in the native language, by the chief protector of the aborigines, and the statement contained in it is considered by the settlers erroneous in one or two particulars, though it appears to me substantially correct. The acting Governor issued the following proclamation on the 12th day of July, 1843:

"Whereas, it is essential to the well-being of this colony, that confidence and good feeling should continue to exist between the two races of its inhabitants, and that the native owners of the soil should have no reason to doubt the good faith of her Majesty's solemn assurance, that their territorial rights would be recognized and respected. Now, therefore, I, the officer administering the government, do hereby publicly warn all persons claiming land in this colony, in all cases where the claim is denied or disputed by the original native owners, from exercising acts of ownership thereon, or otherwise prejudicing the question of title to the same, until the question of owner-ship shall have been heard and determined by one of her Majesty's Commissioners appointed to investigate claims to land in New Zealand."

This proclamation, gave great offence to the settlers, who in their leading journal, publicly avowed, "that if it had been the desire of its framer to hound a troop of excited savages upon a peaceable and scattered agricultural population, to destroy the remains of friendly feeling existing between the two races, to imbue in blood the hands of both, and lead to the extermination of one or the other; such a proclamation might have served his purpose." The proclamation, however, does not appear to me to warrant so harsh

a censure.

Such are the leading facts of this case, on which

the enlightened inhabitants of Great Britain are called upon to form a deliberate and unprejudiced opinion. In doing so, they have the advantage of being far removed from the scene of action, and from all those exciting emotions, which it is easy to suppose must have been felt by those on the spot, who having wandered far from their native country, found themselves so unexpectedly exposed to all the difficulties and dangers of a distant and a savage land.

And although, in taking a calm and impartial view of this most distressing scene, we must ever hold up to public execration the conduct of Rangihaiata, in murdering so many of our countrymen in cold blood, yet, apart from this act, the conduct of the natives, does not appear altogether such as to call forth so severe denunciations as have been so lavishly poured forth upon them by nearly the whole of the settlers in that remote country, with the exception of the government authorities, the missionaries, and the protectors of the aborigines.

The latter, in particular, seem to have been exposed rather to unmerited obloquy. Called upon by the nature of their office to protect the aborigines, it is quite natural to suppose, that their feelings would soon come to be identified with those of their protegés, and that they would look upon them as a lawyer looks upon his client, namely, as one whom he was bound to protect whether right or wrong, and at all hazards. Were they to act otherwise, it would be considered a dereliction of duty on their part, a duty moreover, which they have not only undertaken, but for which they are paid, and England expects every man to do his duty. If blame rests any where, therefore, it must

be imputed not to them, but to those who appointed them.

The inhabitants at Port Nicholson seem, however, to take a different view of the subject, and state, in their petition to the Queen, forwarded shortly after the late fatal catastrophe, “That the annual expense of the protectorship of the aborigines is about £3000 ayear, while not one penny is expended in protecting the settlers against the natives. That your petitioners believe that not one instance can be adduced of any aggression committed by settlers in Cook's Straits upon a native. That the Protector and Sub-protectors are persons totally unfit for the offices they fill, and that instead of having contributed to the mutual harmony of the two races, they have exercised an influence over the natives, which, we believe, to have led in a great degree to the hostile state of feeling now existing, and the late unhappy event."

Protectors indeed, in general seem to be a most unpopular set of men with the settlers in every country where they have been appointed. Mr. Westgarth, commission merchant at Melbourne, Port Philip, in the able pamphlet which he published in 1844, on the Australian colonies, which was politely handed to me by Messrs. Thomson & Forman of Leith, says, in alluding to the protectors in that country, "the system of the protectorate is perhaps on the whole worse than useless. The protectors of the blacks have always been an annoyance to the settlers, and a serious expense to the colony."

Mr. Hodkinson also, in his late work on Australia, says, (page 241,)" the districts near Port Philip, where the blacks have committed the most serious outrages,

are the very ones in which the salaried protectors of aborigines have resided. I do not know in what the duties of the protectors consist; but no good has been derived from their appointment, as the natives in that part of Australia have been more audacious in their attacks on distant sheep stations than in any other districts."

Notwithstanding, however, the unfortunate unpopularity of these protectors, and the doubts so universally entertained of their utility, it must be admitted, by all candid persons, that it was from the most laudable and benevolent motives that protectors to the aborigines of New Zealand were appointed by Lord John Russell, when colonial secretary. In the lengthened and important instructions transmitted by his Lordship to Governor Hobson, dated 9th December, 1840, and published in the documents appended to the 12th Report of the Directors of the New Zealand Company, he says, "to rescue the natives of New Zealand from the calamities of which the approach of civilized man to barbarous tribes has hitherto been the almost universal herald, is a duty too sacred and important to be neglected, whatever may be the discouragements under which it may be undertaken."

Though Mr. Clarke, the chief protector, and the subprotectors of the aborigines, are held in no great repute by the settlers in that country, yet they seem to have had the approbation both of the late and the present governor. Governor Hobson, in his despatch to Lord Stanley, dated 15th December, 1841, after stating that Mr. Clarke acts most conscientiously, both towards the government and the natives, says, in reference to an increase to his salary, then £400 per annum, "I know his duties are most severe, and his assiduity is most

persevering, often undertaking a journey of 200 miles, every foot of which he is obliged to walk. If, under these circumstances, your lordship will raise his salary to that of the protector at New South Wales, I think your beneficence will be deservedly applied." It would appear, from this, that chief protector Clarke had studied his profession very carefully in all its branches, as, amidst all the protection which he affords to the natives, he seems not to have lost sight of that more important duty, namely, protecting himself. And at a meeting of the Legislative Council at Auckland, on 18th May, 1844, Governor Fitzroy said, "that without the valuable aid given him by the protectors of the aborigines, he would not undertake to carry on the government of the colony." Among the various acts of service which they had rendered, he mentioned a case of robbery committed by a number of the natives of the Matta Matta tribe, on some of the settlers, and that with the assistance of the protectors he had been enabled to make arrangements with the chiefs that all the property should be restored. Governor Fitzroy seems to employ Mr. Clarke chiefly as a negotiator betwixt him and the native tribes, and he must be very useful in that capacity, as from his long residence in that country he speaks the language like a native. It is fortunate for him that his salary does not depend on the votes of the settlers, as, instead of giving him £400 a-year, they would consider his services amply rewarded with 400 pence.

Neither am I altogether disposed to join the settlers in the loud complaints which they have made against those exercising the functions of government in that country, though I am inclined to think, that the government, (no doubt with the most praiseworthy mo