■ gels to mention thai on their side was j given the undisputed sovereignty of the I islands. AVho fiist broke the treaty, we I would ask. the New Zealand Government ! which passed the ('ontiseat ion Bill of I Mi:* r ( )r tlie natives who. years ago. set up a , separate king and nationality for 1 hemseh es. ! The laitiv. s, moic.iver, //,-.• inliriln inn; j,n .«. i,h il I /„ /lie A',,c Z.klii.hl l.iiislnl,,,; -/and although the ti.atv ol Waitanyi iu li.inailv invested th. in with ; ,/// i'l;- nuliLi ~/-y,V/7,\.'. ../.'./'■'•'< !!,,„!,„,; 1,,,,, po.etnaily ti'eat.d as a s. | urate and all ali, ll lac. So says the memorial. What, however. | are the real facts of the case? It is j true that no New Zealand chief has found I a seat in the House of Assembly, but it has j been a standing complaint made by Middle Island members that the welfare and business of tlie Colony has been altogether saciilieed to the discussion of native subjects, that in truth the lime of the Assembly has been taken up in legislating less for ! the European than I'or the Maori. This is • essentially correct. I'or so far from being nn- | represented in the Assembly, the Maoris j have men there to represent them. who. I though returned for .European eoust ituenj cies, take far more in.crest iu the discus--1 sion of native alfairs and with a decided j partiality towards the interest of the Maori as opposed lo that of the European—-and it ; is absurd and untrue to say that tiie Maoris 1 are nol represented in the Assembly. So far, we have shown that the assertions on which the memorialists of the Aborigines I Broteetion Society base their reasons I'or I petitioning the Queen lo disallow the " New I Zealand Sett lenient Bill," are incorrect ; ; nay, we will not mince, the matter, are posi- ! tiv'olv untrue. We have entered into this ! explanation, less with a view of convincing ■ those gentlemen of their error, or of coiiu- ) leracling any effort which they may wish to ! bring about by the memorial, than with the intention of vindicating the government, and colonists of New Zealand from the charges which have been brought against them. The. Aborigines Protection Society we can forgive. They sin against the colonists and i against the cause of civilization less from ■ design than ignorance. Their credulity is ! played upon by men of high standing but unscrupulous designs here, and by a local journal, tlie organ and tool of this saute party. It is the traitors amongst us. ihe birds of ill omen, which ilelile their own nest, that are deserving of the contempt of the colonists, far more than the men whom they maUe their dupes, and were it not for these men, and for the inis-representatioiis privately circulated in letters, and otherwise, we should not hear of these repeated vilifications of the character of the New Zealand settlers by the. members of the Aborigines Protection Society. How little

the people at home arc able to judge of native character, how easily they' may be deeeivod, we know by the sensation created by the visit of the natives taken home bv -Mr. Jenkins. Tiie principal chief is well known here a« a horse stealer, a dissolute 'irunkeu ehitraeier. a! Wangarei, a man who wiieu here was li.iiig with tnree wives, and living on the proceeds of their prostitution, fhe other natives were of the same class. "Wo speak only that which is well known in Auckland, and yet we see that the fluency with which these natives can quote scripture, the protestations of morality, religion, love for civilization which the'v profess, have utterly deceived the good and kindly disposed people at home,"even royalty itself. We can scarcely wonder then! that the members of the Aborigines Protection Society, played upon by designing men here, should commit themselves in the very silly manner which it appears they have done oil this hist occasion.