New Zealand Spectator AND COOK'S STRAITS GUARDIAN. Saturday, January 25, 1845.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume I, Issue 16, 25 January 1845, Page 2

New Zealand Spectator AND COOK'S STRAITS GUARDIAN. Saturday, January 25, 1845.

What will Captain Fitzroy do ? Will he resign, or will he hold on, until he is officially informed that her Majesty has been graciously pleased to relieve him from the duties of his office ? Such are the inquiries which, since the arrival of the Committee's Report, have beset us on every side — go J where we will, the probability of his Excel- j lency's resignation is the constant topic of conversation, the subject of never ending discussion. All, however, seem to have arrived at the conclusion that his Excellency will, for once in his life, be guilty of a wise act, and immediately retire from the Government of these Islands. — We doubt this. "We believe that Captain Fitzroy will not resign. It is, indeed, true that the Committee condemn, in the most explicit terms, the entire policy pursued by Captain Fitzroy and his predecessors, and at the same time adopt, in the fullest manner, all the views and opinions which the settlers in Cook's Straits have ever maintained ; for instance, the Treaty of Waitangi, which we have constantly denounced as a solemn farce, is by the Committee declared to be nothing more than " a legal fiction, though a very inconvenient one ;" the acknowledgement by the Local Government " of a right of property on the part of the natives in all wild lands," which we have always contended was the grand error of Captain Hobson's administration, is by the Committee pronounced to be not merely not essential to the construction of the Treaty of Waitangi, but to be so utterly ab*urd, that had the Treaty either contained or implied such a stipulation, no ministry would ever have dared to have sanctioned it, for that " artual occupation and enjoyment " can alone be admitted as " establishing a right of property in land in the natives," consistently with the ancient and acknowledged principles of colonial law, as laid down by Sir George Gipps, with the terms of the Charter of the Colony, and with the Royal instructions to the Governor — still Captain Fitzroy vill not resign. It is true that the proceedings of Mr. Spain, against which we have so repeatedly protested, are described by the Committee as manifestly absurd, and as having been attended with effects deeply " injurious to the interests both of the settlers and of the natives themselves : also, that in their opinion Mr. Spain ought to have limited his inquiry to ' whether those inconsiderable portions of land actually occupies and enjoyed by natives had been fairly sold by the occupants ;' and that to call upon the New Zealand Company to make further payments to the natives, is equally contrary both to real justice and to sound policy." It is true that his Excellency, on his first landing in this settlement, denounced us as oppressors of the native -race, because we entertained the opinions now expressed by this high tribunal, and at the same time intimated that, if we expected him to act upon such views, we were most woefully mistaken. — Still Captain Fitzroy will not resign. It is likewise true, that the Committee (though ignorant of all the vagaries of our .-present Governor) censures ■everely " the want of vigour and decision in the general tone of the proceedings adopted by the Local Government towards the natives," and attribute the lo«s of the respect formerly evinced by the natives for the British authority, entirely to that system of cringing submission to all their caprices first displayed by Captain Hobson, but carried out -by Captain Fitzroy during the last year to an extent which we fear will scarcely be credited at home. — Still he will not resign. ' It i# true that' a change in the entire policy; in accordance- with the recommendation of the Committee, ii not only inevitable but that instead of being gradually and imperceptibly effected, itmust now be made at once and in the most firm and decided manner; for Captain Fitzroy, by stretching the policy thus condemned, to the utmost extent qf which it is

