MR CROSBIE WARD'S PAMPHLET.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVIII, Issue 1892, 9 July 1863, Page 2

MR CROSBIE WARD'S PAMPHLET.

THIBD NOTICE.

Having refuted the two fundamental charges which Mr Ward found it was fashionable at Home to bring against this Colony, he proceeds to notice sume of the minor accusations wbich follow in the wake of the greater ones.

The two fundamental charges which Mr Ward has refuted, so honestly and legitimately that only those who are ignorant of the fact can attempt to reply, it will be recollected were

(1.) " That the colonists are responsible for the origin of the native disturbances in New Zealand.

(2.) "That the hostilities which began in th« year 1860, and in wbich a large force of Btitish troops have been employed, were commenced for the purpose of obtaining land for the benefit of the colonists."

The minor charges we will now consider seriatim, Bind with as much brevity as possible. Tlie first of them is a very popular but nevertheless a vulgar error. It is this — " That the troops quartered in the colony are maintained there for the protection of the settlers, and that in consequence of the settlers being unwilling to exert themselves in their own defence, the whole burden is thrown upon the mother country." The reply is, simply, that although the war was not begun to defend the settlers, but the Queen's prerogative, yet whenever necessity has arisen, the settlers have always been prepared to co-operate with the troops. " Some who have spoken of the (Taranaki) coloaists with a sneer (says Mr. Ward) may perhaps be surprised into a compliment when they learn that these settlers — the whole active male population of the province — flew to arms at the call, and fought side by side with the Queen's troops, not for the defence of their property or their families, but for the support of Her Majesty's authority. Compelled to abandon their homes in the country, to send their women and children away t« another province, to servein the field and in garrison along with but as subservient to the troops of the line, they behaved gallantly throughout, endured danger and hardship willingly, even after their whole property had been sacrificed, and spilled their blood freely with no prospect of better reward than to be turned adrift paupers into the wilderness when the war should end. I cannot resist the temptation to quote here the words of an independent eye-witness, Captain Cracroft, 11. N., who,beiugin command of Her Majesty's ship "Niger" throughout the war, distinguished himself by leading the. attack on the Wairekajaa, one of the few suc > cesses of the British arms during the campaign' In an address to a body of English volunteers^ after his return from the Colany, the newspa" pers report that —

" Captain Cracroft, R.N., said it had been his privilege to see volunteers brought into action on a late occasion in New Zealand, and when he said they were the first in the field, and the first to face the enemy, and lv.d shown the way to the Kegulars and the Militia, he felt he need say no more — that he could awaid them no higher praise. When called upon they were in their places, as those befote him would be should their hour of trial ever arrive. He (Captuiu Cracroft) had been brought side by side with the Volunteers in New Zealand, and had found as much. honour and bravery among them as among his own men, who regarded, them as brothers, and would have done any/ thing for them."

There is no necessity to add to Capt. Cracroft's testimony — it" would only be gilding gold — but there is evidence upou evidence to be found in official documents, proving that so far from the settlers being unwilling to defend themselves, their gr^at complaint is that they have been restrained from doing so. When there has beea work to do the settlers have been ready to do it, and they have most earnestly protested against being kept in barracks when there was work to be done in the field. They may have and still do object to be drawn from their occupations for purposes of mere parade and dumb show, but it is a libel on the colonists to accuse them of being unwilling to defend their own. They have fretted and chafed because they were compelled to stand still and see their property destroyed; but they have never objected to take up arms in defence of interests either of the Queen's or their own.

