ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, April 3, 1847.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume III, Issue 176, 7 April 1847, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, April 3, 1847.

Sir, — Approving as I did of the course you adopted with your correspondents " Justitia," " Subscriber," and "A. 0.," whose vague declamation could scarcely be considered serious, or worthy of a formal refutation, I have hitherto remained silent ; but now that your Paper of this day contains a fourth edition of the same subject reiterated in different words, in a letter signed " L.", I think it advisable to expose the fallacies which they contain : and presume you do not mean by your notice to your correspondents to preclude persons holding the opinions that I do from replying to these letters in your columns. To write with the view of convincing men whose knowledge of the subject is so small, whose perception of truth is so indistinct, whose capacity for exercising an impartial judgment is so deficient, as that betrayed by the opinions they have formed and expressed in reference to that act of the Governor's by which he has shown more wisdom and more firmness — by which he has done more to confer a lasting benefit on both Wellington and Nelson, and indirectly on the colony generally than by any other, since he has been entrusted with its government, would be indeed a hopeless attempt — an attempt to teach the blind to see: still lam not without hope that I may be able to clear away their sophistry, and convince some at least of your readers that the case is not as they represent it. The four successive letters are, I suppose, intended to convey the impression of their emanating from a numerous party ; but whatever may be its strength numerically, we seem to have already ascertained its strength — or rather its weakness — intellectually; for, with the exception of the first letter, the others may be safely described as successively — stupid-r-

more stupid — most stupid. That they were written by four different persons I think I nm bound to allow, the first being written in good English, the second in very bad, the third in — I suppose — passable Scotch, and the last in a mixture of the two latter, seasoned with rather more than a moderate quantity of low vulgarisms. Without wearying your readers by attempting to notice all the puerile frivolities with which the letters of your correspondents abound, I will endeavour to expose the absurdity of those statements in which they seem to be all tolerably well agreed. The charges which they bring against the Governor are the following: — That his late purchase of the Wairau District was unnecessary inasmuch as it had been previously satisfactorily purchased : — That the price paid is excessive : — That there is no guarantee that the natives will adhere to their agreement : — That the district might have been taken possession of without any payment at all : — That by the purchase he has cast a stigma on the memory of those who fell there. With regard to the first charge let it be simply remembered that the Commissioner of Land Claims has long since given his decision — a decision which has been published and circulated among both settlers and natives — against the validity of the Company's claim to that district : and though your correspondents object to that decision on hearsay evidence which they appear to possess, they can scarcely be serious in imagining that a Governor could act upon such information, even were he supposed to be in possession of it, moreover it seems somewhat strange, and not a little inconsistent on their part that those who have most strongly censured (for it appears they were parties to the Petition sent to the House of Commons) Captain Fitzroy's reversal of the Commissioner's decision at Taranaki, should be the first to censure Capt. Grey for not having followed his example and acted in the same way. The next charge is, — that the price paid is excessive. There appears to be little weight in this objection, for it amounts to no more than this, — that these writers differ in opinion with the Governor and Commissioner as to the value of the district. But lest any of your readers should be inclined to think that the former are more competent to decide thr question than t!>e latter, it may be well to remind them that the Company's Agent paid for the district of Otakou — a district not comprising so large an extent of country as Wairau — a sum little less than that now paid, with the entire approval of parties both here and in England. The sum paid for Otakou which contains 400,000 acres, was or in round nurr.bers about l£d. per acre; whereas that paid for Wairau, a district containing half a million, and at least as much available land as the former, was £3000, or again in round numbers about l^d. per acre. What then becomes of the assertion of "Subscriber, " that the Governor has no»v given " ten times " more than has hitherto been thought sufficient in making such purchases ? Or what meaning is attached to the words excessive, &c. when the price given for a block of land has been at the rate of l|d. per acre ? According to his notions ten acres should have been obtained for this price. To which I may add for the information of the same correspondent, who underrates the Ngatitoas at 300 souls, that the number of natives at Otakou, from whom the district was purchased, falls below even half that amount. For the accuracy of both these statements of figures I refer your readers to a despatch of the Company's Agent to Captain Fitzroy, dated Nov. 1844. Your correspondents complain that there is no guarantee for the fulfilment, on the part of the natives, of their agreement. Now if there is any force in this objection it must apply equally to all agreements with them, and altogether preclude the possibility of any settlement ot* these questions ; for if a sale of their land made in the presence of the Governor, Commissioner and others, together with two or three efficient interpreters, is not to be considered final and binding, I confess I am at a loss to conceive what would be so, and should be glad to hear what, in the opinion of your correspondents, would be more so. Do they mean gravely to assert, that a transaction such as this has been is merely on a par with those of Blenkensop, and the Company's Agent in 1839? Or will they venture to avow it as their opinion, that the nature of purchases of land is not better understood by the natives now than at those periods ? Or are they the men to insinuate that British authority under the government of Capta'.n Fitzroy, when the purchase of Otakou — to which I have alluded above — was made, was firmer, and stronger, and more respectable in the estimation of the natives and of the settlers than it is at present ? Are^we to understand that no lesson has been ntrnt — that no experience has been gained- by the natives — as I fear none has by your correspondents — by the occurrences of last year on the Hott and at Pori-

