BRITISH BLINDNESS.

Wellington Independent, Volume XIX, Issue 2115, 13 October 1864, Page 3

BRITISH BLINDNESS.

(Independent, October 1.) ' If we remember rightly Carlyle somewhere says " England contains twenty millions of j inhabitants — mostly fools." Just now, it ia difh'eult for any one here, to consider the assertion too sweeping. Never nas the British public " written itself down an Ass" in larger characters than it has done of late in reference to the war in New Zealand. The minority of sense has been completely swamped j by the majority of folly, and lame meanness j mounted upon the back of blind ignorance has guided the nation into paths, which in colonial estimation, are as dirty as they are crooked. For a time, public oi>inion at home was in favor of a vigorous prosecution of the war. The sympathies of all classes had been excited in favor of their distant fellow countrymen, who, it was evident, were exposed to considerable danger. They knew that Taranaki had be^ n laid waste by the Maoris ; they knew, that both in that Province and in that of Auckland murders had been committed, and though they grumbled at the expense, they made no more objection to sending out an army to restore order, than they would to sending a division of the London police to quell a riot in Hyde Park. With the sole object of making this the last of " England's little wars" in this country, tho Colony determined to exact "material gurantees" for peace. "The Confiscation Act" as it is commonly called, passed by the Colonial Parliament, received the willing assent of Sir George Grey himself, — the friend of the natives, the beloved of Exeter Hall, the greatest of the '* real original Maori sympathisers.', That act assented to with many misgivings by the Imperial Government, was found to have exactly the effect anticipated by the Colony. It did not exasperate the natives, it did not tempt the settlers to pick a quarrel with the Maoris, in order to get their lands, it did not hinder any conquei-ed tribe from accepting our terms of peace. In short, there has never been the slightest ground for supposing that the confiscation scheme tended either to cause war, or to prolong it. Whatever theoretical arguments might be urged against confiscation, experience had decided in its favor. War, however, continued. Barbarism had been too long accustomed to coaxing to submit readily to coercion. Pride, rather than reason, prevents the Maoris from tendering their allegiance in. a body. Pride, however, is proverbially likely to be pinched, and so it was in this instance. There were many signs that the best of the natives were becoming tired of playing a losing game. There was disunion amongst themselves. The leaders of the King movement - some of whom it is certain, were actuated by motives of patriotism which we must all admire — found Government by no means so easy a task as they imagined. They had raised spirits which they could not lay, and their dream of nationality wa3 becoming evidently incapable of realisation. In short it was clear to every one in the Colony that with the forces at our disposal, we might hope shortly to establish the Queen's supremacy throughout the length and breadth of the land. Tho snake was " scotched," and a few more blows would have killed it. Just at this time we met with that unfortunate reverse at Tauranga; of that affair the loss said the better. Terrible as was our loss on that occasion, it did not inspire the natives with any unusual amount of confidence in their superiority over British troops. Neither did it prove that any portion of the army was "demoralised." Subsequent success, and (he subjugation of "Tauranga, were a sufficient answer to those who doubted either the courage or the disiplino of the men, of whom England may well be proud. In fact our defeat at Tauranga did not alter a single item in the account between ourselves and the Mother country. We owed her loyalty; she owed us protection, at least to some extent. The obligation had been acknowledged on both sides, the whole country was on a war footing, and at Auckland and Taranaki every man was a soldier. The resources of the country were strained to the utmost, we had actually raised an army in the Australian colonies, and we were prepared to incur a heavy debt in order to carry out plans which would for ever relieve the Imperial Government of all expenses connected with the native race. Relying upon the good feeling and good sense of tho Home public, we anticipated that they would not at any rate offer any opposition to the vigomis prosecution of the war, till the object for which it was undertaken was effected. That this object — the establishment of law and order— the assertion of the Queen's supremacy — could be effected, experience had shown ; that it was a desirable object, was admitted ; that it could only be attained by the continuance of the war, was certain, and. had been virtually acknowledged by all those who at Home had pronounced this a just war. However, no sooner did the news of the defeat at Tauranga reach England than the public was furious. With the natives ? — who killed the officers and men whose loss " caused so much sorrow and anxiety" throughout England, as it had before done here P — no; but with the colonists. How was this P The explanation is very simple and by no means creditable to the press and people of England. Just as an angry nurse scolds master Tommy notbecause he has done wrong, but because he has given her " such a turn," so did the British public scold the colonists because their own feelings were painfully agitated by the recent news. There was neither reason nor justice, but a great deal of stupid prejudice, in all that was said against us. We hear a great deal about the fairness of men, who either form, or live under, an aristocratic go- < yernment. Englishmen are fond of contrast- : ing themselves with Americans, and the Times is never tired of pointing out that Democracy is naturally and essentially selfish, '. ignorant, and unjust ; as violent as the wind, i as unstable as water. In our own caso we i have found it otherwise ; democratic Aus- < tralia has contrasted very favorably with 1 aristocratic England, in the judgment she ] has passed upon our conduct, and in the ] liberal manner in which she lias helped us in 1

