New Zealand Spectator, AND COOK’S STRAIT GUARDIAN. Saturday, February 14, 1852.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 682, 14 February 1852, Page 3

New Zealand Spectator, AND COOK’S STRAIT GUARDIAN. Saturday, February 14, 1852.

If we were minutely to analyse, for the purpose of exposing them, all the statements made bv Mr. Fox in his recent publication on New Zealand, our examination of them would extend to an equal length with the book itself; we shall therefore proceed, without further preface, to direct the attention of the public to some of the most palpable of them, to shew what little credit is to be attached to Mr. Fox’s statements, and to convey some idea of the animus with which his book has been written. Thus, in the first chapter, in speaking of the labouring class and emigration, Mr. Fox, to keep up a constant supply of labour, proposes that, to defray the passages of pauper emigrants, Government should advance the requisite amount on promissory notes for their repayment, to be given by the emigrants. " A proposition,” he says, (p. 12) “was made to the Colonial office to this effect in 1849, but rejected as impracticable, apparently without consideration, or under misapprehension.” Regardless of the strict truth, Mr. Fox indulges in this sneer at the Colonial office, no doubt thinking it would be acceptable to the colonial reformers at home. The proposition was made by Mr. Fox in Nov., 1848, and his letter on the subject was forwarded by the New Zealand Company to the Colonial office; Lord Grey inclosed it in a despatch to Sir George Grey, stating at the same time that he would “ perceive that Mr. Fox had proposed a recurrence to a plan which had already been tried in various forms, but without success, of recovering from emigrants of the labouring class the cost of their passage for the purpose of increasing the emigration fund,” and his lordship goes on to say that he is pi evented from embracing Mr. Fox’s proposal owing to the previous failures attending such a plan. AU this Mr. Fox carefully keeps out of sight, wishing it to be inferred that the plan he had proposed was original in design and could be easily carried out, and in the very face of Lord Grey’s statement that the proposal was a

recurrence to a plan which had already been tried without success, Mr. Fox has the assurance to assert it was rejected as impracticable apparently without consideration. After such dishonesty on Mr. Fox’s part, we are not surprised to find him, in his meagie remarks on the settlement of Wellington, imputing to the Government a backwardness in negotiating for the purchase of the magnificent districts on the East and West coast. “It would seem incumbent (p. 25) on it to make any reasonable sacrifice to obtain, by purchase, districts which are of vital importance to the prosperity of Wellington. It is probably, after all, only a question of money; and, under the circumstances, even if it should cost £50,000, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that it is the duty of Government to obtain the Manawatu, Wairarapa, and Hawke’s Bay districts without delay.” If Mr. Fox had acted fairly he would have stated that the Local Government had made efforts, with the means at its command, to purchase the Manawatu district, and that negotiations, conducted by an officer of the Government intimately acquainted with the native character and language, assisted by an energetic and talented officer under the New Zealand Company, had been entered into for the purchase of the Wairarapa valley, and had failed. Mr. Fox should also have stated that, on his leaving the colony, the Government was in treaty with the natives for the purchase of large pastoral districts in the neighbourhood of Hawke’s Bay, since he was not ignorant of this fact. Perhaps, so great is his enmity against the Local Government, he will only regret to hear that through the agency of Government, the

Hawke’s Bay district is now open to our sheep farmers. The failures in purchasing the Manawatu and Wairarapa districts have not resulted in any misunderstanding with regard to the sums to be paid, but from a positive refusal on the part of the natives to sell on any terms. Mr. Fox’s remarks on the settlement of Auckland are, for the most part, nerfectlv untrue ; indeed, considering that he resided there for a period of three weeks, it is difficult to conceive how a man with his eyes open, and acquainted with the facts, could sit down and write the following description : —(p. 39.) “ Auckland,” he says, “is well situated as a depot for native trade, and as the head quarters of the missionary establishments. But with the exception of small detached valleys of volcanic soil, the country appears exceedingly poor, with scarcely a blade of natural grass and holding out no great temptation to the agriculturist. In some portions of the volcanic soil (I am not certain whether it is universal, but I saw a district of three or four miles extent where it was so) there is not a drop of water to be found: none can be got even by sinking wells. This description of land is generally thickly covered with blocks of scoria, which must be picked off before the land can be cultivated. It is only fair to state th it my examination of the district was limited to a distance of about fifteen miles round the town of Auckland; but I believe the character is much the same till you reach the Waikato country on one side and the Thames on the other.”

