The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-28 00:00:00

THE SUN,

?aid, we would not indeed imply that there
was eitner neglect or stupidity in the sad affair
at Beeston—an opinion upon the point ere pre:na-
ture. alisappr&hension there certainly wa.-; ; and, as
certainly, neglect or stupidity, while rip-ans of com-
munication are wanting, might lead to ll the horrid
consequences to which something clear: led.

NE W ZEALAND.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR,—In common with other friends of New Zealand,
I have read with much interest your amicie of Tuesday
last, and I trust you will continue to draw public atter,
Lion to that ill-used colony. Its cause is a most just one,
and your powerful advocacy of it is sure to bring success
in due time. If the state of your columns will allow it to
be done, would you kindly insert the following letter,
written ou a subject of great importance to New Zea-
land?

A pamphlet, addressed to Lord Stanley, by Mr.
Dandeson Coates, Secretary to the Church Missionary
Society, and severely censuring the Report of the Par-
liamentary Committee appointed to consider the affairs
of New Zealand, has recently appeared, and it is neces-
sary to make a few remarks upon it.
Considering the position of Mr. Coates as an officer of
the Church Missionary Society, and the obvious interest
he has in the line of argument he supports, I am sur-
prised that delicacy did not keep him silent. I shoull
have imagined that after his declaration that he would
" thwart the New Zealand Company to the utmost of his
power," he would not have condescended to write under
a false pretence, and would not, as on this occasion, have
made the rights of the natives the stalking-horse of the
wrongs of the missionaries. Lord Stanley is well aware
that the missionaries of New Zealand have not been
wholly unmindful of their own temporal interests—that
in their ordinary care for the natives, they have not
omitted taking extraordinary care of themselves, and he
will see how likely it is that they should be jealous of,
and opposed to, any other colonization than their own ;
for, with all respect to the Church Missionary Society,
to which I have subscribed for many years, I say that it
is a scandalous thing that her agents in New Zealand
should have been so mixed up in land jobbing. Out of
35 missionaries in 1838—for 21 to be land claimants,
18 to the tune of 118,000 acres, and the others
to the tune of 40,000! It is most discreditable and im-
proper, and must grieve every friend to missionary ex-
ertion. These grants all being in the northern part of
New Zealand, we are at once supplied with a key to the
opposition of their owners to colonization in the southern
part. But is it not " drawing the feather" rather too
openly for these men and their friends to assert their
objections on principle to all southern colonization ?—an
objection which this very highly-paid officer of their
body, and the avowed foe of the New Zealand Company,
urges with his half-coaxing, half-bullying appeal, on
Lord Stanley, and all forsooth on principle? But let no
one fancy that the missionaries have well-founded
religious grounds on which to oppose the systematic
colonization now going on. The opposition of the
missionaries in New Zealand to me appears simply of the
earth, earthy!
The whole pamphlet, when stripped of its unneces-
sary verbiage, resolves itself into one point, and upon
that point I will undertake to show that Mr. Coates is
completely in error.
Mr. Coates rejects all previous matters, and confines
himself to the treaty of Waitangi. " Here," says he,
"is a treaty made by the representative of the British
Government and the native chiefs, and I take my stand
upon it. I care not for a priori arguments or facts—l
stand upon this solemn treaty, and I say, that until you
destroy this, the resolutions of the late Parliament Com-
mittee are dishonest and bad.. Task not to me of the
Inexpediency- or absurdity of the treaty ; it has been
formally made and ratified, and it cannot be avoided."
Now, admitting all Mr. Coates's assumptions, I say
that the Parliamentary resolutions are wholly consistent
with the treaty of Waitangi, and perfectly honest and
good; and I further say, that the very terms and spirit
of that treaty itself furnish us with a full justification
of the Parliamentary Committee's report. By the
second article of that treaty her Majesty "guarantees
to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and to the re-
spective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclu-
sive, and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates,
forests, fisheries, and other properties, which they may
collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their
wish to retain the same in their possession. But the pri-
vilege of pre-emption is yielded to her Majesty over
such land as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to
alienate."
This is the celebrated treaty of Waitangi. And pray
how, attentively considered, does this in any way conflict
with the report of the Parliamentary Committee ? Mr.
Coates says that the recommendations of the Committee
nullify the above clause of this treaty. I say they do
not nullify it, but leave it wholly undisturbed.
The argument arises upon the word possess. The
treaty guarantees to the natives all the lands, &c., which
they possess. So far so good. But then the Parlia-
mentary Committee does the same.—( Vide the Report,
passim.) The report throughout admits and enforces
possession and occupation to be the means of acquiring
the title to land in New Zealand, and therefore advocates
the very. terms of the treaty by impliedly confirming the
natives in whatever land they may possess.
Any person who reads the report, and who is in the
least degree conversant with the subject, will at once
see this, and that the claim for the settlers extends only
to such land as may be unoccupied or unpossessed by the
natives. The report regards such unpossessed land as
part of nature's waste, and open to the first occupier.
This doctrine has been held by the best writers of all
ages, e.g., Grceius, Blackstone, Locke, Puffendorf, and
Paley.

