THE NEW ZEALAND AUTH0RITIES. [From the "Watchman," August 11.] Auckland, New Zealand, April 8, 1851.

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 603, 24 January 1852, Page 3

THE NEW ZEALAND AUTHORITIES. [From the " Watchman," August 11.] Auckland, New Zealand, April 8, 1851.

Strs, —ln your number of October IG, 1850, ■which lias just reached u% L find two extracts relating to New Zealand. I could not but feel sorry on reading them lhat such statements had obtained circulation through your respectable and Influential journal. The first extract is from the New Zealand Guardian of April 19, 1850, charging the Government with "making purchases of land from the natives, and afterwards refusing to pay for them;" and giving in illustration and proof a letter from the native chief, Jabcz limiting. _ I feel sorry that Jabcz allowed himself to be influenced by those who are opposed to the Governor's general policy. I do not wish to reflect on him, for I fear he was prompted to the course he adopted by some who are small friends of his excellency. I suppose it is true that considerable delay took place in settling about the lands in question, Taut the fact is, it is extremely difficult to deal -with.natives about theiv lands. Tlie claimants are so numerous, and their claims apparently so equal, that Government is obliged to delay a final settlement, in ordei, if possible, to ascertain who are the real owners. And then, when final decisions are given, as in all *euch cases, the unsuccessful claimants are dissatisfied. I firmly believe that Sir George Grrev, tlie Sux~veyov-Qerxerol> and. tli« resident Magistrate are all friends of the natives, and all disposed to do them justice so far as they are able to ascertain the real merits of a ease. I have had opportunities of observing, and •write confidently on the subject; and I feel no hesita« tion in saying that, to charge the Government with making purchases and then refusing to pay is unjust, when, the real state of the case is, that they know not who to pay when two tribes so confidently claim the lands for sale. In reference to the lands about which Jabez wrote, there has been, and still is, gieat difficulty; both parties press their claims with equal earnestness and firmness, and the two tribes have been at variance on j the subject for the last four or five years, and even have fought and killed each other. The writer of the article on New Plymouth seems to reflect on Sir George because he did not take the two regiments he had at his disposal, and force the natives to obedience at the point of the bayonet. It is very easy to flourish away in this style, but would it have been easy to allay the excitement, and remedy the mischief that would have inevitably resulted from such a course ? I believe not. Kegiinents of soldiers would certainly have increased the difficulties, and might liave been ruinous to colonization in that part of the country. The two regiments might not have >been able to contend with the New Zealanders in their native fastnessess: we certainly had sufficient proof of this in the Northern war. But, if our troops were really able to meet the natives in the bush, what pleasure could have resulted from shedding their blood, and cutting them off? The great mischief in reference to "New Plymouth was the first purchase by the New Zealand Company. The lands were bought by the agents of the Company of chiefs, whose claims were but partial. Many others claimed the same land, and •when they heard of the sale, asserted their claims \ liere commenced the difficulty, and to get all parties satisfied has been a puzzle; but is it fair to throw the blame on Sir George? That the natives have not behaved with much generosity is acknowledged; but that Sir George ought to have made war upon them is by no means clear. I think that patience and forbeai*ance was tlie course dictated by prudence, and the safest for the country generally. In fact, I consider that the present quiet, and settled, and prosperous state of the colony is to be attributed to the forbearance the Government has displayed towards refractory and unreasonable tribes. And I believe that, from the commencement, the colony would have been governed better without soldiers than with them. So far as we are concerned as a Missionary body, Sir George has a strong claim on our gratitude. In all matters affecting the people of our charge, we have invariably found him ready to help us, and to forward our wishes as far as he couM. In the department of Education, we have received very important aid both in the way of funds and counsels from the Government under his administration. We have now a most flourishing and promising school, about four miles from this pluce, where 150 natives are fed, clothed, and educated, which we could not have established but by the aid we have received from the Government. Other Missionary bodies have received similar assistance. Sir Geoi'ge has ever proved himself a friend of the Aborigines, and a supporter of Christian Missions. And I, therefore, deemed these remarks on the extracts referred to due from us, as I should greatly regret even the appearance of censure in any Wesleyan publication on one who, for many public reasons, has a claim on our gratitude. I am, sirs, your's truly, Thomas Buddlb.