THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE ON THE NATIVE QUESTION.

New Zealander, Volume XXII, Issue 2393, 3 April 1865, Page 3

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE ON THE NATIVE QUESTION.

The following speech has been several times alluded to, and was made by Mr. Chichester Fortescue at a great Liberal demonstration in Essex on the I7th December last. Mr. Chichester Fortescue on rising, was received with cheers,.ho said it seemed to him that the object of these political gatherings of a great party was that they should exchange to the best of their ability political opinions and ideas, and so keep alive the public spirit of party. With that feeling he should make some observations first upon those subjects with which be was personally and officially most conversant. He would say a word or two on two colonial questions which interested the public at the present moment. First with respect to the colony of New Zealand. (Hear, hear.) He would say nothing that would wound the susceptibilities of his hon. friend to the tight (Mr. Buxton). He wished he could announce to the meeting that the war in New Zealand was at an end, but he was not able to do so. The last accounts from that colony were not so satisfactory as their hopes had led the Government to expect. The submission of the natives had only as yet been partial, and it would evidently require another campaign before peace could be restored. However, in spite "f certain disappointments, all he could learn from yesterday’s mail led him to the belief that the campaign lately begun, which was the beginning of the summer at the

antipodes as they knew, would be the last campaign he hoped and believed, of a war which he sincerely thought would never be necessary again. (Hear, hear.) He knew fears had been entertained by many good men in this country that the G-overmeut of New Zealand had been trying to deal hardly with the natives, and deprive them to an unjustifiable degree of their land, and perhaps to continue the war for the sake of the gain supposed to be derived from imperial military expenditure in those islands. He confessed he did not believe in its being the desire of the New Zealand colonists to continue the war any longer than could be helped. His knowledge

of the great sacrifices they had made and were making, of the shedding of colonial blood, of the spending of colonial money, of the paralysis of colonial trade, convinced him that they would not be inclined—either the Colonial Government or people—to continue the war a day longer than could be helped. He was also sure that the natives had not been treated un • justly with respect to their land. Precautions and security had been taken on this head, and most properly taken, J by the Home Government, and especially by his right bon. friend Mr. Cardwell, the present head o f the Colonialoffice, that the large powers of confiscation of land which the Colonial Government had taken by their legislation should not be abused. It was quite impossible that a government represet ing one race in those islands engaged in deadly conflict with another race could view the matter with that calm and impartial eye which the imperial government was able to bring to bear upon it. Therefore it was the duty of her Majesty’s government —a duty which they had performed —to take perfect security that no wrong should be done to that native race. On the other hand, he must say that he thought that that portion of the natives of New Zealand who had been, to their own great loss and ours, perversely shedding their own blood, the blood of the colonists, and the blood of her Majesty’s troops, should receive a severe lessons which might prevent them from similar, conduct in future. He believed that it was not only necessary and just, but that it was the best thing which could happen, both for this country and the New Zealanders, and that he believed would be the practical result of the powers given by her Majesty’s government to the government of New Zealand. He would add one word as to the general subject of our dealing with the colony of New Zealand and the native population, because there had been, in the public press and elsewhere, a good deal of ignorance and unjust accusation against this country, in respect to their treatment of that remarkable and interesting people. First of all, could we be blamed for having assumed the government of Now Zealand ? Any one acquainted with the history of that colony would know that they were open to no blame on that point. Our people had gone there in considerable numbers before we assumed the government, and it was perfectly certain that these magnificent islands, almost equal in extent to the United Kingdom and Ireland could not have been left to the possession of a sparse and already diminishing native race. They must inevitably have been seized and occupied by some European power ; in fact, it was well known that it was a race between Great Britain and France which of those two great powers should obtain possession of the island. Our government went there because our people had gone there before—because they were forced into it; for it was their duty to keep order between the British subjects already settled there and the native race. So far he thought they were open to no blame. What had happened since then ? He maintained that in spite of this unfortunate war, in spite of the prejudices which a war waged liked this against the native race might excite in some minds, he maintained that that war had been caused by no oppression on their part Let anyone examine the history of their dealings with these natives, aud they would find that however much they had failed in other respects they had not oppressed them. In this war the natives had not risen to defend themselves sgainst tyranny, against wrong, against violation of liberties, or against robbery of their territory. The government, he sorrowfully a limited, had failed in that idea which they had set before themselves, of continuing for any length of time relations between two races so different within the same island upon peaceable terms. But that was a result which had nevei yet been attained by any European nation in the world. It was a result which they hoped to attain, but which they had failed to do. Their sins, however, had been more those of omission than commission. They had not been oppressive and tyranical ; on the contrary they had been lenient and tolerant, but they had not been so firm or so wise as they might have been. They had halted between two opinions, they tried to do more than they could ; they had perhaps substituted theories for facts. For instance, by a stroke of the pen they declared these natives to be British subjects, enjoying all their rights and privileges. It was amusing to read the early despatches of some of our greatest ministers directing the governors of colonies to treat the natives as British subjects, andaboveall things to enforce law and order. The fact was that the natives of New Zealand declined these privileges coupled with the obligation of submission to low and order. The colonial govern ■ ment had no power to enforce them, and as a consequence they had all al mg been greatly embarrassed by a legal theory which it was impossible to reduce to practice. Then came a change which was highly beneficial to the English race in New Zealand, but not so beneficial to the natives, namely, the introduction of a popular responsible government. He did not mean to say that that responsible governments had oppressed the natives, for they had not. But that change had increased the weakness of the executive government, and introduced these difficulties of a double authority under which they were laboring, and a state of things under which it was most difficult to deal with a semi-savage race, or to wage a war of any kind. Those were the difficulties with which they had had to deal. They had not been free from blame. They had not reached, as be said, that beau ideal which they ha I set before themselves; but, on the other hand, ho was | ready to maintain that, compared with the relations subsisting between | European powers with any other race ■ of savages or semi-savages in the world at any period, the history of our rule in New Zealand would bear a favourable

