New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4562, 3 November 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3.

One naturally looks to the Australasian for accurate information on any subject on which it professes to write authoritatively ; but wo must say that its series of colonial sketches, under the caption, " New Zealand as it is," are about as unreliable and unreadable a set of papers as one could well fall in with after a year's diligent search. And what makes the matter worse, is the apparent effort at accuracy, and the internal evidence of good faith and honesty of purpose of the writer. It is want of knowledge of the subject which bothers and annoys the Australasian sketcher, not want of will to do it justice. Now this is wholly inexcusable, because the Melbourne Public Library contains all the material necessary to fabricate a genuine history of New Zealand, if one only knew where to look for it.

In the Australasian, of the 23rd October, there appears the 15th sketch, being No. I. of "The Maoris." Now we should not have taken special notice of this article, were it not calculated to do an infinite amount of mischief and harm to

our fellow-colonists. >*But our duty is plain. It is to expose the mis-statements of the writer, and to protest against the Australasian lending itself to the vilification of the pioneers of New Zealand colonization. The writer assumes the Sir Oracle style at the outset, and says : —"lf I " talk with a stranger to New Zealand, '' who has some thought of settling there, " the first question is the Native diffi- " culty : is it over, or is there a proba- " hility of disturbances for the future ? " I answer at once that trouble is not " merely scotched but killed, by the late " policy of the Government, and the "shrewdness, firmness, honesty, and " resolution of the present Minister " for Native Affairs, Sir Donald McLean, " or ' Mackarene,' as he is called by the " natives." This is possible, though a little exaggerated. We agree in everything that is said about Sir Donald and the present policy—not " the late policy " —of the Government. We won't quarrel about that, but we do most emphatically protest against what follows. The Australasian proceeds : —" The whole trouble " with the Maoris, in times past, was " occasioned—speaking broadly—by the " anxiety of the original settlers to '' acquire land ; the unfair bargains they '' made, and their want of respect for " Maori customs, which have the force "of law with that people. The feudal " system prevails among them as it did "among the Celtic race in Britain until " the last century. They have their " chiefs, who direct their affairs, but who " do not exclusively own the soil, which " belongs to the tribe, every man and " woman —for in Maori land the sexes " have equal rights—having a voice in " the management of the business, and " especially in the disposal of the land. " Years ago, any person might go amongst " the natives and make his own bargain " for a portion of the soil. Many did so, "at prices which were very soon dis- " covered to be altogether inadequate, " for the Maori is very apt to learn. " Ignorant of the native law on the sub- " ject, that the Maori is as tenacious of '' his rights in the soil as ever an English- " man was, and that he can trace his pedi- " gree for generations as well as ever Celtic '' genealogist could, these buyers of land " would be content if they obtained the ( ' sanction of one or two of the chiefs of " a tribe. But the land being common " property, the result almost invariably " was tribal disputes, which eventually " led to the war. There are still men in "New Zealand who think that as the " Maoris themselves took possession of " New Zealand, conquered and ate their " predecessors —the only descendants of " those who escaped being now to be " found in the Chatham Islands —they " should be subject to the same law of " conquest, and give way before the "white invader of their land. Out of " that feeling on the one side, and devo- '' tion to their country on the other, un- " doubtedly arose all those wars which "cost England the lives of so many " brave men. Bishop Selwyn thoroughly "understood this. It early discovered " itself to General Cameron, who soon " learned to appreciate the many good '' points of the native character ; it was " expressed in his despatches to the " Secretary of State for the Colonies ; " and it was his conviction that England "was fighting an unjust war—'might " against right —for the aggrandisement " of a few settlers at the cost of a brave " and kindly people, that led to what " many thought was an inglorious con- " elusion of the late war, the withdrawal " of the British troops, and the protec- " tion of the whites of New Zealand left "to themselves. From that moment " began a new order of things." The writer of this precious farrago of nonsense would appear to be a Scot ; pity he does not possess the proverbial caution and love of accuracy of his countrymen. Pity even he did not turn up the back files of the Arrjus, and peruse the interesting letters of. Mr. Willoughby, as special correspondent at the seat of war : if lie had done so, he would have been saved from slandering the early New Zealand settlers, who deserve well of their race and country, and who, until now, have been fairly treated by the Australasian.