capable, has so fully demonstrated its absurdity and its pernicious consequencs, as to have convinced every rational person, that there is no chance of safety, no other means of rescuing the colony from the state of anarchy and distress, into which he has so deeply plucged it, except by the Local Government immediately retracing its steps, undoing so far as may be, all that has been done, and by asserting the supremacy of the British Crown, making the natives feel that they are really its subjects and amenable to the laws. Now when we consider that his Excellency is the chief representative and warmest supporter of the system so strongly denounced as cant and quackery; when were* member that the counter Report and Resolutions which were proposed by Mr. Hope for the express purpose of vindicating the conduct of the Local Authorities, were rejected by that Committee, the members of which were nominated by Lord Stanley himself, we confess that the grounds for believing that Captain Fitzroy will resign, are so strong, that we should feel bound to express our acquisence in the general opinion, were we discussing the question in reference to any other Governor, But we deny that you can by any process of reasoning hazard aconjecture as to how Captain Fitzroy will act. There is only one means of forming an (pinion of the course his Excellency will pursue. Ascertain what he has promised, and then you may rest assured that that he will not perform. Before, However, applying this test to the subject now under discussion, let us ascertain its value by a brief reference to his past proceedings. Captain Fitzroy promised, when he first landed here, that he would make diligent inquiries at Nelson concerning the Wairau Massacre before he came to any decision upon it, but is it not recorded in the Petition sent to Perliament by the Nelson settlers that he studiously avoided all those who were able and anxious to give information respecting it. He promised to settle the Land Claims' in this district before he left — a year has since elapsed, and we possess not a Crown Title to a single acre. He promised that, if it was in the power of man, all the claims in the different settlements should be " immediately and conclusively arranged." Ask the settlers at Taranaki whether he has not done, whatever was in the po-ver of mm, to unsettle and upset their claims, declared by Mr. Commissioner Spain to be good and valid. He promised to return here within six months — nine months elapsed before our evil genius again made his appearance amongst us. He promised the Company's Resident .Agent at Taranaki that he would not remove from tb.e settlement any of the Company's property he had recently laid hold of — a month had scarcely expired before the Government brig appeared and carried off the cranes to Auckland. He promised to issue a Crown Title to Otago— he now threatens to withhold it. He promised us, on his last visit, to- return from Waikanai in the course of ten days — he had scarely got out of our harbour before he declared he had no intention of returning, and then skulked off to Auckland, laughing (we presume) at our credulity, aud probably chuckling at the cleverness of the trick, by which.- he had evaded the statement of grievances which he knew the Deputation were prepared to lay before him. In short, we are not aware of a single promise ever made by his Excellency to the settlers here, which has not been violated. When, therefore, we recall to remembrance how repeatedly he announced his determination to resign her Majesty's Commission the instant a change in the present policy was made, can we (believing that a change is inevitable,) come to any other conclusion than that he will not resign ? We might, perhaps, strengthen this view, by alluding to the circumstances under which Captain Fitzroy left England — to the Durham election fracas — to the appearance he made in the House, and to other circum-! | stances not tending to raise him in the estimation of the public at home— but we ' are satisfied with the application of that act which has hitherto proved infallible.

As to his recall, we look upon it as un I fait accompli; for most assuredly there would be far less difficulty in proving that all his acts are illegal, than that any one of them is legal. His ten shilling Proclamation, (a violation of the Treaty of Waitangi^ and of Lord Stanley's Act of Parliament,) which would reach England last September, may probably of itself suffice for his recall ; if not, his infringement of the Land Claims' Ordinance, by his awarding to his friend and councillor, Dr. Martin, 12,000 acres, to the Rev. Archdeacon H. "Williams 9000 acres, and to numerous others, grants far exceeding the maximum of 2560 acres, will materially strengthen the case against him ; — if this be insufficient, his ransom^of the British Flag by the abolition of the Customs, his bartering for ten muskets the honour of his countrywomea, will surely fill the cup of his misdeeds up to the very brim ;-if not, there remain to be thrown in his penny Proclamation, against which all his Executive Council cnered and sent home their protests, — his reversal of Mr. Spain's award at Tarauaki, of which the Commissioner will himself have complained, — and lastly, his issuing Debentures, not for the specific object for which alone they were authorized, but for he current expences of his Government — besides a host of minor eccentricities ; with such evidence of his incapacity, is it credible that any Ministry would dare to retain him in his high and responsible office ? Will they not rather be surprised that the settlers in j New Zealand have not followed the example set in the neighbouring colony of New South Wales, and that they have not, as in the case of Governor Bligh, themselves sent Captain Fitzroy home ?

A most extraordinary document in the shape of a letter from the London " Society for the promotion of permanent and universal peace," signed " John Jefferson," and addressed to the " British settlers in the colony of New Zealand," has been industriously circnlated in this place during the last few days. Like most other similar productions, this letter is admirably calculated to stir up and excite persons to the commission of the very evils, against which it is professedly directed. With the pseudo-sympathy of which we rave had so many examples, any native " right," altho' it may only exist in the "minds of the parties most directly interested in it," is to be held sacred, while European blood may flow in profusion, and call forth nothing but some cantionary remarks and stale commonplaces on the "sinfulness of war. But we have stated and proved until we are wearied with the repetition, that no right was infringed, no violence done to the natives or their property by the persons who so unhappily became their victims on the plains of Wairau. While the writers of the letter express that "it has given them unfeigned satisfaction in times past, to observe that the colony of New Zealand has presented a greater regard to the principles of justice and peace, and to the rights and safety of the native population, than has generally distinguished the settlements of British emigrants on foreign shores," we — as settlers — throw back the base insinuation that deeds of <' spoliation and blood " have been attempted by us, or that the vile massacre which they are pleased to designate a "hostile encounter," was " provoked by a partial abandonment of that regard to the undoubted right of the natives in their own soil which ought always to characterize our dealings with them." The natives who perpetrated that act of " spoilation and blood " had no other title to the soil than the very dubious one of conquest, and whatever jurists might think of this as a native " right," surely the " Peace Society " ought to pause before they recognize that which has its only foundation — if any — in exterminating war. The natives of the soil can plead no " rights," for they have fallen before the same ruthless murderers ; and if the principle is to rule which is so mis-applied in the letter before us, then assuredly will Rauparaha and his bandit horde feel the edge of the sword, or " raeri," before they are " gathered to their fathers." Before answering the main allegations of the letter, or rather justifying the particular

