THE COLONIST. NELSON, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1860.

Colonist, Volume IV, Issue 316, 30 October 1860, Page 2

THE COLONIST. NELSON, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1860.

We resume our remarks on Mr. Fenton's papers relative to native affairs, the first of which appeared in our number for October 23rd.

Mr. Fenton describes subsequent meetings of a similar nature, and ot the increasing attendance of men from other tribes, and then says—1' I have thus briefly stated the objects which the Maories are desirous to achieve, and the plans they propose in order to effect these objects.' He further observes —* It is not needful to refer to the causes which have operated to produce such results, as I have already adverted to them in my previous minute.' It is a pity it did not precede the present one. He next observes—' If the details 1 have given are true, the importance of the events cannot be over-estimated. It must be received as a great fact. It becomes then no longer a matter of quiescent observation, but a point of duty as well as of interest, for the Government to come forward and offer sympathy and assistance, if the objects sought are right, and every effectual opposition, if the signs entertained are wrong. It is not a small matter with the Maoris whether they succeed or fail in their efforts. They regard this their first spontaneous effort to create a new civilisation, the turning point ot their importance as a people. A deprecatory article in the Maori Messenger^ or letter from the native department, exhorting to virtue [or in other words passive obedience and non-resistance to the powers that be] will not banish from their imagination the idea that they have before them a practical good which may be attained by a vigorous pursuit. Surely the motto which forms the abbreviated creed of our Maori politics is not one so recommended by its dignity, or so convenient in its results, that we should resolutely maintain it when the opportunity presents itself of acting on an honorable principle—one alike consistent with our obligations and beneficial to our interests. There are occasions in the history of nations, as of individuals, when to do , nothing is not only lessdignified but more dan-? gerous than action. The motto, on our shield cannot be maintained.for ev,er^ The time wilt

come when it must be erased. "In politics," says Chateaubriand, "finality is impossible. It is an absolute necessity to advance along with the human intellect." The Christian philosopher, in meditating on the ideas of the Maoris, would simply inquire what justice required, and would not allow the question of expediency to obscure his judgment. But the politician—having informed himself of the pledges given, having learnt the obligations undertaken, and having examined all the collateral and contingent consequences implied or flowing from these pledges and obligations, is compelled to ask himself how many of these it is possible to perform, and how many of these it is expedient to forget.' After alluding to the Treaty of Waitangi, and citing Blackstone and English Acts of Parliament upon the rights of British subjects, and showing, that not only by that treaty the native population were declared to be British subjects, but that the rising generation are actually British-born subjects ; he then observes that the Maoris are not inclined that their rights as British subjects should be altogether abandoned by the Government. It should be recollected, he says, 'after the trial of Marsden, for murder, some of the chiefs declared that they would not submit to another criminal trial where a Maori was concerned unless some of their own race were on the jury. Is this declaration of the chiefs already forgotten ? or do we await the time when some grave complication having arisen, overpowering necessity will compel attention to it ? Our judgment will not be quickened by the precursors of terror, though vis inertice may be overcome by its force. And how great is the disadvantage under which an arrangement is undertaken when one side is inflamed by passion and the other is j impelled by dread. Reason is but.a weak I antagonist when headlong passion dictates. Those, says Goldsmith, who attempt to reason us out of our follies begin at the wrong end, since the attempt naturally presupposes us capable of reason; but to be capable ot this is one great point or the cure.'

Surely the Native Commissioner will not say that this prophetic warning comes after the events now displaying themselves. We now come to a remarkable anomaly in our mode of viewing the rights of the Maori to claim the privilege of the elective franchise in conjunction with the Europeans. Mr. Fenton observes —'The recent movement in the south taken by a large body of natives who have placed themselves on the electoral roll is pregnant with grave matter for reflection. The lasv cannot arrest it, for although the native ownership of land being of the nature of a common—a sort of incorporeal hereditament springing out of land held under no title recognised by law, can confer no sustainable claim to vote, yet there are but few Maoris who have not as occupiers a valid and indefeasible title to the franchise. 1 do not speak of occupancy as conferring a title on the maxim of the old Roman law— Quod nuttius est id ratione naturah oecupanti. conceditur, but "simply as of a tenancy;' and refers us to Governor Gibbs's despatch to Governor Hobson in March 1841, on the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral of New South Wales, wherein he says such an enactment (meaning, we suppose, to the right of voting) must be based upon the principle that uncivilised tribes not having an individual right of property in the soil, but only a right analogous to that of commonage, cannot either by sale or lease, &c.'

The Native Commissioner cannot have had the advantage of perusing this document, or he never would have thrown out his challenge to any man to dare get up in that house to contravene his dictum upon native tribal rights. Mr. Fenton concludes his observations on this part of the subject by asking— * If this be true, are the European authorities to remain inactive spectators of a movement, the ultimate result of which may be that the civilised portion of the community shall be overwhelmed in the elections by an ignorant majority, who render no actual allegiance to the laws whose privileges they ? re exercising ?'