THE WAR IN NEW ZEALAND.

Otago Witness, Issue 921, 24 July 1869, Page 19

THE WAR IN NEW ZEALAND.

(The Times, May 18.)

' Less than two months ago we were enabled 1 to record what was thought to be the termination of a New Zealand war. With much satisfaction, though certainly without much surprise, we told the story of a colonial I victory which promised peace to the settlement for some time to come. The natives who had been in arms under two well-known chiefs were fairly beaten. Te Kooti, on the east coast of the Northern Island, had barely escaped with his life from a fortified post which the colonial forces carried by storm, and Tito Kowaru, on the opposite coast, had been compelled to deoampbeiore the advancing troops and take refuge in the bush. It was supposed by everybody in New Zealand , that the war was over, for Te Kooti was reported to be severely wounded and deserted by his followers, while the flight of Tito Kowaru had deprived him, it was said, of all credit with the native tribes. At that very moment, however, a reverse had occurred — that is to say, the calculations of the colonists were found to be mistaken. There has been no fresh encounter between the colonial levies and the savages, but Te Kooti has reappeared alive and unhurt, and Tito Kowara, whether with or without a following, is ravaging the country and keeping the settlers in alarm. Murders, massacres, and ambuscades, succeed each other, and, though an experienced ooro.raar.dtsr, with 500 men, is on the track of the rebels, the prospects of the oampaign are regarded as dark, and despondency, we are told, weighs upon the oofony but lately so jubilant. We report these affairs with muoh regret, but we are bound to cay now, as we said on the former occasion, that they prove no case for Imperial intervention. Nothing in our Correspondent's narrative affects tho coaolusiona formed in this oountry, or the simple facts on which they are based. The European inhabitants of New Zealand are at least 200,000 in number ; tho |aovagea are, at most, 40,000. Of those 40,000 «a many as 20,01 0 are friendly to us, and of the remainder not a thousand aro aotivcly hostile. It was computed that the two rebel leaders might dispose perhaps of 000 fighting men, but no more, nor does even the intelligence now received represent their forces as materially increased. Under suoh oiroumstancos what are we to think o' tho question now agitating tho colony onco more? Can these 200,000 settlors, with 20,000 native allies, require tho assistance of an Imperial garrwen against 500 or 1000 savages in the bnsh ? We think it must be Buffioitnt to state such a oaae without attempting to argue it The colonists are I perfectly competent to protect themselves if they choose to do so. This, indeed, tboy do not attempt to deny, but, for various reasons, they have boen disposod to loave tho work to Imperial troops, and, though they lately tojocted that polioy in favour of one based on more judicious principles, the o'd fooling roturns at the first rovcnuo or difficulty. That is the explanation of the opinions expressed in oar Correspondent's letter. It is well the publio should appreoiato tho 1 truth of this matter. Oar New Zealand colonists do not pretend for a moment th-y are too weak or too few to oompote with tho 1 savages around them. They aro only too 1 rioh and too busy. They can do better than take to tho bush against tho marauding bar- ', barians, and so valuablo, indeed, arotimo i and labour in tho settlement that a Colonial -

