The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-28 00:00:00

SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

POST.—If an illustration of destroying by kind-
ness on the large scale were to be sought in the
records of colonisation, the blue-books, now multi-
farious, relating to New Zealand matters would go
far to supply it. Ttrlaen Bret the two magnificent
islands not appropriately called the Eritain of the
South came under the regular dominion of this
country as members of the British colonial empire,
every desire was manifested to do absolute justice
between the Maories, often, but inappropriately,
termed " aborigines," and the invading race of
European settlers. Exeter Hall and the Aborigines
Protection Society had it all their own way in those
times with the Colonial-office, which latter was
influenced to put itself upon conscience with the
natives, to deal by them not merely in accordance
with certain abstract principles of justice, but with
certain developments of the abstraction, the result
of civilisation at home, and Axed government of
long duration. Herein lay the error—the prin-
ciples constituting the basis of legislation were
true and good enough, but the special application
of those who have exaggerated the very evils they
were intended to obviate. Hopes were held out to
the Maories, and promises were made, both clearly
incompatible with the relations which must needs
subsist between themselves and the colonial popu-
lation—hopes and promises that have resulted in a
chronic feud which, if not composed once and for
all, must lead to utter destruction of a very inte-
resting race of people now barely amounting to
50,000 souls. In taking a review of New Zealand
matters, from the stand-point of the doctrinaires
who instigated the Treaty of Waitangi, it is well
to understand and bear in mind, once for all, that
the Maories are no more the aborigines of New
Zealand than are the English and other Europeans
now settled there. In support of this come not
only their own traditions, but ethnological points
of similarity not to be mistaken. According to
their own records the Maories came from Hawai
in canoes about three hundred years ago; and
although the voyage seems long for that mode of
navigation, yet, when the absence of storms in the
Pacific is considered, and when, viewing the map of
the world, cognisance is taken of the islands and
islets, well-nigh innumerable, that stud the ocean
like stepping-stones across a fording-place, the
Maori tradition of their own exodus is in no way
improbable. It follows, then, that the Maories can
lay no claim to land title by prescriptive right of
occupation ab origins, which postulate once con-
ceded, the whole basis of assumption on which the
Treaty of Waitangi was established disintegrates
like a foundation of sand, and the whole super-
structure falls tottering. Perhaps it may not be
inexpedient here to indicate that the treaty to which
we have made reference is, in the annals of New
Zealand colonial history, comparable for importance
to what the Magna Charta is in the chronicles of
England. Its main characteristic was the affirma-
tion of a principle deduced from considerations of
abstract justice—the principle that lordship of the
soil, proprietorship of the land, should be recognised
as vested in the natives. As a corollary it was de-
creed that no land should be taken up, cultivated,
or otherwise appropriated, save under the condition
of voluntary sale by the rightful owner. Stripped
of all unnecessary mystification, and put in plain
language, such was the main principle affirmed by
the Treaty of Waitangi ; and it needs no deep
acquaintance with juridical science to see that a
stipulation of this sort could only take effect har-
moniously and satisfactorily under the condition of
the existence of a distinct land tenure well attested,
consecrated, so to speak, by time; recognised as
land tenure in England is recognised, and capable
of being placed in evidence whenever need should
arise, by what, for shortness sake, we may term
a Maori court of registration. Now, unfortunately
for the harmonious operation of the Waitangi
Treaty, the relationship of the Maori tribes to
the land of their islands was one of pretence and
pretence only. They were not an agricultural people
—they were not even pastoral. Farther to simplify
the case, they were not even a hunting people ;
and all this conceded, it is difficult to understand
how even—granting, for the sake of argument,
the aboriginal claim—the Maories could be held
constructively as lords of the soil, according to any
European jurisprudential notions. Admitting,
however, the theoretical propriety of the application
of principles laid down by the Treaty of Waitangi,
the futility of attempting to carry them into effect
will be made manifest by consideration of some
very strange pretensions which rule amongst the
Maories in reference to their land claims. One of
the strangest amongst these is what they call their
Law of Blood, the nature of which will be best set
forth by an illustration which we have on the au-
thority of a New Zealand blue-book. In one of
these publications it is recorded that a Maori, en-
tering a domicile belonging to another individual,
struck his head against the door-post, so that the
skin was broken and blood flowed. Thereupon the
visitor advanced a claim to proprietorship of the
house as having been the means of causing his
blood to flow; and in the blue-book wherein we
perused this statement testimony is made to the
fact that such pretension was wholly accordant with
a very ancient lex non scripta of the Maories. It,
instead of a door-post, the visitor had fallen and
broken his head on the ground, then the whole
estate would have been constructively his; and thus
it is easy to see that, even without further cause of
embarrassment, this curious and fantastical blood
law would necessarily prevent any harmonious
working of conveyancing laws, the result of our
long-established government and more perfect civi-
lisation. For our part we see no hardship in the
policy of abrogating the Treaty of Waitangi, but a
real mercy to the natives. We should be well con-
tent to see the whole length and breadth of the two
New Zealand islands vested in the Colonial Go-
vernment, and redistributed according to the special
justice of each individual case. This done, there
would be what there never yet has been in New
Zealand—a safe and guaranteed title to land pos-
session ; and if a plea for action be deemed indis-
pensable, surely there is a very material one in the
argument perfectly well recognised in civilised
polity—that war abrogates treaties ; that, when
once the sword has been drawn, relations begin
de nova.

