New Zealand Colonist. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1842.

New Zealand Colonist and Port Nicholson Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 14, 16 September 1842, Page 2

New Zealand Colonist. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1842.

In any attempt toftppreciate the position, or to estimate the prospects of the Colony, we feel the inconveniences of the anomalous position occupied by the New Zealand Company, and their Agent, in this place. They fulfil for us the functions of Government in several most important particulars—the sale of land, the supply of emigrants, and the construction of roads. For what they have done in all these particulars —we should rather say, in the two latter, we are under considerable obligations to‘them — obligations present and prospective, moral and pecuniary. The former, if not easily discharged, are not of a very burdensome nature —how the latter may prove, is yet in the womb of time. We have no purpose, however, at present, of adverting to this branch of the subject. Our sole object is, to call attention to the ignorance in ’-which the Colonists are kept as to the intended operations of the Directors, even upon matters upon which it is of ;some importance that we should be informed. For instance—ln a recent discussion in the House of Commons, Lord Stanley could inform the public that there was a certain considerable sum‘to be applied in aid of emigration to the seatMf Government. We should be very glad •to know whether any, and what sum, was about to be applied by the New Zealand Company, to promote emigration to this place. To many persons this information would really be of considerable advantage—to all it would be interesting and encouraging. Except, however, from vague rumours, promulgated one day, to be contradicted the next, we are in perfect ignorance as to the intentions of the Directors in this respect. If, by communicating information to the people of Port Nicholson upon this topic, the plans of the Company, in England, could be made liable to the very slightest derangement, we could understand and pardon the silence; but as these plans would be carried out long before the intelligence had completed the circuit of the globe, we are at a loss to suggest any motive for concealment. We are quite aware that Colonel Wakefield, as the agent of a trading company, is under no obligation to disclose their views. But since, although the object of this Company, to gain money by the acquisition and resale of land, be private and personal, the meanb which they employ, are of a nature to affect the interests of every person in this community, we c mtend that we have a right to the same publicity of detail from them as we have from the Government. Probably, however, any previous silence has been the result of inadvertence, and it will be sufficient merely to have called attention to the subject. With regard, also, to the subject of roads ; We presume that it is not the intention of the Company to make a present to the Settlement of its expenditure under this head. In some manner, we shall have to pay for it. But surely, if at any time this charge is to fall upon the settlers, they ought to have some voice in deciding what roads should be constructed. Admitting that the best authorities have been consulted on the subject, even they might decide more wisely., if they were brought under the public eye, and might be called upon to assign and to maintain the grounds of their decision. And there has been some apparent vacillation as to the mode in which the Company’s funds should be applied for this purpose—a commencement and subsequent abandonment of aline of road —whicliwduld ;appear’t6 ' imply, that, in spite of all precaution, there had been precipitancy or error. But all we ask for is, that we may at least be informed what is going to be done.. Are we, for instance, to have a road opened up the Hutt ? Are any new roads to be opened ? Is the road to Karori to be completed ? Is Ohariu to be made accessible ? Or will the operations of the Company, in this particular, be limited to the reaching the summit of the Kai-warra-warra hill, by a new line ? We should really be glad, for the sake of -the Colony, to obtain answers to some of these questions. It does seem to us, that we are justified in expecting from the New Zealand Company the publicity which we now seek. They can lose nothing in pocket or in dignity, by furnishing us with the information we require, and* they would strengthen their own position, and benefit the Colony, by affording it.

Ciucumstances which we could not control prevented us from noticing in our last number the letter of Colonel Wakefield, and an article which appeared in the Gazette of Saturday last. The subject, however, will have lost little of its interest by the delay. We are, of course, bound to receive the letter of Colonel Wakefield as a proof that he has no recollection of having made such a statement as that which we charged upon him. But as upon

