PRECEPT versus EXAMPLE.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 95, 6 March 1863, Page 3

PRECEPT versus EXAMPLE.

To the Editor of the Hawke's Bay Thr.es. Sir, —It will be remembered that some of the “Maori-missionary party” in the General Assembly, during the last session, declaimed hotly and strongly on the injustice, as they chose to term it, of our buying Maori land at a low price, and selling it (with a title that is supposed to be much more valuable than that derivable from the tomahawk and spear) at a higher rate. Even J. E. FitzGerald, Esq., with that shortsightedness which so often characterises theoretical genius, harped freely on this point in that splendid oration, Ity which he sought to secure the post of “greatest” of all the Maori doctors, and charged us, the colonists of the Northern Island, with avariciousness and sundry other vices, because we fancy that the land revenue, derived as it is in reality from our labour and capital engaged in colonising operations, (without which the marketable value of large tracts of country would be absolutely nothing), ought to be expended on works of public utility ; Mr. Fitz Gerald and his conterers on the contrary asserting the “ right” of the aboriginal residents to all the advantages of our labor and capital in the shape of a full market price for the unoccupied lands, the Crown title, costs of survey and management, building of bridges, and all other necessary works for the public welfare, being all (and exclusively) contributed by the colonists. MV. Moorhouse, (then Superintendent of Canterbury) seconded his predecessor (Mr. FitzGerald/s efforts, and endorsed many of his opinions. ‘Other Canterbury members did the same. As example carries more weight than precept, it may be desirable to enquire what Canterbury does to carry out the views of her leading men. From late papers we learn that the Canterbury Land Revenue is-s.ome-what enormous, to be estimated by £IOO,OOO a year, or something more. As, according to the doctrine advocated by Messrs. FitzGerald and Moorhouse, this sum is all the rightful property of the Maori, and is only withheld from them by fraudulence and avariciousness; it might reasonably be expected that the Canterbury Provincial Council would practise what their leaders preach, and in some way acknowledge that this large sum was received and held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the aborigines. What is just and equitable in the North Island is surely equally so in the Middle one. But somehow the Canterbury people appear to have forgot this, as they vote .£30,000 for this, and £50,000 for the' other, quite unmindful of the “rights” ofAbeilr. brown-skinned neighbor. The mon'ey’that ought to be expended J iu providing carnages, palaces, and servants, for the “ Maori owners of the soilis spent in roads, bridges, railways, and last, but far from least’ important, salaries ; their model Superintendent finding £I,OOO a year and a “ Government House” rent free, scarcely enough for his necessities. How is this ? Can it be an oversight on the part of the Canterbury people ? Ur is it because what is avarice and fraud North of Cook's Strait is legitimate appropriation South of it ? To my mind, the Maories of the Middle Island have stronger claims on us than those of the North. They were weak and few in number, but that weakness only increases their claim (no philanthropist would fail to recognize this fact): they were ignorant, but the educated and intelligent set--

tiers of Canterbury should be the last community to profit by that ignorance. The immense grassy plains of Canterbury were acquired for what we might appropriately term “an old song.” Where we in this island have paid pounds and shillings for land, in Canterbury it was acquired for farthings. While the Ngaetahu in the Middle Island have been peaceable and friendly to the Colonists and the Government, need I state how different has been the conduct of many of the tribes of this island ? Who have received most benefits from the whites ? Who have been most troublesome ? Who is it that bullied one Governor, insulted another, and over-reached a third ? Who have righted their (imaginary) wrongs by the strong arm, and obstructed the opening up of the country. Any Hawke's Bay Settler can answer these questions for himself. At any. rate the Ngaetahu cannot be charged with these and sundry other “ innocent” freaks, all demonstrating that the Maori lords, having obtained a sufficient number of pakeha tillers of the ground and keepers of sheep, desire to check their increase? lest' they should become like the Hebrews in Egypt, too numerous and too strong tor their masters. Of the .£50,000 which'Governor Grey has to squander among the Maories, Waikato and Ngatikahungunu will doubtless obtain the Lion’s and Jackall’s shares ; Ngaetahu of Canterbury may get a <£‘so or £IOO a year among them. Yet this is a system which its admirers have the hardihood, the audacity, to cry up as a system founded on justice and equity ! Might we not exclaim with one of our poets, “ Powers Eternal, such names commingled.” Justice and Equity forsooth ! Bather say mean abject cowardice, and truculency. “ To those who levy black mail most freely and most successfully, let more direct tribute be paid,” is the practice of Governor Grey and his ministers, but to pay still more directly and indirectly, to those who hold the most “ remunerative” districts in the Colony is the “ improved policy” of Messrs. Fitz Gerald & Co.

The land which was absolutely valueless before the Europeans arrived, is now productive, roads have been made and bridges built, a market has been brought to the door of the district; our right to make roads, not merely the right held under the sovereignty, but specially acknowledged and conveyed in the deeds of purchase of the acquired blocks, has been frequently denied and obstructed by force, or what amounts to the same thing, by “ threats of violenceyet to the people who do the like must we, according to the Fitz Gerald theory, give improved titles'as well as all the benefits of our improvements, free of cost to the recipients, the Maori owne;s (so-called) of the soil. May we not ask the Canterbury men to show us the example. Yours, &c., A Saxon'. 28th Feb., 1803.