"We shall not dwell at any length on this passage since Mr. Fox’s misrepresentations of Auckland have been ably refuted in the New Zealander ; but in saying that the soil in the district Mr. Fox describes, instead of being exceedingly poor is exceedingly rich, that it produces in a most luxuriant manner fruits, flowers, grasses and farm crops, and that there is an abundant supply of water even throughout the driest summer, we only state well known facts. Affecting to give a true and unprejudiced account Mr. Fox, to disarm suspicion, cunningly says—“ It is only fair to state that my examination of the district was limited to a distance of about fifteen miles round the town of Auckland.” The district examined by him is in fact that now comprised in the Borough of Auckland, which is thus described by Sir George Grey in a published despatch.

“ The Borough contains an area of about 58,006 acres, the whole of which, with the exception of about 2000 acres, is available for cultivation, and is generally of a very superior quality Of the land thus comprised within the limits of the Borough, about 40,000 acres are already the property of private individuals, held under grant from the Crown, and of this quantity of land about 7,500 acres are in a state of cultivation, well fenced, and for the most part j avily stocked with cattle.”

So that in a country which, according to Mr. Fox, appears exceedingly poor, with scarcely a blade of natural grass and holding out no temptation to agriculturists, we find from an authority much more to be relied on, 7,500 acres have been brought into cultivation. Mr. Fox observes in a note, “ I speak of Auckland as I saw it in 1849. I has e been told that the amount of cultivation has since considerably increased.” If his statements were true, the increase must indeed have been very rapid when the cultivation which then, according to Mr. Fox “ consisted almost entirely of a few fields of grass,” in the space of about fifteen months extended over 7,500 acres, “ well fenced, and for the most part heavily stocked with cattle.”

With regard to the population, he says, it “ had no root in the soil, as was seen by some hundreds of them packing up their wooden houses and rushing away to California, as soon as the news of that land of gold arrived.” This was in 1849, andon reference to the published returns we find that in the place of “ some hundreds,” the numl-er of adults who left for California in that year between the Ist January and the 31st December, was 239. His observations in reference to the expenditure on account of troops are made in a most reckless manner, and apparently without the slightest data; his remarks, likewise, on the character of the population, must prove flattering to the Auckland settlers. “ The returns of crime, compared with those of the Southern settlements, exhibit fearful traces of the origin of its population,” and he arrives at ! the fact, from statistical returns, that during the year 1847 one in six of the population was convicted of some crime or other, one

in eight of drunkenness ; whereas the proportion at Wellington was one in forty, at Nelson one in seventy-nine. Figures are stubborn facts, and Mr. Fox, no doubt, imagines he has proved that these are fearful traces of the origin of its population; but if he had been a candid and impartial writer, he would have gone on to shew that the amount of crime resulted from the commercial character of the town of Auckland, and by further statistical information have given an idea of the number of ships which arrived from Sydney during the year, and likewise some analysis of the returns of convictions, from which it would be found that the crimes were confined almost entirely to sailors and stockmen from Sydney in cattle ships. But this would not have answered Mr. Fox’s purpose, since he had determined that, at all hazard of detection, the town, country, and population of Auckland must be “ run down.” His unfairness is fully exemplified by his remarks on the crime at Wellington. Here he takes care to state that out of so many cases tried, “only 18 trials and 10 convictions were of English settlers—all the rest being soldiers, sailors, inhabitants of the Australian colonies, or natives.” But no such deductions are made by him from the crime at Auckland, where the soldiers, sailors, and natives are far more numerous, and besides, during the last quarter of 1849, companies of pensioners arrived from England, and were quartered in and about Auckland.