HERALD.—The corporation of Dublin has consti-
tuted itself the champion of Irish tenant right, and
the Lord Ilayor of that city has, in full civic state,
presented a monster petition, said to be signed by
over 400,000 persons, at the bar of the Commons,
praying for legislation on this most important sub-
ject. The petition has been of course got up after
the usual fashion, each individual, young and old,
affixing his signature on issuing from the chapel
doors, where either the priest or some influential
agitator stands pen in hand to witness and urge on
the proceedings. Thus we have the urban popula-
tion bearing testimony to the "ills they know not
of," and the rural peasantry, naturally enough,
praying for some measure which would make them
virtually owners of the soil. We cannot but think
that the corporation of Dublin would have been
better employed in reducing the rates paid by the
inhabitants of that city than in squandering the
funds intrusted to their guardianship in bootless
and expensive visits to London. Their last state ex-
pedition, including the cost of their victory over
Edinburgh, entailed an expenditure of nearly £lOOO,
and no doubt the present appearance of the Dublin
functionaries at the bar of tlae:house will be attended
with an outlay proportionate to their muss of their
own dignity. There are many gentlemen of their
party in the Commons who could, and would, wil-
lingly have presented this petition, without expense
to the ratepayers of Dublin. If the corporators
suppose that their presence will give additional
weight to its prayer, we beg to assure them that
they form a very exaggerated opinion of their own
importance. The debate in the Dublin Common
Council, on the adoption of this petition, most for■
cibly verifies the truth of the old adage, " That the
cobbler should stick to his last." We believe that
the territorial possessions of toe very few members
of that very excitable body connected with land,
either as occupiers or owners, are of the moat infi-
nitesimal proportions, and the pincipal speaker Cu
the occasion (llr. Dillon) frankly admitted that,
personally, he knew nothing of the management
of estates or tenantry, his only object being to
obtain some measure which would render the
people comfortable and keep them at home. What
that measure should be, save that it must include
remuneration for outlay, he did not indicate. Now
Mr. Dillon must have been ignorant of the fact,
that there is already in existence an act of Parlia-
ment, called Cardwell's Act, from having been in•
troduced and passed by that gentleman when Secre-
tary for Ireland, by which an annuity of 7,!-, per
cent. for 25 years is secured to the tenant on all out-
lay for the profitable improvement of his farm. If
such liberal terms of remuneration will not encou-
rage the Irish tenant to industry we should be glad
to know what more may be expected ? We can
easily believe that Mr. Dillon was ignorant of this
act when speaking; for it has become quite a dead
letter, and is no doubt altogether forgotten, not one
Irish tenant having taken advantage of its pro-
visions. Were the same advantages accorded to the
English tenant the results would have been very
different. Mr. Dillon has been singularly unfortu-
nate in his reference to the French tenantry. Before
he hazarded assertions which tell altogether against
his views he should have made himself acquainted
with the terms and tenures on which land is held in
France. It is true that the French peasantry are in
very large numbers proprietors of small portions of
the soil, but they are also almost invariably renters
of far more considerable farms than those they hold
in fee; and if Mr. Dillon or his friends wish to in-
troduce the French laws and customs regulating
the possession of land into Ireland, sure we are that

the Irish proprietors will not object. The longest
lease ever granted in France is for seven years; the
usual tenures for three, six, or nine; both parties,
having a reciprocal right to terminate the tenancy'
by giving six months' notice at the end of either
term. It is true the landlord keeps the home"
stead in repair, but as there are neither gates'
nor fences in the agricultural districts of France
this costs him but little, while the tenant P3Ye
taxes on windows, fireplaces, doors, get", frocn
which the Irish tenant is wholly exempt. The ren
of the French tenant, which is, in proportion ta,
quality of soil, at least 30 per cent. above the rents
ot,
in Ireland, is paid the day it becomes due; if n
the landlord summons the tenant before the justice
of the peace, who, the debt being proved, issues art
order for his dispossession. If, after 14 daY's
grace accorded by law, the rent should still remarrydue, the landlord proceeds to the premises with e:
policeman, the tenant and his family are turn
out, the furniture and stock are sold by auction, Oft
if any surplus remains it is handed to the tenet)"
and all further connection between the partial
ceases. Such a thing as an abatement in case of
bad crops is unknown—and it must be said, to the
credit of the French farmers, that eviction is seldom
had recourse to. The French tenant is perfectly
aware that his farm, on the expiration of his teaurs,.
will be let to the highest bidder, yet in the teeth et
short tenures, high rents, and strict landlords,l3:e
thrives and becomes a proprietor, small though 131
acquisition may be, solely by his industry. In
tat
of misleading the Irish peasantry by false state:
ments of their being born proprietors, would
in it me
be well if Mr. Dillon and his friends would cit
them to industry, by showing them what the French
peasant accomplishes under more adverse circuln;
stances than the Irish tenant is ever placed ill:
When the agitators for tenant right assert th"
after
Irish tenants are driven from their farms
having improved them, will they favour us with
some examples ? It must be easy to do so if t":
cases be so numerous ; one fact will have nicr'
weight than a thousand assertions.

RINAHAN'S LL WHISKY v. COGNAC,
This BRANDY.
celebrated Old IRISH WHISKY rivals the finest
KLNCH BRANDY,
It ii Pure, Mild, Mellow, Delicious,
and very Wholesome.
Sold in Bottles, 3s. Bd., at the Retail Houses in London ; by
ate
Agents in the principal towns in England ; or wholesale

8, GREAT WINDMILL-STREET, W.
Observe the Red Seal, Pink Label, and Cork branded
"Ainahan's LL Whisky."