But we should do Mr Ward great injustice if we did not quote his own eloquent defence of the maligned settlers of this Colony. The quotation is somewhat long, but it is one in which every reader must feel a deep personal interest

" It is absolutely true not only that the New Zealand war was not for the defence or the special benefit of the settlers, but that it converted the settlement where it was carried on into a battle-field held by the enemy ; and brought upon the colonists, who for twenty years bad been struggling to build up tbeir fortunes there, the total destruction of tkeir hard-earned property. Whatever annoyance might hare been anticipated from the lawless character of individual natives, it is certain that nothing short of the declaration of war could have brought such a catastrophe as this upon the settlement Nor can it be urged that the colonists of Taranaki entered upou the war without foreseeing its consequences. Before its declaration, but excepting it, they had already removed their families fiora the country to the town ; and when they applauded and supported with all their vigour Governor Browne's attempt to maintain the Queen's sovereignty, they had already made up their minds to the coming sacrifice. Three weeks before the first shot was fired the settlers bad left their homes, and presented themselves for enrolment as militia and volunteers.

" In Auckland the settlsrs were charged with tke eutire defence of the towu and settlement. They mustered in great strength, and were quickly available for active service in the field. But throughout the campaign, though the war raged in a neighbouring province, and the ranks of the rebels were leciuited from the borders of Aucklund, the citizen forces were uever called upon to strike a single blow. With remarkable forbearance, the insurgents, savages though they were, and engaged in a bloody and desperate struggle with the .Government,

*The two previous notices of Mr Orosbio Ward's. "Letter to Lord Lyttelton on the relations of Great Britain with the colonists and aborigines of New Zealand" reprinted from the Wellington Independent of th« 2nd and 4th July, will be foucd ia tho eupplemeat . :

left unhurt the persons and property even of the out-lying settlers who were all the time completely at their mercy. Only in Taranaki, the authorised battle-field, where martial law (the ' law of fighting ' as it was translated to them) had been proclaimed, did the natives think themselves privileged to kill. " The settlements of Napier, Wellington, and Wanganui, on (he eastern and southern shores, of the North Island, were similarly exposed to danger, similarly defended, and in the same manner left unattacked. Though it would have been madness to calculate on such immunity, yet the result proves the truth of the feeling often expressed by the natives that their hostility was against the Government and nut against the settlers. Even the most savage and dastardly of the tribes shewed this feeling [See among other passages Part. Papers, March 1861. p. 14.] " As soon as the pressure of probable danger ceased, the movement for self-defence naturally lapsed into that state which it has assumed ia other countries under similar conditions Its vitality would be aroused at the first note of warning, and in real danger it would resume at least its first appearance of vigour. But a whole population in a colony, as elsewhere, cannot always remain under arms. Thesmallness of their numbers, and the difficulty of mustering any force of consequence at a central point, hinder their general employment as an offensive force. Readiness on the part of the New Zealand colonists to enrol and train themselves cannot be questioned. And with the case of Taranaki as evidence, their willingness and ability to fight even for other purposes than self-defence is well-established. It is absurd therefore to assert that the settlers wish to shirk the duty of defending themselves. " So far from the settlers demanding the help of the British troops for their purposes, it is the fact that they gave their assistance to the Imperial Government in the furtherance of its objects. And, the Government, having got their help, would not let it go. Their houses migkt burn, their families might starve or go into exile, all they were worth in the world might be swept away before their eyes ; but they were soldiers of the Crown and might not stir. They were not permitted to take measures for defending their property ; they were prevented from disposing of the produce of their lands while it was still removable ; and down to the date of th c latest news from the colony, they hare even been forbidden to go upon their own lands, for fear of embarrassing the Imperial military policy ! By which side then is a debt due to the other for assistance rendered during the war ?"

Mr Ward thinks tbe question may not unnatural lyjbe asked " why then are the troops kept in the Colony, since now tbe war is over " and with the voice of a prophet he replies that the war is not over. It was in London, last April, that he wrote as follows . —