act which has caused it to be written, it will be well to premise that the character of the sufferers is most artfully kept out of sight, by their being called as they have been in the officially published accounts of the transaction, " a part of the settlers, who had recourse to arms as a means of safety, if not (as means) of enforcing a measure which was deemed unjust by the parties most directly interested in it." It is certainly fraudulent to speak in these terms of a magistrate proceeding to execute a lawfully issued warrant, in a matter which, however *' unjust " it might be deemed by its objects, has never been proved to be so to our satisfaction, who are at least as " directly interested in it." The records of the Old Bailey would furnish innumerable instances of processes that have been stigmatized as grossly " unjust " by the parties criminally "interested" in them, but upon which .the Court and the voice of society have unitedly pronounced a very different verdict ; nor do we fear but that truth and justice will ultimately prevail in this case, in spite of the misrepresentations of Government hirelings, or the lachrymose jeremiads of " Aborigines Protection " and " Peace " societies. The gravameu of the letter — that which has drawn out the Secretary's grey goose quill (steel pens being prohibited in that office) is — not that a grievous outrage has been committed — not that, even taking his own view, a part of the settlers and of the natives have met in a hostile encounter — but that we — as men unused to war and unwilling to engage therein — have applied for military protection. We would ask Mr. Jefferson as respectfully as he addresses us, what would be his conduct were he to hear that the sequestered " green lanes " of Stoke Newington were no longer safe for the sentimental loiterer, through the frequent recurrence of robberies and outrages therein ? Would he apply for protection to Scotland Yard, or to "19 New Broad Street"? Would he affix the manifestoes of the Peace Society therein, or procure the services of two or three sturdy policemen ? As a man of common sense without doubt he would choose the latter, and should some meddling " friend " object that those- men wore swords, the ready answer would be, that the possession of such weapons would prevent the necessity for their use. In the same spirit we have appealed, and still do appeal for military aid, feeling assured that the presence of force will be the only way to prevent bloodshed ; and that, in our circumstances, soldiers are the most effective peace officers. Nothing is farther from our wish than that blood should be shed ; but we confess our inability to understand that species of philanthropy that would lay us af the mercy of remorseless savages, and after jljey bad glutted their ferocious passions, would then be obliged to teach them to regard life and property by the weapons of destructive war ; and to something like this it will come if the present mistaken policy is to be still persisted in. These sages of New Broad Street endeavour to enforce their twaddle about " conciliation," " negotiation, &c," by reminding the settlers of w the knowledge the natives possess of right and wrong," and " their readiness to abide by the terms of an arrangement, when it has been fairly put before them, and perfectly understood by them." It must be admitted that the settlers possess the most -conclusive evidence on both these points, evidence sufficient to establish in any reasonable mind tha facts that the natives know most distinctly the " right " from the " wrong," and that knowing these they choose whichever suits their purpose best, and and always abide by the terms of a bargain which they understand, so long as it suits their interest and convenience to do so. One truthful remark — almost the only one — escapes the writer at the close of his w*ordy epistle. "We are not placed in your circumstances of difficulty and trial." Truly, Mr. Jefferson, you and your colleagues are not, or your well-meant but most ill-judged and untimely production had not seen the light. Standing in the front of' your elegant and commodious chapel, with-the tasteful cemetery of Abury Park stretched oat before you, you can little sympathize with the feelings of the i settlers here, as they observe even the loftiest

summits of the mountain tange that overlooks the once peaceful, but now dark Wairau! You look on graves marked with tears, but not with blood!-. Your spirit is saddened by affection's plaintive wail, but your life-stream is not curdled— cold shuddering horror does not shake your frame at the thrilling " voice of a brother's blood crying from the ground !" Until you are placed in like circumstances — which we fervently hope you never may be — cease from this meddling intrusiveness, and bear with us if we reiterate the cry of the wise Lyonese merchants — "Let us alone."