THE EARLY SETTLERS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4454, 29 June 1875, Page 2

THE EARLY SETTLERS.

TO THE EDITOE OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sin,—Much as I respect the old settlers, and sympathise with the good feeling which has prompted Mr. Wallace and others to advocate for them a grant of land, I was not a little surprised to find from your report of their meeting on Thursday last, that not one of them had a word to say about a claim which, I venture to predict, will meet with a readv acceptance by the Legislature as soon as it is laid before them, viz., the claim of the Hutt militia for definite services in the war of 1546. The quarrel being for possession of the Hutt, the expulsion of the enemy, who had gathered on the ground in force to dispute possession, became more immediately the duty of the Hutt militia; and it is due to that company to say" that, having volunteered for that duty, they steadily and faithfully went through with it. And at the time they did so volunteer, be it remembered to their credit, that prior to that nothing but disaster had attended the armed collisions of the settlers with tho natives. Repulsed with lamentable bloodshed at the Wairau, compelled to give up Kororarlka to sack and plunder, soldiers and militia included in one fearful and bloody repulse* from Heki's pa,—prestige for the whites was sunk in a gloom which was relieved only by the gallant resistance of a small party of seamen from the Hayard, who were ashore, under their lieutenant, at Kororarika. It was under these circumstances that the Hutt militia volunteered to reassert the prestige lost at the Wairau, certainly not recovered in the North. Such was the issue to be tried between them and their enemy on the Hutt. and the early settlers well know that repossession of the Hutt, never again to be disputed, was preceded by, and accompanied with, a, most wholesome respect' on the part of the enemy for that company of militia they had to deal with Why a formal meeting of early settlers should have been held in Wellington to agitate for grants of land, and this subject not prominently brought forward, I am at some loss to conceive. Certainly one speaker exclaimed in a burst of rude eloquence, " I have fought in the militia;" but that gentleman must have been carried beyond himself by the rapture of the moment, for it was in the town militia he earned his laurels, and it so happened they never had any fighting to do. Only on :ue occasion.did it seem that the town companies were to be called upon to sharo with the Hutt company in the honors of the front; and that was to furnish contingents each, to proceed with a Hutt contingent to assault the enemy's headquarters at Pahautanui. But, on reconsidering the matter, it appeared to the powers that were that the " business would be safer .in the hands of the Hutt militia ai»ne, if they would volunteer for it. This was explained to them on parade—an assaulting party was wanted, and as one man the company stepped forward, so relieving any other company, who might be less used to the work, from " fighting in the militia."Why the early settlers did not mention us (for I was one of those Volunteers), I cannot well make out. It would have come with a good grace from them to do so, and would have relieved me from the task of making up for a very important omission in their proceedings. Can it be a consciousness on their part that their claim in the aggregate is rather vague and crude, that it lays under the disadvantage of being indistinct, complicated, and difficult of adjustment, while ours is definite, distinct, indisputable, and easy of settlement ? Can it be that they flinched from exhibiting their claim en masse, side by side with a claim of a more special nature, a claim less sweeping in its demands, the satisfaction of which involves no generosity whatever and but very little cost ? If the aggregate claim of the early settlers has the misfortune to be of a somewhat novel character, that need not have prevented the mention of a special claim — an early settler's matter too—which is sanctioned by the usages of all countries from time immemorial. And I believe the early settlers will bear me out when I remind them that a special recognition for the Hutt militia will only put them in the same position as . others, whose services have been more recent, but have never eclipsed theirs in merit or efficiency, or, I may add, in devotion to the task they undertoook. From the ambush of the enemy on the old bush road, near the Taitai, to their barricaded position in their line of retreat on the precipitous spur beyond Horokiwi, did not our company offer themselves for any work before them, however arduous? That in the latter case they would not be permitted to assault the position was no backwardness of theirs, for formally they conveyed their request to be allowed to do so, and were ordered round to Waikanae into the enemy's rear instead. But I will not now say more than this : that the duty they had felt to lie on them, to vindicate the prestige of their race, they never flinched from or forgot or failed in from the time they volunteered to the final disappearance of their enemy. I was just closing this letter when the Times was put in ray hands, containing Mr. C. Cundy's explanation of what the early settlers claim to be compensated for. I trust their claim may be found to rest on more genuine grounds than be adduces, for he would make it appear that the New Zealand Company, in addition to paying passages for their free immigrants, engaged to sell them land in the colony at a pound per acre. One glance at their prospectus would have shown him that it was at Home the land was to be sold, in order to raise money to pay for those passages. Purchasers were invited, and a certain order of selection guaranteed to them, which guarantee might have appeared very imperfect had it been complicated with sales at the same time in the colony. Such, anyhow, was the company's published programme, and I believe had the Home sales of scrip been interfered with by land sales on the ground, there would have been very few found to advance the needful to charter ships and pay all expenses, free passages, &c. I have no wish to go against grants of land to the early settlers, in particular to such of them as stand in need of it. I only wish to guard them against stating grounds for it which will not bear the test of criticism in the General Assembly. I pass by Mr. Cundy's statement of the loss of six year's labor, for what it may be found to be worth. But, he says, "Some seem to think that our claim is for fighting the natives ; but no such thing." Certainly not, Mr. Cundy. There can be no claim for that, except for those who did fight them ; and you were not one of them, although I am sorry to perceive that your words would seem to imply that you were —imply not only that you were, but that the whole box-and-dice of you "fought in the militia." Now, you know there is not one of those who have spoken or written on the subject yet who can say plainly and truthfully that they did. And why then speak so as to cause wrong impressions to those who know no better? Would it not have been, much nearer the mark had? you old identities in public meeting assembled recorded in your proceedings a special claim for those who did the fighting for you. Had you said in language candid and unmistakable, " these men partake in our general grounds of claim, and have a special claim of their own besides." This would have been only truth, and Mr. Cundy and the rest of you, you must excuse me for telling you there is nothing but truth that will see this matter out to its proper issue. You may depend on it the General Legislature of the whole colony are not to be caught with anything else. In the absence of any of our commissioned officers, I having been sergeant of the Hutt militia during the latter and more active period of their service, including the expeditions to Pahautanui, Horokiwi, and Waikanae, have felt it to be my duty to direct attention to their claim, which it is a crying injustice should remain to be done at this time of day. I did think the meeting of early settlers might have relieved me of this task ; but as they have not done so, I would only now beg to say, through your medium, to the members of the General Legislature, soon to be assembled, remember the old proverb—"Be just before you're generous."—l am. &c, George Robertson. Upper Hutt, June 23.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —I have every respect for the real "founders" of the colony, whether they arrived in it before or after the Ist January, 1848. Many of those who came after that date suffered' quite as much as many of those who came before it. The date, in fact, has nothing to do with the .comparative merits of colonising ; and I can conceive nothing more selfish and unmanly than the action of those' who. because they happened to arrive during the particular eight years between the beginning of the systematic foundat : on of the colony and that arbitrary date, of whom I am one. would shut out from a boon, which they claim for themselves as a "right,"other6 who have quite as good a right as they to ask for it. I attended Mr. Wallace's meeting on the 17th inst., and was'grieved to see old respectable settlers so greatly, in my humble opinion, losing caste, by denying to their successors any share in the credit—or reward, if. any there was t 0 be —of a great enterprise, a noble achievement, in which every colonist has more or less deserved well of our adopted country. I was asked to take part in the meeting. I purposely abstained : for I could only have told the promoters I was ashamed of them, and they would hove been rudely disturbed in their unreflecting deliberations. . 'Notwithstanding that I told Mr. Wallace this, on meeting him the very next day he told me he had hoped it might have been worth my while to draw up their memorial for them, as, of course, the resolution being passed, that document could only be drawn up so as to embody its terms, and it would be quite open to me to oppose the prayer even though I drew up its language. I need not repeat my reply. I write also to correct Mr. C. Cundy as to the history of the early settlers, of which his letter published to-day shows him to be profoundly ignorant. Up to the 2nd June, 1840, the colonists of Wellington, to the number of about 1600, had lived under a temporary arrangement with the chiefs of the 400 natives about the harbor and immediate neighborhood, for the preservation of order and enforcement as far as possible of British law. Lieutenant Governor HobsoH had not made himself officially known to us. The colonists had voluntarily bound themselves to an agreement, before lea\-ing England, by which authority for these purposes was vested in a council of certain designated leaders, with Colonel Wakefield as'president of it. We lived under the old " New Zealand flag," given by King William IV. to the natives in 1835. The captain of a ship from Hobarton had refused to acknowledge this temporary authority, on the occasion of a difference with his charterer, Mr. Wade, who appealed to the temporary police magistrate, Major Baker. He proceeded to the Bay of Islands, a»d laid a complaint before the Governor. His Excellency sent l>ack" in the Integrity, with Lieutenant Shortland, K.N., (Colonial Secretary), thirty soldiers, under an officer, and a few " dismounted" police and plain constables. I was here at the time, and have recorded the whole history of that mission. They pulled down the New Zealand flag, and hoisted the Union Jack, amid a display of sincere and universal loyalty. I can assure Mr. Cundy that Shortland was not " anxious to get Port Nicholson " ; that Colonel Wakefield, never having been asked, did not refuse to " give it up " : that Shortland never " took the troops to Auckland," but remained with them here till the 16th September, when he went back to the Bay of Islands in the Government brig. The " troops" (thirty men) remained here, under Lieutenant Best, till February, IS4l—eight months—when they were removed to Auckland in the Chelydra, along with some laborers, whom the Governor had not tempted to leave the employers who paid their passages out here. Especially is Mr. Cundy making a quite unfounded statement, when he says that " while wc " (the laborers brought out with the money paid by the first purchasers of land) " were waiting for six years to see the Government and the company come to terms, there was no one to employ us. This is what wc ask

