CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 5, Issue 273, 2 June 1865, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

Wo shall always feel pleasure in affording space for the free discussion of all subjects affecting the prosperity and progress Of the province and colony, not endorsing any opinions expressed in this portion of our columns, and always reserving to ourselves the right to curtail’ any expression wanting in courtesy on the part of the writer. All communications must be accompanied by the name and address of the writer in confidence, amd as a guarantee of good faith. % Some delay having arisen from communications being! addressed to Hastlngs-street, it is requested that al. letters for the editor or proprietor, sent by post, be ad dressed " Hawke’s Bax Times Office, Eastern Spit” To the Editor of the Hawke's Bay Times. Sib, — Can you kindly inform me and the public of Hawke’s Bay when the General Assembly is likely to meet. If you can, you will greatly oblige, Your obedient servant, X-Y.Z. Devil’s Wood, June 1, 1865. [We are unable at present to give any accurate answerto our correspondent in the strange locality, but think that a New Zealand Gazette mav be expected by the next mail conveying the required information.— Ed.] 2b, the Editor oj 1 the Howleds Hoy THtnefs Si E,—Since my last letter to you, dated on the anniversary of Jier Majesty’s birthday, the Eng-' lish mail, or rather news, has again arrived. It does not, I observe, convey another order, which I had hoped it would for the removal of the othar five regiments not under orders. The debate oh the New Zealand war had, I perceive, come off in the House of Commons on the 10th March. A few of the statements made by some of the speakers are so awfully absurd “that with yonr leave I will mention one or two. Mr A. Mills is reported to have said“ The jo were few men more heroic than the Maoris, a dozen of whom would resist perhaps a couple of regiments of English troops.” Capital! Where in the world did the hon. gentleman get his information from ? Can he give any instance where a dozen natives resisted a couple of regiments of troops ? I doubt it. I advise him to hear and read more about New Zealand and its aboriginal inhabitants before he makes any more fallacious statements like the above ; or if needs be, take a trip to the colony and be present at a skirmish between the troops and the natives; then I have not the slightest doubt the Hon. A. Mills would go home with . more enlightened views on the bravery of the ruthless savages with whom the colonists of Now Zealand have to contend. The bravery of a Maori is like that of a tiger, when pursued he will run with might and main while he can, getting under cover if possible; if hemmed in, he will fight, and that with desperation, till death puts au end to his sufferings. Such is the bravery of the Maori. Does the hon. gentleman put such on a par witli the conduct in the field of British troops ? I trust not. Let him think over the matter deliberately, and perhaps he may see occasion to alter, or at any rate modify his foolish assertion. It would not do for him to say such at any public place or meeting in New Zealand. He -would be hissed and hooted to his heart’s content; and I have no doubt that if the good people of our dear native land were as well acquainted with the true nature of the case as we in this unfortunate colony are a similar reception would meet the ears of the pseudo-philanthropic M.P. Next follows Mr .Roebuck, who “vindicated the conduct of the original settlers, which in the interest of England and civilisation was, he said, wise, right, and just, and traced the existing war t o the sordid acts of those who supplied the natives with arms and the materials of war.” Then the hon. gentleman goes on to expose the hypocrisy of a certain set of of men in England, and concludes with the following sentence“ The course to be taken by the Imperial Government was to allow the colonists to do what they liked.” Very good, Mr Roebuck, I only wish all the members of the’British House of Commons thought as you do, and had the manliness to give vent to their feelings. A Mr Buxton next follows with a most ridiculous remark, viz.:—“ If our army were withdrawn the colonists would be compelled to treat the natives more fairly.” In the name of all that is good what does the fellow mean? Does ho mean to say that the colonists have been taking advantage of the natives because there were 10,000 British troops in the colony? If such is his meaning, in the name of the settlors of New Zealand I say it is falsehood from beginning to end, ' If any one questions it, let him turn:to the pages of (he colonial press, and single out a case where siere has

been an action between a native and a European in the Supreme or any other Court; then he will see for himself that zn'nine cases out of ten the former has gained the case, no matter how conclusive were the facts in favor of the latter. Does this look as if the natives were dealt unfairly with by the settlers ? I could mention individual cases but think it unnecessary. I only hope the Hon. Mr Buxton will in future ascertain the truth of what he says about the settlers of New Zealand before committing himself. Mr Adderly nex follows, condemning, the tone of Mr Roebuck, and approving ,of the placing of the colonial Governmeiit the duty of self-defence. This is just what we want.' The interference of the Imperial Government has in a great measure helped to prolong the present war.- Nejt on the list is Mr Marsh, who deprecates discussion-on the affairs of New Zealand, and defended the colonists from charges of having behaved to the natives. ' This gentleman has been in the colony and knows what sort of men the Maoris are.- How different the tone of his speech to that of Mr Buxton. Mr Cane was the next speaker, who disapproved of the policy advocated by Mr Roebuck, and thought that “ interference of the Home Government had been injurious, and approved of the present arrangement.” Lord A. Churchill hoped the local Government would try and raise the natives by giving them a share in the government. What a piece of unmitigated rubbish. Lord Stanley next follows in a very.common sense speech, “vindicating tha caloniats from the charges alleged against them, especially that the colonial population desired to keep up the war.” Lord Cecil, Mr W. E. Forster, and Mr Kinnaird all spoke for the Maori, and seemed greatly afraid that the native rights would suffer at the hands of the colonists of New Zealand. Mr Cardwell, who, in in a long speech aid there was room enough for both races to live in peace together in the colony, he defended the natives from the charges made against them by certain members in that bouse—of them being vindictive, cruel and faithless—and quoted an extract from . a private letter to the Governor from Colonel Greer, 68th regt., written after the affair of the Gate Pa, ■in which occurs the following : “ No thought of yielding possessed the natives ; they fouglit with desperation.” Yes, it is no doubt quite true. As I said before in this letter, when hemmed in, and have no visible way of escape, they can fight, and that with desperation ; and such was the case at the Gate Pa. Further on he says that if the troops did not attempt the subjugation of the native race, he did not think the colonists alone would have any ambition to make the effort. Won’t they though! Time will tell whether, if left to their own resources, the settlers will placidly put up with the humbug and’nonsense of the last eight or ten years, I might say the last twenty years. He concluded his harangue with saying that he believed that if we gradually withdraw our assistance and place the colony in a position of self-govern-ment, they would soon re-establish peaceful relations with the native race. lam sadly afraid that such, although a “ consummation devoutly to be wished,” will, never come to pass until the native race is .almost exterminated—until to see a Maori physdg %v ill be . a curiosity and, a treat. However, let uS hope for the best—“ While there’s life there’s hope.” The last speaker is a Colonel Syke’s, who expressed satisfaction at hearing that the troops were to bo placed under the control of the representatives of her Majesty’s Government, ami not under that of the local authorities. The' subject then d'roppqd. Such, then,, is the debate on the New Zealand war. What good has come of it ? None, at least that I cap see. I hope that something will soon be done,; for this state of affairs is intolerable !’. I am, Sir, f Yours very truly, ; ENGLISHMAN. Puketapu, June 1,1865.