the occasion alluded to we were present as a mere spectator, taking no part in the business of the evening, and only anxious to learn what was said, and what was likely to be done; and as we certainly heard him make that statement, we cannot retract or qualify our charge. We should, however, like to hear Wakefield’s version of what he did say; —though perhaps his memory may not be quite so precise in respect to what his speech did, as it appears to be in respect to what it did not, contain. The denial of Colonel Wakefield does not, however, stand aloift. It is supported by the unhesitating averment of our contemporary backed by certain solid reasons, shewing the utter impossibility of any such declaration having been made. The testimony of our contemporary is one thing—his argument another. We will deal with each separately. In the first place, then, as we know that our contemporary never pledges his veracity to statements of doubtful authenticity —never calls Heaven to witness the truth of assertions which fie knows would not be credited upon any lower testimony, and would never suppress a truth, or suggest a falsehood, in order to carry his point, we should give the highest possible credence to his denial. But, firstly, he does not venture to deny having heard the statement; and, secondly, if he did; —that he did not hearit, cannot destroy the impression made upon us by the fact that wc did. We remain, consequently, unconvinced, even by the peculiar fervor and solemnity of our ci intemporary’s assertion of the falsehood of our charge. In the second place, however, we are informed that the declaration alluded to, was “ so remarkable, £0 astounding,” that it must have been heard, and, we presume, remembered. Of all reasons to be urged in support of our contemporary’s contradiction, this is the most extraordinary. The only thing in the slightest degree remarkable in the matter was, that Col. Wakefield should have, to that extent, departed from his habitual taciturnity. But certainly, among the entire audience, there was not one person who would be astounded by hearing that Colonel Wakfield had been endeavouring to aid the Company in England, and the violent party in l’ort Nicholson, in their endeavours to procure the removal of Captain Hobson. Nor, we venture to affirm, would any one have been, we will not say astounded, but even surprised, by hearing that this was to be done by turning to account the unsettled state of the questions between the natives and the colonists. We believe it to have been so perfectly understood, that the Company’s supporters in, this place were, by all means, to weaken the position of Captain that the enunciatien of this particular mode of attack would excite no especial notice. It might be remarked upon as ingenious; but, assuredly, no one—not even our contemporary —would dream of being astounded by it. Perhaps, as tending to the elucidation of this question, Colonel Wakefield would publish the extract which he read from one of his dispatches to the Directors, referring to this subject. Probably we shall have the wh( »le printed in England, but this may be too late to affect the purpose for which we now, desire -its production. And this brings us to, a consideration, of the concluding portion of Colonel Wakefield’s letter, in which he alleges that he has failed in his attempts to remove the natives of Port Nicholson from the land which they have sold, in consequence of a letter written by Mr. Clarke, the Protector of Aborigines,, in contravention of the arrangement professed to have been made by the Governor. We beg Colonel Wakefield’s pardon. He does not allege this. But this, whether rightly or wrongly we do not pretend to decide, is the only meaning we can affix to his letter. Possibly the involuntary error into which we have fallen in this instance, which we are able to correct from the circumstance of the letter being before us, may explain the cause of the difference which exists between ourselves and him on the previous topic. However this may be, we must comment upon the letter, as though our interpretation were correct. Upon this subject then we have to remark, that the natives of Te Arc, the only place to which Colonel Wakefield specifically refers, deny that they were parties to any sale to him; that when Captain Hobson, .in company with Mr. Halswell, and we believe also with Colonel Wakefield, visited that Pah, in order to persuade them to abandon it, the natives unanimously declared that nothing but absolute force should make them relinquish its possession; and . that the letter written by Mr. Clarke, is nothing more than a simple statement of an undeniable principle of English law, at least, as old as Magna Charta, which it was his unquestionable duty"to communicate to them if the question were asked. We presume our contemporary will hardly, in writing, deny the validity of Mr. Clarke’s law upon this point. He will hardly affirm, that it is according to English law that any person, even though a Maori, should be driven from his property. Still less, we imagine, will he dispute the obligation imposed upon Mr. Clarke, in his office of Protector of the Aborigines, to inform the natives that they were not beyond the pale nor beneath the protection of the English law; and that the jealous securities with which that law has fenced round the possessions even of the poorest, might be claimed by them from

the very moment their country was proclaimed a portion of the widening dominions of the British empire. We cannot quite acquit Colonel Wakefield of having employed expressions which, however designed, certainly appear calculated to mislead. Docs he mean that the natives of Te Aro have sold him, their land ? That would appear to be a necessary inference from the terms he has used—but we can hardly imagine him to intend to make such an assertion. If that is his meaning, we can only say that the natives most firmly deny that they were parties to any sale, and that we have never heard of any transactions in which they took a part, having even the semblance of a valid sale. If he does not mean to refer to the natives of Tc Aro, then we should like to know the circumstances under which he has made any “ efforts to effect the removal of the natives from land sold by them,” and has failed in consequence of any thing that could be traced directly or indirectly to the letter of Mr. Clarke. We cannot pursue this subject any further at the present time. We have not forgotten our contemporary’s challenge to produce proofs of the injustice which we affirm has been done to the natives. These proofs shall be forthcoming in due time, and that at no distant day. By the bye, our challenge appears to have entirely escaped notice, or does the Gazette shrink from the task of proving its own assertions !