"Thel war begun in 1863 is not yet ended. The piactical result of tbe first campaign is that tbe rebels took possession of the lands of the Crown and the settlers, and still hold them. Even supposing that it is not thought convenient to punish . tbe rebels, the Imperial Government at least knows that they cannot be permitted to maintain a claim to possession by conquest of part of her Majesty's dominions. As it has been put in tbe colony — if the war were for the assertion of her Majesty's sovereignty, it has weakened her au* tboriiy : if it were for tbe acquisition of land, land has instead been surrendered. The war will not be at an end till the obviout lose sustained in both these respects shall hare been retrieved. The Ngatiruanui tribe hold the district of Tataraimaka, in the province of Taranaki, by right, as they say, of conquest from the Crown, effected iv 1860. It is impossible that the Imperial Government can allow this to continue until the natives die off the land. And though the Governor may devise means for recovering tbe territory without appealing to arms, the greater probability is that the force which must be employed in some shape for ejecting the rebel occupants will light up the flame of war afresh throughout the island. While I write, the problem is very probably in course of solution ; solved it must be sooner or later; and if the result should prove to be a recourse to arms on both sides, it must not be called a fresh war, but a renewal and direct consequence of tbe former. These are the reasons why a foice is quartered and maintained io the colony." , The next charge against tbe colonists which Mr Ward notices is more than a mere epidemical one ; it is the stock argument always ready for use as a clincher when the others have been upset. It is " That a state of war is encouraged for the sake of commissariat advantages, and that all the while war is carried on at the expense of the Imperial Government, it will be constantly recurring-" Mr Ward has up to this moment kept his temper. He has argued the various points with remarkable calmness. Btmembering that be has for years been mixed up with party politics as a member of the legislature and an editor of a newspaper, it is sin* gular also to see how entirely be divests himself of every other ■ character but that of a colonist. To do so is must difficult ; bias generally will appear, however much it may be struggled against. Now bis calmness temporarily forsake* him. He has been getting a little warm while rebutting the charge of indifference, and now that tbe settlers are accused of desiring a chronic state of warfare he becomes indignant ; yet says he " will not speak with the indignation it deserves." To be told such things he afterwards says is to be " grossly insulted," and regrets that no milder phrase will convey his meaning. We know that there are individuals who rejoice at war for the sake of gain. There are some in this Colony who do not care a fig for anyone's interest but their own, and while war benefits these, they will rejoice at its coming. But is not this the case everywhere, and it would be about as just to accuse the whole of the English nation of caring for nothing else than their own pockets, because a war with America would give an impetus to the business transactions of Birmingham. Mr. Ward points out one fact which clears tb« colonists from such a cbarge ; a fact which has often been insisted on in our columns for other purposes, viz, — that the war party was the party of the Southern Island, who did ut*fc share in the expenditure ; while it was opposed by the representatives of three out of the four provinces who did. " Whoever utters such a charge against the people of New Zealand (says Mr Ward), shows not only a want or cfescity towards tbe absent, but an ignoiauoe of plain facts. The war I have shown was warmly supported by the New Plymouth colonists who had everything to lose by it, and who undertook to lose all, even life itself. It was also strongly approved of, from its cominenqement to the present time, by tbe great majority of the settlers in the Middle Island, who had nothing to gain by land purchases, and derived as little benefit from commissariat expenditure in the north as if they had been in Austialia. The settlers of Auckland, Wellington, and Napier, to whom alone it could be imputed that they profited by a war which did not touch themselves, furnished the whole strengn of what was called the " peace party," which vehemently job* posed Governor Browne's fighting policy. lv, the foremost ranks of this party were the lead-, ing members of the commercial class. Those,, therefore, against whom a primd, facie ebarge might perhaps be said to lie are an insignificant minority." :

There is much more that would claim our notice, had we not already devoted so large a spucft to the consideration of thia pampfiltk

There are other points on which Mr Ward defends the colony from the injustice sought to be done it bj public opinion at home. That home public opinon will materially influence the conduct of the Colonial Office in its treatment of the colony, and if Mr Ward's pamphlet has succeeded in gaining the ear of any who direct the mind of the English public, vaulable service will have been rendered. We do not profess to agree with all that Mr Ward hos written, but its scope is so truthful, so free from onesidedness, so devoid of political partisanship, and so likely to remove misconception, that we should be wanting in ordinary courtesy if we did not unequivocally express our hearty satisfaction With the defence Mr Ward has put forward on behalf of the colonists of New Zaaland.