THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE’S DESPATCH, 26TH MAY, 1862.

New Zealander, Volume XVIII, Issue 1721, 6 September 1862, Page 4

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE’S DESPATCH, 26TH MAY, 1862.

To the Editor of the Ni*w-Zealaxdeh. “It is for the Colonists thW *ves to provide such a Military Police Force vis will protect their outsettlers. “ If it is not worth while to the Colony to furnish such protection, it would seem to follow that it is not worth while to retain those out-settlements.” Sir, —What does His Grace mean by not retaining those out-settlements? We purchased our lands upon the faith of the integrity of the British Government in securing us in the peaceful possession of onr homes; and if we are only to have that protection when it is not required, and to be deserted to the tender mercies of others in times of danger, this is not like the tender care of a mother to her offspring. I look upon myself as much a part of the British dominions as if ray farm were in Middlesex, Cornwall, or Devonshire: and I feel myself as much a loyal subject of Queen Victoria as if I were within sound of Her Majesty’s voice; and, as such, I hope for the same protection. But when we are coolly told, or it is hinted at, that it may not be worth while to retain the out-settlements, it savours very much of the heartless politician. Would His Grace write the same of the town of Nottingham, and a large military force was required for its protection—would he consider that it might he worth while not In retain it? Bid His Grace's father do the same when Clumber was destroyed by the rabble?—did he not proceed against the Hundred for compensation? We hold our tenure on the faith of the British Government protection; and if we have not that protection when we require it, it is as much an act of repudiation as ever was committed by the Yankees. Why, even the Saturday Review , when speaking of the Queen’s subjects in the United States, writes thus: “ The protection of the Queen’s subjects from personal wrong is a duty in which the Government has no choice.”— Saturday Review, 2nd March, ISC2, Article, England and America. * And here the case is much stronger, for we are in a British Colony, and have paid British money for our lands, and have Crown grants for the same, signed hj the Representative of the Queen. Can there then be such a question raised as the possibility ol its not being desirable to retain the out-settlements, as they are termed? If we had even undertaken some position, where in expectation of very large profits, we naturally took upon ourselves large risk also, there might be more show of justice in such remarks. But this is far from being the case. We have settled in a connin' under British rule, at least so we expected; and settled on land surveyed, sold, and peaceable protection guaranteed by the British Government, and such protection we must * have, or the British Government are no honest to us. Are the Colonies of no use to t mother-country? Docs not the Emigration to this country relieve the population at home? Does not me population in the Colonies form a new outlet for Bntr onterpriic? If so, we are worth the money it costs 10 protection; and if not, why are we deluded into coming out. It is quite right that we should do our par towards our own protection, but our part is just to pay for the same protection, and no more. This is tai play, and that is all we require. I am, &c., Old Practical.