THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1882.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6563, 29 November 1882, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1882.

A direct and serious conflict of veracity lias arisen between Sir Francis Dillon Bell, our Agent-General in London, and Sydney Taiwhanga, the chief of the Maori embassy. Sydney is, indeed, backed up by his fellowambassadors, so that the weight of numbers, at all events, is against Sir Francis. We have not a direct state inent from the Agent-General as to I what took place between him and the

ambassadors, but the correspondent of I the Otago Daily Times, who forwarded t the narrative, assumes to speak with e absolute knowledge, and -with the t permission of Sir Francis. His words s are: —" I say so on the authority of Sir F. Bell, and with his permission." The correspondent states that the ' Agent-General told the natives that = they had no more right, to sell native lands in New Zealand than to sell the : moon. The very words of Sir Francis' speech to the natives is given " You know perfectly well that in an assembly of Maoris your voice would have no more weight than mine, and that if you told them you had represented yourself and these two boys (whom I have knoivn since they were born) to be persons lof importance among your people, 1 you would be turned out of the j place. In the old time you would | have been tomahawked." The corre- j spondent further states that Sir Francis i told the " philanthropic people "— j meaning those who have chietiy de- ! sired the good of the Maoris in t'n»- i formation of the company for acquiring j native lands, " that they were making I themselves ridiculous.'' That, however, | in Sir Francis Dillon Bell's opinion, ! did not matter much. " It that amused J them i: hurt nobody else ; but : it was proposed to introduce the Maoris j to the (.Jueen in the character of plun- , derc-d ana persecuted su'ej'cts, the eolo- j nial representative put his foot down. j There is a great deal in all this, coming | as it docs with a positive assurance that it is authoritative and exact, which is worthy of remark. First, as to the coniiict of veracity, which is always a painful subject amongst gentlemen. I'll" ambassadors assert that they asked the AgentGeneral if he would accompany them to the Colonial Office, and he promised to do so. It seems that these natives, having a long acquaintance with Sir F. I). Bell, required that the promise should be given in writing, which was done, the letter feeing; directed tc Mr. Chesson, of the Aborigines Protection Society. They desired the security of black and white," as Sydney thought Sir F. D. Bell was li rather slippery.'" They say that the Agent-General did not keep his promise to meet them at the Colonial Otiice, at which Parore was highly indignant, and wanted utu for the insult. Sydney, however, pacilied him by saying that this was merely a way which Sir F. D. Bell had. The ambassadors further assert that Sir F. D. Bell saw Earl Ivirnberley privately, and endeavoured to persuade him not to accord them an audience. In regard to the " dressing down, which the Agent-General is reported, professedly on his own authority, to . have administered to the Maori ambassadors on the subject of the native land scheme, Sydney denies it altogether, and asserts that the scheme was not promulgated till three weeks =' after his interview with Sir F. Dillon t Bell. It seems impossible that the correspondent should imagine all these tilings, arid therefore there is a contradiction, awkward either for the AgentGeneral or Sydney Taiwhanga. The Maoris are justly credited with keen insight into character, and they have a life-long experience of Sir F. Dillon Bel!, who was the first Land Comraissioner, early in the " forties," who was constantly engaged in dealings with the Maoris, and who was Native Minister at the outbreak of the war in a Waikato. But surely they must be mistaken in speaking of him as " slippery/'' although, as they could not trust him without •' black-and-white ' it is evident they were sincere when they say they entertained suspicions. L in regard to the land scheme, Sir F. Dillon Bell seems to have lashed _ himself into quite unnecessary fury. Tiie correspondent speaking in his name, states:— li The Colonial Government arc ready to second any plan for tiie amelioration of the natives, and the development of the colony, providing such plans harmonise with the existing land laws, and are carried out with the sanctionandunderthe direction of the Government." We do not know that anyone in London, even though he be Agent-General, is entitled to lavdown what the Colonial Government are ready to do. That is for the people of the colony to determine. The reasons why the Government would object are then stated. The first is, "The authorities must, for ob vious reasons, have a voice in the establishment of townships." We do not . suppose that the company would make much difficulty about this, but would be glad to consult with the Government in regard to any townships proposed to be laid off on any blocks sold by them. Other matters would be regulated by the general statute relating to the laying off of townships. We are then told " It is the chiefs alone who possess proprietory rights in the land," and that while they were made ! rich by the operations of the company, ■ the bulk of the race " would inevitably lapse into pauperism and degradation." ! The correspondent's letter is so jumbled that no one can tell when he is the . spokesman, or when he is merely reporting the opinions of Sir F. Dillon Bell. We cannot believe that this is the opinion of the Agent-General. He, at all events, ought to know that the Maori chiefs never had, and never claimed " proprietory rights " in the land, as we understand proprietory rights. The land of a tribe belongs to the whole of a tribe. Every man, woman, and child in a tribe possesses " proprietory rights/' and under such an arrangement as proposed by the company would all j be provided for. We cannot under- j stand such an erroneous opinion as ■ stated above being uttered by a j man like tsir F. Dillon Beli, who i must know better, but we al.so j cannot understand how a London cor- j respondent, writing to Xew Zealand, j should make a positive statement I on a subject of which he knows nothing, unless on wh:_'_ he considers unquestionable auuiority. We do not see, however, why the Agent-General should take up such a hostile position towards the new company, and profess himself able to speak positively as to what the New Zealand • Government and people will or will J not do. That is not iiis business ; he j is not paid his handsome salary for doing that. The Agent-Generai ought ] not to assume a fiercely hostile attitude to any association which has for its object the colonisation of any part of j New Zealand, especially one whicli is [ promoted by great and good men, ani- j mated by lofty motives. He ought to J be ever ready with all the information <-• in his power, lie should be willing to c advise or counsel whenever he is asked. t

It ought to be his duty, to guard such an association a'/'ain f errors when it i 3 proceeding o n° m" taken premises. Bat his° attitn/u should be friendly rather than oth wise. r ~