Regiment, if raised, Would cost, it seems, at least three times as much as a, battalion of Boyal troops imported from this' country. There waa a time, as the reader is aware, when we not, only, furnished .the settlement with a garrisou, Jbut did so .it oar own expense. That system, however, cartfe" to a natural end, and the soldiers sent from home were oh arged to the Colonial Oovernmont at tile rato of L4O a head. To this charge the coloniats objected, and adopted what wis termed the policy 1 of "• self-re-liance" — in other words, they undertook ths duty "of self-defence. In pursuance of sticfc views th<iy dispensed by degrees with the Imperial ; garrison, until a single regime* only remained behin'dt and that battalion was on the eve of embarkation when this new alarm occurred and led to the retention of the troops. Nothing can be plainer than the story. A garrison is necessary in New Zealand, though it is not necessary that the garrison should be sent from this country. When the i Royal troops were removed, colonial troops should have been substituted, and that was the arrangement contemplated when the new policy was adopted. But it was never carried out. Not one-fifth of the levies really required were ever raised, and the force actually enrolled, was of indifferent quality and without adequate discipline or training. When, therefore, war, again broke out, the colonists were unprepared, the rebels obtained some successes, and, after a gleam or two of hope, the results were what we now spe. Now, when we are told, as our Correspondent tells us. that the advooates of the "self-reliance" policy are beginning to change their minda, and confess themselves mistaken, we have only to say that we see no reason whatever for the conclusion. The colonists determined to rely upon their own arms for selfprotection, and certainly their numbers justified them in forming such a resolution. Having formed it, however, they omitted to act upon it, and it is for that omission they are now suffering. Had they raised a sufficient force to take the plaoe of the Imperial garrison, this war would either never have ] occurred or have been suppressed in a week. Beyond all doubt there is fighting to be done in New Zealand— the only question is who is to do it ? Our Correspon. dent intimates that more time should have been allowed for the establishment of a colonial army, but that matter was surely at the discretion of the Colonial GovernmentIt was for the colonists to determine, and they did determine, what levies were necessary for the protection of thesett'ement. It was for them to calculate the time required for racing and disciplining the force, but the simple truth of the case is that, though they parted with one army, they never provided the other. There self-reliance policy wenj little 'eyond words. The present troubles have been incurred, not because they were wrong in relying upon themselves, but because they took no Btepa for carrying their good resolutions into effect.

Once more let us say, for it cannot be too clearly understood, that the question debated by the settlers is not whether they can defend themselves, but whether they will. We have the whole argument before us at this moment elaborately worked ont by a colonist of eminence in an appeal to his countrymen. He tells them that for 'a variety of reasons they ought to do their own fighting, and not send to the mother country for soldiers. That the latter course may be not only the more convenient, but the more economical, he does not deny. Considering that every constable in the colony is said to cost the Government LI 4O a year, it is c'oar that a soldier at L4O a year would be a cheaper article. But no nation— and ou Australian colonies are rapidly becoming nations— can afford to neglect the first duty of self-defence. Moreover, if Imperial troops are to do the fighting, Imperial commanders must oonduct the war, and wars conduoted on such principles might, it is truly observed, be more costly in the end than wars managed in colonial fashion . Wo should havo thought it unnecessary to enter into such nn argument, but of its force and soundness, notwithstanding tho present intelligence, we havo not the slightest doubt. The conclusion to he drawn from tho present troubles is, not that tho colonists were wrong in dispensing with the Imperial garrison, but that they were wrong in not putting another garrison in itu place. They can enlist at any time, aud without the filight«st difficulty, on many native levies as they please, And tho contribution from their own number* which it would be necessary to mak« is not too much to bo exacted from a powerful and prooporoua settlement of Englishmen.

(Standard, May 19.)

It is nothing but a foolish and oruel mockery to preach to them (tho colonists) of " self-reliance" nt the very time when they are being (slaughtered like sheep at tho handa of To Kooti and Tito Kowaru. Selfrolianoe is a virtue which cannot be reached at one step. As for the holplea*ness of the colonists, it is a charge as unjust as it is insulting, coming from tho Imperial Government, who have at onco created their danger and mado them helpless. As to the comparative numbers of tho Maoris and tho Europeans, it only shows the donaoat ignoranoe in those who use this as a taunt afainut the colonists. Thrcefonrths of the Europeans live in tho Southorn Island, where thoro are no Maoris, and are practically as far removed from the soon« of war as though they wvro in Tasmania or New South Wales. In estimating tho force of tho rebol Maoris, it woull bo nbsard not to botr in mind too extraordinary nature of the country —tho moit densely wooded and impracticable