comparison. Let them compare it with our dealings in former times with the Indians of North America. Compare it with the dealing of the Government of the United States at this moment with the Indians of North America, and they would find reason, in spite of all drawbacks, to congratulate themselves on the degree of prosperity which the English colony of New Zealand had obtained with comparative exemption from outrage or bloodshed ou the pats of white men agaiust dark men, or darkmeu against while meu. He said this, though a war was raging now which he hoped would soon come to a termination, and which was conducted even by die natives themselves to u very great degree on the merciful principles of civilization.

The “CoHsjibNcb Clause ” is National Schools. —We take the following letter from the London Spectator Sib, r—A meeting in Worcestershire, of which there is a report in the Times deserves soma notice for the sake of the. question which was discussed at it and of the persons who took part in it. Sir John Pakington defended that “ conscience clause," as it is called, by which the children of Dissenters are enabled to attend the national school in a district where they are not numerous enough to have a school of their own,—without being oblige I to learn the Church Catechism. He whs seconded by one clergyman and supported by several others of great influence in the county. Lord Lyttelton and Lord Redesdale took the other side, and eventually carried their point by a large majority. The impulse of clerical journalists generally will be to denounce Sir John Pakiugum and his supporters as traitors to the cause of the Church, the impulse of Liberal journalists will be to denounce Lord Redesdale and Lord Lyttelton as mere fanatics. I need scarcely reply to the former in your columns. You will at once acknowledge that the supporters of the “ conscience clause" were trying to vindicate the position of the Church as the Church of the nation, were striving earnestly that it might not assume the character of an exclusive sect. It was an amusing argument which one of the speakers brought forward against them, that the Liberation Society did not ask for the “ conscience clause.’* Of course the Liberation Society would wish for anything but that; of course the more the Church proves itself to be a sect the better they will be pleased. But you may not be equally fair to the other side. Lord Lyttelton urged with great force that the moral precepts of the Catechism are based upon the assumption with which it starts. How, he suggested* can we teach our pupils to do certain acts, or abstain from certain acts, if we take away the principles on which the doing and the abstinence depend? This reasoning would be entirely conclusive to ins if I supposed that the principle of the Catechism was not true in itself, if I supposed that the children were not what the Catechism says that they are unless they say the Catechism. But I hope our national schoolmasters believe the facts which are written in the manual, out of which they instruct the majority of their children, and do not suppose that those facts derive their veracity from the manual. If they think that the son of a Dissenter is not included in Christ’s redemption it would be very wrong to speak to him as if he were, and to tell him that he is to do the acts which Christ commanded and not to do the things which lie forbade. But the Catechism says that the child of the Di?senter is within that redemption, for it says that the whole world is. How, then, can the conscience of the most devout believer in the Catechism be hurt by “ conscience clausfe P” It gives him a new opportunity of indicating his faith. And it gives him an opportunity of asking himself very seriously, “ Has my faith hitherto been a merely negative one ? Have I meant by it that there are certain persons whom I do not recognize as fellow-Christ ians and fellow-men?" —Yours, &c.

Bkbf at Thisbepkncs a Pound.—Since the publication of our paragraph on the introduction to this country of the jerked eef »f South America wo have received a great number of letters containing in .uiriea from persons desirious of turning the facts to practical accou.it. The names of the merchants c .raprising the commission for the introduction of the beef will be found, with much other information in a pamphlet on the subject published by Hedderwick and Son, of Glasgow. The wholesale agents are Messrs. James Gordon and Co, 11, Orange-court Liverpool, and Messrs. Steel, ofs, Dixan-street,, Glasgow It is sent out in cases of one hundred weight. We may repeat that the' “jerked ” beef is prepared from the choicest parte of the animal. and, while it is not expected to supersede the use of fresh meat, it is believed that no greater boon has been lately offered to the undef -rred classes of great Britain. The following directions for cooking the beef have been published by authority of the commission; —Steep the beef for three or four hours, or wash it well in hot w iter. Ist. Cut it in small pieces, about an inch square; sirame: it by tho fire.for one and ahj tlf hj mrs, add potatoes, pepper, and onions; and-again cook slowly until real/. It will then be found a very good Irish stew. 2nl. Mince, in the form of mince c dlops; cook it slowly and when ready mix it np with mashed potatoes It may then be put in a dish, and browned in the oven. 3rd. Cut into peices, and after simmering an hour and ahalf add turnips, carrots or other vegetables, such as used in harieot. 4th. It will a*so m ike very good pea sonp; and is also used in first class hotels for giving a deligh fnl flavor, to al* kinds of soap, particularly to kidney and other simi’a- classes.