THE GLOBE. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1880.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1860, 9 February 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1880.

Our evening contemporary has girt up its loins for a pro-Maori crusade, and is rapidly developing tendencies of an alarming character. Whether moved by the inspired utterances of Te Whiti, or struck by the sad spectacle of the noble savage overidden by a ruthless soldiery, it has devoted no less than three columns of its valuable space in endeavoring to prove that the course pursued by the present Government is of an immoral tendency, and that all true Christians should turn with loathing from the contemplation of a lino of conduct in which cupidity and heartlessness are the two motive powers. We will pass over the fact that during the duration in power of the late Government its feeble, attempts to grapple with the subject were always cheered to the echo by our contemporary. That of course might be expected. It shows a proper party spirit to applaud in one's own party what is described as villainous to the opposite party. At least that is the idea in many quarters. But we proceed to the extraordinary arguments by which the " Star" endeavours to prove the fact that the Government have no right whatever to treat the Waimate plains as confiscated territory. " In feudal times," we are told, " the proclamation of confiscation of any stronghold or estate was immediately followed by an entry—forcible if necessary, —and an occupation of the premises" (the kitchen and back offices included, we presume), " and they were held continuously by the power which based its title on the act of confiscation. If the castle, mansion or lands —as the case may be—was abandoned, then the original owner was free to take possession, and for all purposes the confiscation was abrogated." Had indeed this theory been acted upon in the old days, the current of history would have been a wonderfully smooth one, and the historian would have had but few complications to deal with. Unfortunately the pages of any nation's annals team with narratives showing that this wonderfully simple method of doin<>business was not looked upon with much favour. Did the later Crusaders abandon their claim on Jerusalem because their ancestors had been turned out of that placo by the Saracens ? Did the Venetians givo up all claims on Cyprus because thoy were turned out by the Turks? Certainly not. And so on ad infinitum. In those days it was tho strong man that lived in the house until a stronger man than him turned hiin out. There was no such theory on the rights of conquest as tho " Star " has developed out of its inner consciousness. And then Napoleon and the Franco-Prussian war are dragged into the argument, and we are told that the one seized Europe and gave up all claim to it afterwards because he could not hold it, and that the Prussians conquered Alsace and Lorraine and established their claim because they did hold it. But, in

point of fact, the same old spirit of tlie middle ages ran through both ttftje transactions. It was again the case of the strong man. If Napoleon had had the power, ho would not have given up his claim any more than the French nation at the present moment abandon their claim on Alsace and Lorraine because Germany has been in undisputed possession for ten years. As for the "Star's" argument re the Stuart family, it is simply too ridiculous, and cuts quite the other way. The Stuart family certainly never acknowledged that the right of possession gave a valid claim, for, as our contemporary observes, they fought long and obstinately to recover their own, and it was the mere fact that the House of Orange were stronger than they (the StuaiiH) were that prevented the latterreseizing England. Again, the Duke of Cumberland has not abandoned his right to the throne of Hanover, and, if ho were sufficiently powerful, would seize the kingdom tomorrow.

But in reality all this appeal to precedents is a farce. "v7e do not stand in relation to the Maori as the Frenchman, for instance, stands in relation to the German. The Maori has become, whether willingly or unwillingly, it is needless now to enquire, a British subject, and it is absolutely impossible for us to treat him in any other relation. According to the views of the majority of the Natives no doubt the Englishman has no right whatever on the shores of Now Zealand. He would bundle them bag and baggage into the sea. Even the Gloucester street organs would be treated in this ruthless fashion. It is no use mincing matters. The colonist cannot afford to adopt the views of the Maori on all points. He must treat the Maori according to the European code of justice. And in this confiscation question the principle is this. The land was not confiscated merely for the sake of occupation, for no doubt it might have been purchased ero this. But it was confiscated as a penalty, and in order to deter the Maoris from engaging in other wars. It was as a fine inflicted. The colony has not hitherto been able to inflict that fine, and it is only when the settlers have become overwhelmingly powerful and are under the guidance of a strong Government, that the power of the law is able to assert itself. The law that inflicted the fine has not died, it has merely been unable to carry out its sentence, and it takes the first opportunity of vindicating itself. Of course the Maoris object to the confiscation in toto. Naturally so. But are the principles that guide our legislation Maori or European ? If indeed they are the former, then we are altogether wrong in the confiscation business. But if the latter, we have every right to inflict such a penalty as has been done, and to seize the land, having of course due regard to the promises made to the Natives at the time. If the right to colonise an island such as New Zealand is once granted, it cannot be said that we have treated the Natives harshly. We have naturally not adopted the Maori habit of thought, but, on the whole, justice has been adhered to, and in many cases the utmost patience has been used. For the dominant and more intellectual race to pause in a perfectly justifiable transaction at the call of an idea adopted by th« savage and less intellectual race would be both astonishing and unproductive.