on 1 tfie ,jgtse~pli&fei q^^pw.Wantofaf could be expected t'ohave ihe.aHjs of trash- \ craft in one generation, they might have five thousand men on foot without being able to check the' progress of any of these insurgent chiefs. When , we remember that it took j General Cameron two years, . with a force of 12f,000 regulars, to subdue the Waikatoifland their allies, how can we reasonably blamo the 1 colonial forces for not being a sufficient garrison to every European settlement at one and the same time 1 As to the paucity < f the colonial troops aod their comparative inexperience, that is very simply accounied for by the fact that the Colonial Government 38 poor, and has no means of raising a better armament. We are far from desiring to advocate » return to the old system of a lar^o standing army in New Zealand. We are as sensible of the value of teaching our colonies self-reliance as any one can be. X But it is monstrous to suppose that self-reliance is to come out of one efforfc of the colonists, precisely at the very; time when it is convenient for the Imperial Government to have it. We are bound to have patience with our children* especially when, as in this case, their defects arise entirely from our own treatment of them. There is no reason to believe that in the end the colonists will not be able to master their present difficulty, and to provide themselves with an efficient protection against the Maoris. In the mean time, we insult them grossly, wantonly, and brutally — we wrong our own English nature, when we declare that the massacre of settlers in New Zealand is " no case for British intervention. "

(Morning Star, May 19.)

The root of the evil is in the coloniats not having sufficiency adopted the principle of self-reliance. They have assumed the responsibilities of a quasi- independence of Imperial control without really being prepared for those personal sacrifices which are absolutely necessary. They find it more comfortable to attend to their own business— f-o cultivate their farms— to fatten their stock for the market ; but unless their own lives are in jeopardy they prefer that the fighting should lie done by other;?.. This is only natural ; but the Imperial Government is entitled to take a different view of the matter. There is nothing in the circumstances of the caao which, so far as we can judge, justifies a reversal of the policy that has hitherto Wen pursued. The colonists vasty outnumber the natives, counting man against man ; and the disproportion becomes simp y ridiculous, when it is remembered that at the utmost the two Maori leaders have not a thousand fighting men nnder their command. The colonial di'content with England is theref< re unreasonable, and must [not be allowed 'o divert attention k from the essential weakness of their policy.

(Daily News, May 20 )

If the people of that flourishing settlement are too rich and too busy to fiyht, and cm only defend themselves by means of men from England, it is not absolutely npc''B«n,"v that they should have recourse to the Qu«on'a soldiers. Let them form a standing army of their own. No Foreign Enlistment Act or neutrality laws would stand in tho way of their recruitinc in England. There aro plenty of ale-bodied men, of an adventurous turn, who, on a sufficient inducements being offered them in pay and prospects, would be willing to take service in New Zealand. There are not a few English officers, retired on half-pay, who wouM be delighted to undertake the work of disciplining these men, and of leading them in action. Military colonist*, holding Imr's on condition of service, would be an efficient defence of the colony, and would form, in time, a valuable element in the community. If men from England to do their fightinir for them aro an absolute necessity to the New Zealanders, we see no objection to their obtaining them on these terms.

(Manchester Guardian, May 18.) This news, like almost all that hns p-o» ceded it during the present year, sadly enmplioates the problem of reforming tho pist policy of the Imperial Governmont with regard to New Zealand. Tho resolution to desist from conotantly employing British forces to extricate the cnlonißts from quarrels into which, with the knowledge »hnt thig protection awaits them, they muit nKviva be prone to full, has been adopted with too muoh deliberation to leave any probability of its being rovorsed. Tho opinion of Parliament has been repent* dly deolared in favour of a rudioal oh in go of the system. Lord Grnnville, on cowing into office, cordially followod the initiative for a withdrawal of the military support of the mother country, which had been taken under tho administration of tho Duke of Buckingham, and the disadvnntnge to the colonists, as well as to ourso'vea, of continuing nnoh assistance on the enny trrma on which it has hitherto bVen givn, is among the best establish ml political conclusions of tho day. On tho other hand, ono of the most natural, and, at the samn timo, moat injurious consequences of itn having boon ao easily given, and for so long a noricd," is apparent in tho difficulty tho colonists discover in addressing themselves at onoo to tlio t«nk of aelf-defenco. It ia not bo imputed to thorn that thov havo Buffered any loss of nntivo •pint under tho protection of British troops, but in habits of ready organisation, in familiarity with military discipline, »nd in tho self-reliance which ia only to bo nnquirpd through independent notion, they aro unprepared to an extent which tempts tho prowess of tho Maoris, and threatens to prolong a oonfiiotthat can havo butono ultimate ro•alt.