compensation for: the lost timo of six years labor. On referring to my own records of tho history of the early settlers, 1 And that at the time of tho first anniversary, January, 1841, the white population amounted to 2DOO souls ; and, " out of the whole community iinly twenty-five men were on the -company s hands, pursuant to their engagement to omploy laboring emigrants until they found service; and these were receiving 20s. a-week, besides their rations, which might fairly be counted as 7s more." Also, that "tho prosperous state ot tie working classes did not fail to showitself bj-the:r very obstinate, but inoffensive, determination to lave a share in the arrangement of the. forthcoming festival" : a friendly discussion ending.in H *vo toys, fete instead of one, respectively called the popular and the" select." , . ~ , , It would bo well if Mr. Cundy were to recollect how long he was in the employment of Mr. Francis Molesworth, and give an exact account of how much labor, or, at any rate, wages, he "lost" during the "six years " after he landed. ■ Let him, and all those who have enlisted under Mr. Wallace to make this claim, be certain that it cannot be supported by gross misstatements of facts, for which ignorance can hardly be pleaded as an excuse. Anyone making them to any committee of either of the Houses of the General Assembly, which both contain many " Early Settlers." like myself, will only bring a lamentable tarnish on the name.—l am, &c, E. JERNIXUHAM WAKEFIELD. General Assembly Library, June 23.