Swansea and Glamorgan Herald, and South Wales Free Press. — 1865-10-07 (Swansea, West Glamorgan, Wales)

THE ABORIGINES PROTECTION SOCIETY.  WHEN the selfish feelings of man are involved in the consideration of a question, whether political or social, it is very difficult to elicit a fair and unbiassed judgment. Talk to a freetrader about the advantages of Protection, and he will laugh you to scorn; tell the wealthy Conservative landowner that cheap corn increases national prosperity, and he regards you as the veriest idiot, unable to comprehend the necessity of a rich nobility to a nation's greatness. There is much of this spirit in the controversy now going on with respect to the Aborigines Protection Society. Mr Chesson, as its worthy Secretary, contends that the Maories of New Zealand are being foully treated—driven into revolt, robbed of their lands, and murdered by thousands to make viray for the European colonist. His opponents, on the other hand, take high ground, and, blind to everything but their own immediate interests, revile the Maories as savages, and call upon the Government to assist them to defend their lands. In most instances there is a middle course to steer; but in this case we fear, though we cannot hold with the arguments of Mr Chesson, that the verdict of public opinion must be against the policy of the Colonists. Setting selfishness at one side, we must deal with the subject as a matter of principle. Shall we admit the denationalization of the land of the Aborigines as a just theory ? Certainly not. In civilized countries lauds can only be acquired by conquest, gift, or purchase, and even the two former of these means are being condemned by common consent. The troops of one potentate may overrun the dominions of another, and conquer a province, but there is no parcelling out of the land as in the days of the Norman conqueror. Prussia, ruthlessly as she has behaved towards the conquered Danish Duchies, has not attempted to divert the people of their right to a property in the soil, and confiscation, except in individual cases, is never spoken of. With respect to gifts, the people are pronouncing decidedly against the right of the Crown to give away that which can never belong to it as in the case of forest rights, and the steady progress of our freehold land societies shows a determined effort on the part of the millions to recover possession of the soil. With these practical operations at home, and a more correct view of the rights of a people, we are constrained to admit that nothing can justify the European Colonist in his covetous policy towards the Aboriginal people of New Zealand. Of course, if we fall back upon Mr Roebuck's barbarous theory, that the white man has a right to push forward his principle of civilization till every native is exterminated, that is an end to all argument; but if we recognise certain duties at home, we are bound to observe them abroad. To pay a few pieces of gold, or give a few baubles, does not constitute the act of pnrchase. The land in New Zealand having been held in common by the natives, no single member of any tribe has the power to sell what he has only a part interest in. And on this hinges the whole dissension between the settler and the native. The latter, in his individual capacity, has no right tr- .ispose of a property in common ; and the former knows when he purchases that his bargain is not valid, and must be perfected by the sword. The struggle is simply one of might against right. The Maories have all the right on their side—they maintain in practice what we ourselves are daily striving to attain—the absorption of the soil in the hands of the masses. The tribes will agree to let, but they do not agree to sell, and the Colonist taking advantage of his possession under an agree