rua ? But even were this granted, do they forget that the Governor has wisely taken a precaution — not taken in the case of Otakou, nor that I am aware of on any other occasion — of dividing the money to be given into five portions, thereby deferring the final payment for the space of four years? Is there the slightest probability that the natives, after receiving the several annual payments, and signing the receipts for the money, would repudiate the sale? Can this objection be looked upon as anything but a captious cavil ? The next assertion I have to notice is, — that the district might have been taken without being purchased. Now this, at first sight, on the supposition of its feasibility, appears a very simple process ; it is merely the principle on which every highwayman acts ; but discarding all idea of injustice of such a proceeding — which your correspondents would probably not perceive — the inhabitants of Wellington now know that the. natives would resist such an attempt ; and if not strong enough to meet thsir opponents openly, would retaliate on individual settlers. But they go farther than this : they say it is in accordance with Maori law to surrender a district on which many opponents have fallen. Can they be serious ? Can they so readily shift their ground ? Are they at one moment to be contending for " fundamental principles" — nay, technicalities of English law, and the next seriously giving it as their opinion that Maori law shoull be followed by the Governor of a British colony whenever it may be found convenient? Would they, after all their protests against Captain Fitzroy's conduct in reference to Wairau — which I shall not now stop either to censure or defend — after charging him with degrading British authority by pardoning the parties concerned — would they, I ask, have the Governor go to those parties and say, — It is true you have been pardoned by my predecessor — it is true we have frequently met before on friendly terms, but I now think you have got off too easily; you killed some white men at Wairau, and although I have come here purposely to establish British authority and enforce English law, still, in this instance, as you have a very good Maori law in such cases, namely that of giving up the land as an utu for the dead, I require you to give up the district in question as a set-off against the whites who fell there ? One of your correspondents writes — not very intelligibly it is true — about " compounding a felony ;" I confess this looks very like compounding for murder. Is this then the expedient to which these wouldbe advisers of the Governor would have recourse ? Is expediency, after all the cant unnecessarily introduced into this question about "fundamental principles" "conscience" &c, to be the chief article of the creed of ths new party now undergoing organization? I imagine, Sir, with what indignation and scorn and bitter contempt these very writers would have inveighed against the Governor had he really done what they pretend to say he ought to have done — had he degraded himself, and the colony, and the British name. But that on which your correspondents are all agreed, and on which above all they lay the greatest stress — as most likely to serve their purpose best — is — that by the Jate purchase of the Wairau the Governor has cast a stigma on the memory of those who fell there : here I must frankly confess myself unable to see any connection between the premises and the conclusion. Have the minds of your correspondents been so little accustomed to reflection, and are their thoughts so little under their control, that a word, — a mere common name, — should produce an association between two ideas totally distinct, — between the melancholy death of persons who fell while endeavouring to execute a warrant for a felony, and the purchase of a district of land extending from the Wairau to the Kaikoras, and that they should have no power to free themselves from the illusion ? Or, as is more probable, are they really aware of the fallacy of their own allegation, but nevertheless think it a subject which is likely to enlist the sympathies of those who usually pay but little attention to such questions ? In either case it may be advisable to expose the fallacy : and I will endeavour to show that it is your correspondents and not the Governor, who are casting a stigma on those who fell at Wairau. There is only one ground on which the expedition to Wairau, which ended so fatally, ever has been, or ever could be, defended ; which is, that it was undertaken in order to ensure the execution of a warrant for felony, resistance to which was anticipated. This I assert has been the ground constantly taken by all parties here, at Kelson, and in England, whenever its legality has been called in question ; and whenever it has been necessary to rebut the assertions of Mr. Shortland, Capt. Fitzroy, and others, that its object was to forcibly drive the natives from that district ; and I believe, Sir, in spite of the insinuations of your calumniators, that this has been the ground on which you have constantly taken your stand. Will they deny this ? or if so,

