MR. ADDERLEY ON THE COLONIES.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 113, 8 May 1863, Page 3

MR. ADDERLEY ON THE COLONIES.

lx gives us pleasure to insert tho following remarks on Mr. Adderley’s letter on which we recently commented—from the Taranaki Herald of the 11th inst. Tho views hero expressed require to bo more widely known in the mother country, and the settlers taking a leaf out of the Philo Maori party’s book, should forward copies of such article to their friends at home, tho editors of the English press:— No reasonable man will deny that the relation subsisting between this country and England is eminently unsatisfactory in some respects. It is grievous tojdro English tax-payer to have to pay for wars whose direct object is solely for our good; and it is no less grievous to us to have to bear tho consequences which English mis-rule has produced, and out of whiclTthose w;ars arose. Neither party, therefore, can really desire to see the present system longer continued, so soon as an equitable arrangement for the future has been come to, and the only difficulty probably—and that not a very great one—will be as to the settling of accounts. Concerning this, one thing may be mentioned hero. When we are told that England has spent so much money in helping us to keep ‘our Maories’ in order, it should be remembered that at least nine-tenths, and probably a very much larger proportion, of the whole sum expended during the war here, was absolute and unmitigated waste. Apart from the question as to which party was responsible for the state of the country that made war necessary —assuming that it was undertaken for the good of the colony, and (which is not true) at the colonists’ request—what was it tho colonists asked for? Not certainly to have an enormous sum of money squandered without return, and tons of lead shot harmlessly away, leaving tho natives as lawless after tho war as they were before it—hut to have Maori anarchy finally suppressed. England has more expensive luxuries than colonies which will not take care of themselves —incompetent officers—and this fact should be considered-before the whole of the bill is laid to our charge.

The contrast drawn between the old colonist of “the classic age of English colonization when he went forth in absolute freedom with all the rights and obligations of complete citizenship” and the modern settler is well worth looking at, though there are some important features of the case omitted which are necessary to make the picture true ;■—

Thus we find the Englishman of the American colonies never dreamt for a moment of claiming contributions from England towards the internal requirements of his province. He made his own roads, and his own forts and harbors, and built and endowed churches and schools, and converted the heathen and chased the savage without asking for a sixpence from his Majesty’s Exchequer. Nay, the self-reliance on which he prided himself went further than this, when his “Declaration of Eights,” soon after the Ecstoration, asserted that the Provincial Governments were entitled by every means, even by force of arms, to defend themselves, both by sea and land, against all who should attempt injury to the provinces or their inhabitants.” At this day our colonics assert their rights to English protection as their first resort even against their native populations. New Zealand, after 40 years settlement, (sic) has proved itself incompetent, with the aid of British troops, to deal with us Maories: whereas Connecticut, within a year of its birth, when it could barely muster 100 men, attacked the entire Pequod tribe, under its famous chief Sassacus, burnt its principle fortress, and broke its power so utterly that from that hour, says’the historian of New England, “Conecticut was secure,” and “the land had rest 40 years.” When the Indian tribes at a later date confederated against our American colonics, they in their turn formed a defensive combination, and in every war after 1643 each colony furnished its stipulated quota of men, money, and provisions, at a rate proportioned to its population ; and, let it be added, these sufficed. The colonists did not dream of looking for aid from England; there was not a single English soldier to form a “miclus” for their forces, nor was the mother country within many months’ hail of their necessities. They would all have been massacred long before England could have heard of their extremity but for their own self-reliance, courage, and promptitude; and thus in their very cradle they strangled assailants, for protection against which the Cape and New Zealand habitually invoke the aid of their British nurses long after they have themselves reached a vigorous maturity. In fact, it was one of the complaints of the Crown against then in tho'days of Charles the Second that they manifested a “seditious obstinacy in refusing to solicit assistance from their King,” and their charters were all but revoked for an alacrity in defending themselves against native enemies—an alacrity which our present colonists, under every encouragement, are so indisposed at this day to emulate. The picture of 100 Connecticut settlers ‘attacking and subduing the whole Pequod tribe, whereby the land had rest 40 years,’ is no doubt a pleasanter one than the Cape colonist or New Zealander asking for help against an enemy numerically equal or inferior, assuming that to be the case; but the contrast is not really so discreditable to tlie modern colonist, at least in New Zealand, as it at first sight appears. When the settler arrived hero lie found, not that he was encouraged to defend himself against (he Maories, but that England’s greatest care was to defend the Waorics against him, and actually to prevent him from redressing his wrongs when the Maories wore the aggressors. The self-reliant virtues now so much landed were discouraged in every way, and it is hardly fair in our teacher now (o blame us for learning the lesson she herself taught. There is no doubt that if from the first the settlors had known that they must rely upon themselves alone for the assertion of their rights and the defence of themselves and their property, the prosperity of the colony, if not very much greater, would have rested on a much surer basis than it is on at present, or is likely to be on for some time to come. We should have had to such absurdity as the Treaty ofWaitangi, binding one party and leaving the other free. The semblance of authority would have been paraded where the reality did uot exist. War, if it had occurred, would have been conducted by men whose interest and business it was to a successful issue, and instead of being enormously expensive, would have been made self-supporting, by making those who provoked it pay for it in land. Aud not only would the colony have gained in material prosperity, but in moral tone also, because instead of having to spend a large part of their time and energy in criticising and exposing the unfortunate men who are deputed to do what they are not fit for and never can do, the colonists would have been doing the work themselves. This is a question which iiaving been raised in England will not be allowed to rest until it is answered and the best thing will be that New Zealand, seeing the necessity of the case, should supply the answer herself. Speaking of Mr. Adderly, the reviewer says : It is a friend of the colonies who recommends them to fulfil their positive obligations. It is one who has toiled for colonial reform, who tells them that fiscal independence is its corollary. It is he who assures them that even against foreign enemies they should m the first instance rely upon themselves; and quotes the opinion of another of their constant friends, if not one of themselves, the late Under-Sccrctary for War, Mr. John Eobort Godley, to the effect that this would bo certainly to their own advantage. “It would bo better foe them," said the colonist official, “to arm and train their own people, the main object being to throw upon them the habit and responsibility of self defence ; it is a secondary object to diminish Imperial expenditure.” With the colonies, however, even this secondary object should have weight, for it is important for them to remove the growing irritation which this class of expenditure is exciting in the mother country.

It is by all moans desirable that tbe cause of this ‘growing irritation should be removed. We have tried the old system long enough, and have got neither pleasure nor profit from it. It has spoiled the Maories, enervated the settlers, ruined one Province, and made the whole of this island insecure, and wc need not expect better things while it endures.