And first, it is absolutely untrue that the Maori war, either first or last, was occasioned by the land purchases of the settlers. Eeference must be made to the old ls»nd claimants, for save when Governor Fitzroy granted the waiver of pre-emption, no direct purchase was tolerated by the New Zealand Government up to the enactment of the Native Lands Act, 1862, and amending Acts. Now, it is a fact which cannot be controverted, that in no single instance did the Maoris repudiate a sale made to the old land claimants, or to purchasers under Governor Fitzroy's proclamation, although the most strenuous efforts to that end were made by Fitzroy's successor. So far from feeling themselves aggrieved, the Maoris to this day look upon the purchasers from the Government of land taken from the original buyers as interlopers, and in the North the old natives have frequently expressed their readiness to turn them off as trespassers, and put " their pakehas " into possession of their own land. In every claim to land investigated before the Land Claims Commissioner, the natives came forward and testified to the hon& fides of the transaction, to their own satisfaction with the original purchase, and annoyance that the Government should take and keep what it never acquired, save by a measure of public policy, amounting to confiscation in Maori eyes. "We refer to the Land Purchase Ordinance, and the proceedings under it. The fact being as we state, we surely are justified in protesting against the Australasian promulgating a scandalous and untrue charge against the old colonists of New Zealand. It is untrue, and wicked a 3 it is untrue, to state that "out of this feeling on the one side, " [a desire to expel the natives from their " land,] and devotion to their country on " the other, undoubtedly arose all those " wars which cost England the lives of "so many bravo men." The feeling which resulted in the Maori war of 1860-69, had as little to do with the colonists, apart from the Government, as had the feeling which impelled Hone Heke to cut down the flagstaff and sack Korerareka.

And then about Bishop Selwyn participating in this feeling. Does the writer in the Australasian know anything whatever of the position assumed by the Bishop of New Zealand and his clergy at the crisis in question, and the cause of their opposition to the war policy? Most certainly he does not. If he did, he would find that he had either mis-stated facts, or that Bishop Selwyn was singularly inconsistent, for his sole support in the colony at that time—the rank and file of the philo-Maori party—wore those very land-sharking colonists, whose insatiable greed he alleges as the cause of the war. Out upon such absurd details, which falsify history, and cause the good name of brave and generous men to stink in the nostrils of strangers, who accept the

record of the 1 Australasian as the record of truth. And then General Cameron,-- and his despatches to the Secretary" of State for the Colonies, forsooth ! Who ever heard of the like ? What has come over the Australasian that it publishes such rubbish 1 Was there not a civil Governor in New Zealand, who communicated with the Secretary of State, and did not Sir Duncan Cameron correspond with the War Department through the Commander -in - Chief 1 Surely everyone knows of the triangular paper duel between Sir George Grey, Sir Duncan Cameron, and the New Zealand Executive ;—a correspondence which disgusted everyone in authority at Home, aud was the direct cause of the removal of the troops. But the historian of New Zealand employed by the Australasian is ignorant. Ho credits Sir Duncan Cameron with opinions which it is not correct to say thathe held, although heresented the orders which extended the campaign to the West Coast. Doubtless a good deal was said and written then by civil and military authorities which they would now willingly bury in oblivion, and we do not deny that Imperial officers, in their private correspondence which was published, and General Cameron in despatches, written under excitement and a keen sense of personal injury, accused influential colonista of unworthy motives in undertaking the Wanganui campaign. Party feeling in New Zealand also ran somewhat in the same direction. But now that time has removed the prejudice and misunderstanding of that period, no man of truth and honor could be found to reiterate those accusations. This, however, is merely incidental to the general question which we have discussed.

Our space does not admit of criticising the remaining portion of the article in the Atistralasian. Suffice it to say that a bundle of facts have been seized and turned topsy-turvy as if by design. There is hardly a point correctly set down: even the threadbare Maori legend of the canoes is spoilt in tho telling, and the number of the canoes is greatly understated. Now, as we have already said, we recognise an honest attempt to do right; but when something worse than blunders are committed, we must protest in the name of our fellow-colonists.