our time of need. A great social critic, Matthew Arnold, lately spoke of the " selfsatisfied" middle class of England always trying to "impose itself with its stock of habitudes, pettinesses, narrownesses, shortcomings of every kind, on the rest of the world as a conquering power." The description is not flattering, but so far as it applies, it points to a source of real danger. To us lit seem i applicable, not only to one par- , tieular class, but to a considerable number of individuals • belonging to all classes. Such ! people are what the Americans call " Bri- ) tishers," and it is the " Britisher" that is to blame both for the outcry that has been raised against us and for its effects, which are likely to be serious enough*. In the House of Lorda, in the House of Commons, and through the press, the " Britisher" continued to ring the changes upon the old cry, that the i war was a war for land. The men of " Business and Bethels" canted and counted the cost at the same time. The war was pronounced "unholy and unjust" chiefly because it was expensive. Mr Roebuck, whose I speech on the New Zealand Loan Bill was I intended to remind the House that the luxury of having had native pets for twenty years must bo paid for, was taken to task by Mr Cobden for saying in plain Englsh what he himself more than hinted at when he observed " what is the issue ? everybody knows what it means ; it is to take possession of the land of the Maoris," * * but what interest have the English people in that "? It was clear that the honorable gentlemen had no objection to the extermination of the natives in the abstract, when he asked Mr Roebuck "whether ho would do it by strychnine," only he objected to the cost of the poison. Other members followed in the samo strain, and the Times, which had admitted the neces.sityof putting down the rebellion and the justice of assisting us in every way, suddenly found out that " Wo are invited to make these sacrifices of life and of money, for no purpose of civilization or humanity, but simply for the extermination of a brave and warlike race," which race it had no objection to see exterminated by the colonists. " Why not let destiny take* its course unaided," says the Times. As the organ of the " Britisher" the Times seems to have taken a lesson fromMacbeth, slightly altering the reading, " If it were done when 'tis done, then 't were well it were done cheaply," and certainly learnt its part admirably, and found as usual '• some meet oblivions antidote" for former opinions. But as we said before, we blame tho " Britisher" for all this, which, be it remembered, has inflicted upon the Colony a very serious injury. It is owing to his invcterato habit of depreciating others in order to exalt himself, and his inability to look at any question apart from his own likings and dislikings, that so strong a prejudice against tho colonists has grown up in England. Wo are convincod that if a great body of our fellow-countrymen knew all the facts of the case, they would not have acted as they havo done. The meanness of the few would have been harmless, but for the ignorance of the many. It is however to be regretted that persons competent to form an opinion should be so careless about the facts of the case. Mr Whalley was laughed at for '"'his pursuit of the Jesuit" into " the forests of New Zealand," but Mr Cobden's cruel and greedy colonist is at least as mythical. Of course the settlers want land just as Mr Cobden and his friends at Rochdale want land. But there is a great difference between the theoretical assertion of a right, and its practical enforcement. Apart from all theory, if the home public had endeavored to jxidge our case on its merits, they would have found that the statements made in our favor by Lord Palnierston, Mr Cardwell, Mr Gladstone Mr Fortcscue, and others, wero substantially correct. Whatever may be the opinions of the colonists as to the abstract rights of the natives, it is certain that not a single acre of land has ever been taken from them, or cvenoccupied, without their consent, unless they have been in open rebellion. At the present moment the lands of the natives in this province and in Hawko's Bay are at least as safe as those of the Europeans. For years the natives have been, in receipt of considerable sums of money paid to them as rent bj r the settlers. In Hawke's Bay alone these rents amount to at least £16,000 a year. Every tree growing on native land is as much the property of the Maori holder as an- oak growing in a nobleman's park in England, and if a settler wants timber, he must make the best bargain he can with the Maori owner, if perhaps the only clump af trees for miles around. On the other hand they refuse to allow us to make a mile of road except on our own land. They have stopped our mails for years and set law at defiance, and whenever it pleases them threaten, to attack a settlement, or go out for a few days settler shooting at Auckland or Taranaki. Knowing all this — knowing that from the foundation of the Colony it lias been tho victim of experiments whose effects have remained long after the theories they were meant to establish were abandoned — colonists find it dillicult to refrain from expressing 'the bitterest contempt for the opinions of men who to excuse their own meanness declare their fellow countrymen to be robbers and murderers, cowards and scoundrels. Were we not convinced that the British public will at last find that it has made a fool of itself, as it often does when it gives way to its impulses, we should consider that England had indeed become " a nation ofshop-keepers."