Tile native New Zealander deco not occupy or possess
a thousandth part of the country for his own support
or use (see Parliamentary papers), and yet Mr. Coates
and his missionary friends would keep the remaining
999 parts to themselves, and proscribe other Europeans
from acquiring it. But then " they have purchased it !"
An equitable purchase, truly, it has been! even admitting
some purchase fcr the sake of argument. A blanket for
one thousand acres, a gun or a cloak for 5,000 acres,
and so on ! Why, is it not clear to any one, that the
natives in their own minds know they ore selling what
they have no right to, or they would not accept such
moonshine equivalents as these ? It is like Sheridan

getting a shot-at a flock of geese for sixpence, and when
he had killed three, and was chuckling at his bargain,
being advised by the bumpkin who had received the six-
pence to make himself scarce, as the real owner was
coming into the field. The sly fellow was glad to accept
the smallest sum, because what he gave in exchange did
not belong to him.

The treaty of Waitangi most properly confirms the
natives in the lands they possess, but leaves open the
remaining lands to lawful settlement, and the Parlia-
mentary reports hold the same doctrine, and I defy any
impartial reader, be he lay or clerical, to come to any
other conclusion than this. Mr. Coates first conceals
the true spirit of the report, and then argues in the
most dogmatical manner on such false foundations.
This is as palpaLle a piece of Jesuitry as I ever met with.
Of course, looking both at the treaty and the report,
the true meaning of possession is always to be carefully
regarded. It must be settled with a due respect to cir-
,!umstances and the habits of the people. It would be
as absurd to construe, e. gr., mere walking over the
land once in a lifetime into an act of possession, as to
require a legal possession by deed, signed, sealed, and
lelivered. The U1ti11271.4 is the true criterion, whether
the individual intended to take possession, and followed
ap the intention by a corresponding act ; but in such a
possession as this, the New Zealander would be disturbed

,either by the treaty nor the Parliamentary report.
I therefore do trust that Lord Stanley will nut, now
he way has been opened, refuse to enter upon it from
soy false feeling towards the .aborigines. Their rights,
like those of Europ.,ans, rest upon one foundation, both
V nature and treaty, viz., possession or occupation. Let
these rights be openly recognised, and so let an end be
put to that sad state of doubt and dread which at present
exists. Let rights, whether of the red or white man, be
settled and enforced. A young colony cannot stand
still—it must go on or fall back; and the uncertainty
which yet prevails in New Zealand is enough to stifle it
in its infancy. But as Carlyle says, it is a sad time for
governments when the governed play to be let alone.
Lord Stanley may continue to neglect New Zealand, but
IVI.y upon it the cfr et will be most prjudicial to himself
and his character with posterity. Let Lord Stanley do
a little in the business of his official connexion with
New Zealand in the right direction, instead of allowing
himself to be put forward as the tool of the missionaries,
and mixed up with all their transactions. Let him carry

,ait the principle of the Parliamentary report and of the
treaty of Waitangi, for the principle of both is identical
—" That possession or occupation alone give an original
title to land, and that claims to comi:ensation not founded
on this principle are to be disregarded, as unsound in
theory and unjust in practice."—l am, Sir, your obedient
servant,
CIVILIS.
Nov. 23, 1844.

[We have ventured to abridge the communication of
our correspondent " Civility," for a reason which he will
infer, from the large space it still occupies in our
columns; but we have retained all its important features.
—ED. Sun.]

STATE OF TRADE.
(From the Manchester Guardian.)
Owing to the advance of the season, the demand for
yarn (which has been so exceedingly active during the last
few weeks) has now somewhat abated, and rather lower
prices were yesterday accepted for certain descrip-
tions of warps and of cop-weft, which had previously
commanded higher relative prices than other sorts. For
all the ordinary shipping numbers and qualities, however,
the prices remain quite as high as heretofore. For
goods, the demand is still limited, with a slight tendency
to a decline in prices, in some few fabrics.
ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, MONDAY, NOTEN-
BEP. 25.—The flannel market has been heavy, and the
prices ruinously low. When trade is good, this month is
generally the busiest, and the demand continues up to
Christmas. Wool has been rather better to buy to-day,
but the inquiry for it continues very limited.

ECLIPSE or THE AlooN.—On Sunday evening a
total eclipse of the moon, visible in our locality, having
been announced, multitudes awaited the interesting oc-
currence with eager anticipations of delight. The moon,
which was full the same evening at half-past eleven, rose
from the horizon towards the dusk, in beautiful splen-
dour, and continued up to half-past 8 o'clock to shine in
a cloudless sky. From this period, however, thick clouds
gathered from the west and gradually obscured the
evening luminary from view, and shortly alto- nine
o'clock whets the eclipse began, it was completely lost to
the sight, except for one or two intervals, when its face
was seen, though indistinctly, and the first contact of the
.e
penumbrat was, as Sir J. South would say "visible for
tfraction of a Second." After
th.s time all further
observatroii was at an end ; the clouds gathered thicker
than ever, and the
rain
begat, to fall, continuing to do so
during night, the sky being b enveloped in impenetrable
glOOD3.—Effinburgh Paper.