26 JANUARY 1861, Page 11

HOME VIEWS OF NEW ZEALAND POLITY.

ArrnaT is the duty of Mr. Mothercountry to his large progeny of children—the British colonies ? Is he or is he not bound to de- fend them, when they get into scrapes, or are they bound to de- fend themselves ? If Mr. Mothercountry undertakes to send troops, should the colony pay the piper ?

Sir George Lewis, acting as Colonial Secretary, in the absence of the Duke of Newcastle, has touched on these questions in a despatch which he wrote last July to Governor Gore Browne, of New Zealand. Sir George, admitting that the mother country has duties towards the colonies, is not disposed to accept the colonial estimate of home responsibilities. We are not inclined to take up the cudgels on behalf of Mr. Richmond, whose demands on the Home Government are sharply disposed of by the Colonial Secretary pro. tem. ; but we join issue on the following state- ments— " England cannot undertake the defence, against a nation of warlike savages, of a number of scattered farms or villages, selected not with any view to such defence, but the profitable pursuit of peaceful industry, and subject to the risks which naturally attend the occupation of land in the midst of an uncivilized population. Nor can her Majesty's Government undertake to provide such a force as will secure the colonies against pro- spective difficulties. Immediate and imminent dangers must be met as they arise. But the policy which requires the continual presence of a large force carries in most cases its condemnation on its face."

Are these doctrines applicable to the present dispute in New Zealand ? The colony of New Zealand consists of Europeans and Natives. All the human beings within the three islands are alike subjects of the Queen. All are entitled to that protection which is supposed to be extended over every one in her Majesty's do- minions. But this is not the idea impressed on the mind by the statement of Sir George Lewis. He speaks of " a nation of war- like savages," upon whose borders, or within whose borders, settlers are tempted to cultivate the soil or convert the fern wastes into grass lands; he speaks of the risks which naturally attend the cultivation of land in the midst of an uncivilized population ; as if the nation of savages and the uncivilized population were something foreign lying over the border, and as if the settlers were unauthorized intruders. The scattered farms to which he refers are, we apprehend, all purchased by Europeans from Native subjects of the Queen, just as an estate in Connemara may be purchased by an English from an Irish subject. Would Sir George Lewis say that an English landlord, who had settled on his own estate in Connemara, is not entitled to protection, and that if he were murdered—his risk being as at as that of the settler in New Zealand—the murderers should not be punished ? Further, if there were a riot on a large scale in the West of Ireland, because a bankrupt Milesian desired to sell his estate, would not a military force be very rapidly pushed into the district to restore order ? If the Natives of New Zealand were independent tribes dwelling be- yond a frontier, then we might fairly say to Europeans going among them to push their fortunes—" You go at your own risk." But that is not so. The case pat by Sir George Lewis might hap- pen at the Cape of Good Hope, but it cannot occur in New Zealand. Teira had as much right to sell his land as an insolvent Irish absentee ; the Government had as much right to buy as a Scotch capitalist ; and William King had no more right to resist the taking possession than a Riband Society.

We are perfectly willing to admit that the Government cannot undertake to " provide such a force as will secure the colonies against prospective difficulties." No nation with an extended dominion could do that. But we demur to the description of the difficulty in New Zealand as in any sense a prospective one. Un- fortunately, it was and is a present difficulty of serious magni- tude. The New Zealand colonists hardly deserve the reproof im- plied in the last sentence of our quotation, which falls. as heavily on the Governor as on his advisers. The fact is, that the evil which has caused the war, has been growing for many years. Its patent signs were the Land League and the Maori King movement. The Home Government has been warned upon the subject for the past two years ; the colonists have been painfully aware that it was coming ; but neither the Home Government nor colonists could agree upon the means most likely to avert it. The land question has been one stumbling-block ; the manage- ment of the Natives, politically and socially, another. The Home Government has had its scheme ; Governor Browne has framed a plan of his own ; the Bishop of New Zealand and Dr. Martin have sketched their projects ; and the Colonial Ministry, through Mr. Richmond, have very emphatically set forth theirs. Gover- nor Browne is in favour of a Nominee Council for the manage- ment of Native affairs ; the Bishop seems inclined to set up a quasi-independent Maori state, wherein Europeans should hold lands as lessees ; the Ministry would establish civil Government, partly by Native agency, in the Native territory, and take deci-

sive steps to extinguish or commute all Native title, with a coin- cident regrant from the Crown of portions of the ceded territory. Mr. Sewell has adopted a plan, including a Nominee Council and extended civil government, and his views seem to approach more nearly to those of the Governor than to any others. Probably any of these plans, except that of the Bishop, would work better than no plan. The House of Representatives has given its assent to Mr. Richmond's proposal, pending a reference to the Colonial Secretary, coupling with it a request that strong representations should be made to the Home Government to the effect that the best measures will fail unless backed by an adequate naval and military force. And, although Sir George Lewis says that the continual presence of an armed force is in itself a condemnation of the policy that requires it, we are more disposed to concur with Mr. Richmond's policy than with the view Sir George in July took of the relations of Mr. Mothercountry to his colony. And for good reasons. The question at issue is not a light or superficial one. Putting aside the introduction of civil and of self-government among the Natives, on which there is a pretty clear agreement, the real point at issue is bow to get at what we call the waste lands ? Formerly, the Natives were willing to sell; now, there is less willingness ; and, as we have seen, actual hostility from the New Zealand Riband Lodge in cases when Natives are willing to alienate their land. As this hostility grew, the irritation on the other side grew also ; and there are now not wanting those who declare that the land ought to belong to those who can get it and keep it. Natives are called lazy dogs in the manger by settlers afflicted with land hunger. The Governor says it is not land, but artificial grass, that is wanted, or in plain terms, " capital to replace the indigenous ferns with grass—an exotic in nearly the whole of the province." Of course, those patches where natural grasses grow, even sparsely, are ravenously coveted ; and, as immigrants, many with capital, flock to the colony, the hunger grows apace. " Soon," said the Governor in 1859, " a want of available land will really be ex- perienced, and it cannot be concealed that neither law nor equity will prevent the occupation of Native lands by Europeans when the latter are strong enough to defy both the Native owners and the Government, as will be the case ere long." To this com- plexion we must come at last, unless measures are devised which will effect a peaceable transfer to the Government of . lands not used by the Natives. And, if this be not done, and the colo- nists apply the maxim of Rob Roy, then the fiery Native will re- volt, and a war of extermination will ensue. We are not point- ing out what is desirable, but what is probable. Without going the length of the Bishop of New Zealand, who has the hardihood to say that the colony was founded for the express purpose of pro- tecting the Natives, we are of opinion that every effort should be made to save so noble a race from destruction. For that reason, we do not prefer to follow in the path indicated by Sir George Lewis, which would logically lead to the grant of absolute power to the majority, to deal with the Natives according to the dictates of conscience—at least, of as much conscience as it has pleased Providence to endow them with. Doubtless, the way for Mr. Mothercountry to settle the question of expense, once for all, would be to keep only a garrison for imperial purposes, in the " keys of the country " and " the centres of population," and to leave the colonists to deal absolutely with the Natives as they shall think fit ; legislating for them, if that will serve ; fighting, if fighting is the preferred mode of settlement. This would speedily determine the question of the extinction of the race, or its adaptability to the requirements of civilized life ; would make the colonist a soldier ; and would save the Home exchequer tens of thousands per annum ; but, to our minds, it would be, on the part of the Imperial Government, an abdication of sovereignty, very fatal in its effects upon the character of one of the noblest colonies ever planted by the British race.