will they venture to defend its legality on any other ground ? They have voluntarily placed themselves in the dilemma — and they have all foar put their necks into the same noose — either of admitting that the expedition to Wairau above alluded to was not directly connected with the question of land, and consequently that the Governor's late purchase of that district casts no stigma on the memory of those who fell there ; or of allowing, in opposition to all that has been hitherto said b> its defenders, that it was directly connected with the land question, and that the warrant was a mere pretext, thereby conceding its utter illegality, and by the concession that the expedition was illegal, casting a stigma on the memory of those who fell. I defy them to evade the force of this argument, or to escape from the alternative of admitting either the illegality of the expedition, and thus themselves casting a stigma on the memory of the dead, or that it was not directly connected with the land question, thereby exonerating the Governor from the calumny they have attempted to fix on him^ If my reasoning has been sound, and of this your readers will be the best judges, we may fairly estimate the nature of the advice which your correspondents would have given to the Governor. It seems they would have advised him — 1. To act as Captain Fitzroy did at Taranaki, r and upon information derived from extraneous sources reverse the decision of the Commissioner : — 2. Never to give — whether land could be obtained for chat price or not — more than at the rate of l^d. for ten acres : — 3. Not to purchase land at all, till there is some additional guarantee (they have not told us what guarantee they would propose) that natives will abide by their agreements: — 4. To have actedin opposition to all law and justice, and to have followed a bad Maori custom by compounding for murder with land : — 5. To have made no more purchases from Natives, lest by so doing a stigma should be cast on the memoiy of any magistrates or constables who might fall while in the discharge of their duty. Such I contend are direct logical consequences of the positions maintained by your correspondents. Are these, let me ask, the nostrums which these political quacks would prescribe to the Governor as likely to benefit the colony ? Are these the principles on which the new opposition is to take its stand ? Are the maintainers of these absurdities to be the leaders and directors of public opinion? — Proh pudor ! Blush, Settlers of Wellington, and hide your diminished heads, whenever such shall be the case — whenever you shall consent to abandon your own opinions at the bidding of a few discontented — perhaps disappointed — certainly factious, agitators, and acquiesce in such principles as these ! One of your correspondents says he believes in no man's infallibility : I agree with him, but let your leaders extend his words to include himself. 1 shall take no notice of his allusions to a few other subjects, wherein he charges you with dereliction of duty, because, if I am not deceived by similarity of style, he has had some opportunities of showing his sincerity in reference to these subjects by alluding to them before. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, An Enemy to Faction.

Date Amount. ]847. Jan. 11... £204 14 4 „ 18, 561 5 7 , 22 209 10 8 Feb.' 1 209 17 0 8 121 9 9 I', 15 354 14 2 22 212 4 5 March 1 43S 6 3 . 8 530 6 8 , 15 282 7 4 22 333 16 0 29 234 4 9 April 5 364 3 1 Total £4057 0 0 P. D. Hogg, Sub-Collector.

Settlement of the foregoing collections with the Colonial Treasury : —