The Sun.
London, England, 1865-09-30 00:00:00

modified by pretexts, is always the same. The native
tribes are jealous of the growth and expansion of
the colony, and, in order to restrict its development
and confine its power, they have refused to allow
the colonists to acquire the land necessary for an
increasing population. Well, then, in the very heat
of a war thus originating, the Aborigines' Protection
Society concoct an address, which they transmit, not
to any of the colonial authorities, but directly to the
native tribes. In this address they intimate pretty
clearly that the colonicts are in the wrong, and they
distinctly advise the natives not to part with their
land on any account, or even to let it out on lease,
except under the most rigorous restrictions. They
even go so far as to recommend that a law should
be enacted among the natives, absolutely forbidding
any man to alienate land, even if he should be de-
sirous of doing so. As we published this document
at full length in our columns of the 23d inst., the
public has had an opportunity of observing and
estimating its character, but Mr. Chesson now offers
an argument or two in arrest of judgment. He
admits that the address was not communicated
either to the colonial government or the English
journals. Explaining the first omission by the can-
did observation that the government was hostile to
the views of the society, and the second by the ex-
traordinary assertion that the document " raised no
question upon which public opinion here would be
likely to pronounce a judgment," he urges that the
communication was addressed, not to the rebels,
but to the Maories generally," and finally unfolds
what he calls " the case" of the society with respect
to its opinions on the land question. On these
points we need only say that the first must go
against Mr. Chesson and his friends absolutely.
When they admit that the colonial government was
" hostile" to them, they confess that they were
abetting savages then in arms against the Crown in
a policy which they knew to be condemned by the
Crown's representatives. Nor is it of any avail to
say that the rebels were not addressed exclusively.
Anybody who will be at the trouble to consult the
text of the document will see that it speaks .gene-
rally as to a people engaged in war. ' Whether an
address framed on such principles, and circulated
in such a manner and at such a period, did not de-
serve the censure it has provoked, the public will
decide. We turn, however, from the consideration of
these gentlemen and their doings to the broader
question at issue in the whole controversy ; and,
for the information of those who may never have
looked into the subject, we will state two or three
facts first. New Zealand comprises two great
islands, one as nearly as possible of the size of Ire-
land, the other not much smaller than England.
Together, they contain about 90,000,000 acres, of
which it is said that two-thirds, at least, are fitted
for the purposes of agriculture. On this immense
and apparently inexhaustible territory there are
settled upwards of 100,000 of our countrymen, who
have transferred their energies to the Antipodes in
search of profit and competence. But these settlers
findon the soil a certain population of natives num-
bering, according to a census taken seven years ago,
just 31,667 males and 24,303 females; in other
words, about half the population of Brighton. These
are the " Aborigines," under the protection of Mr.
Chesson and his colleagues, the " natives" who are
at war with Great Britain—the " Maories," who
_nrstond that—our colonists shall have no land. and
that New Zealand, with its ninety millions Or acres,
belongs to themselves alone. Mr. Chesson now says
the society was misrepresented when it was described
as " discouraging the natives from the sale of their
lands." Here are the very words of the Address :
—" Instead of the tribes having their lands in com-
mon, every man must have his own piece for him-
self and his family to use, which nobody should
have the right to interfere with. Its boundaries
should be clearly marked, that no one should meddle
with it, but to prevent his being robbed by selfish
and dishonest persons, he should be unable to dispose
of it, and this rule should be made quite strong and
safe. Even the letting or leasing of land should be
discouraged, and never sanctioned without caution
and registration. Colonists out of New Zealand
have had lands let to them by natives, and then the
colonists have kept possession and driven the natives
out. It will be quite right to keep some of the land as
common property in every native district which
may be turned to great advantage for public
and private purposes." If this does not mean
that all the land now claimed by the Maories
in tribes should be divided among the mem-
bers of the tribes personally, and rendered
inalienable, words have no signification. What are
the " lands" of the Maories, and where ? A member
of the Protection Society has actually stated that, in
the opinion of himself and his fellow members, the
title of these savages to their lands is exactly equi-
valent to that of the Duke of Bedford, for instance,
to his estates. Instead of this, it is exactly equiva-
lent to the title of the Australian Aborigines to the
gold diggings, that of Bushmen to the Cape of Good
Hope, or that of the Choctaw Indians to the State
of Arkansas. If it is good for anything, it covers
the whole soil of New Zealand, though it is founded
only on the fact that this handful of cannibals
landed on the shore of the country about 98 years
before we did. " But," says Mr. Chesson, " they
are subjects of the Queen, and are as much entitled
to her protection as the inhabitants of Auckland or
Wellington." Exactly so ; just "as much," but no
more ; and we must now once again ask the Society's
secretary what would become of the inhabitants of
Auckland or Wellington if they rose in arms against
the Government, defied the Queen's troops, and
levied open war against the Crown? Mr. Chesson
is careful to impress upon us, little thinking how it
damages his case, that these Maories are neither
ignorant nor even uncivilized. He makes out quite
a character of respectability for them ; for though a
Maori has not yet " kept a gig," some of them, it
seems, have " owned flour mills." If they have made
these advances in knowledge, they must be respon-
sible subjects, and may be expected to understand
that they are not the lords of the soil, and not jus-
tified in making war upon the Government. There
are two theories of the case, and Mr. Chesson may
take his choice of them. The Maories may be
savages like the Indians of California ox Florida,
possessed with the belief that white men are in-
truders upon their inheritance, and resorting, in the
rudeness of their nature, to rifles and tomahawks in
defence of their rights, without the least conception
that they are doing any wrong ; or they may be
intelligent and responsible subjects of the Crown,
entitled to the same consideration in all respects as
any other subjects. In the former of these cases it
is preposterous to talk about settled estates ; in the
latter, the estates have been forfeited a dozen times
over by treason and rebellion. The Protection So-
ciety would like to take half of one theory and half
of the other, and give their clients the benefits of
both. Their ideal Maories are " aborigines" in so
far as they may claim the whole soil of the country,
and savages in so far as they are not to be held ac-
countable for rising in arms against the Queen, but
when their title to land is in question they are at
once promoted to the rank of civilised men and re-
sponsible subjects. That is a very ingenious view
of the case, but it will never be accepted by the
people of this kingdom.
HERALD.—In this time of autumn holiday, in
which the British statesman, wearied with the toils
of the senate-house or the labours of government,
retires for a brief season, like Cincinnatus to his
plough, it is pleasant to note the zeal with which our
public men are wont to engage in the discussion of
agricultural topics, to observe the ease and the
grace with which they harangue the practical
farmers, who, however well versed in the subject,
and " to the manner born," seem best pleased when
sitting at the feet of the man who can arrange their
ideas for them, and tell them of things which 'they
all seemed to know before, but never fully to under-
stand till now. We do not, of course, imagine that
any educated Englishman can be altogether a
stranger to agricultural lore. It is said that of all
people the Englishman is the only one who is
thoroughly at home on the sea. He is also pretty
generally at home in the farmyard and the cornfield.
The veriest cockney has frequently his model farm,
and opinions of his own on the question of the value
of manures or the rotation of crops. If genius for in-
vention and taste forenterprise have made our coun-