considered by the civil tribunals, a doubt was raised whether they are so far British subjects as to be entitled to this privilege."

Poor Maories! Chief Justice Amory said to the Legislative Council, the position of the Native race is a most extraordinary and anomalous one. They are practically without rights, 'for they have lately been pronounced without a remedy.'

As to the legal view of the cases in dispute, the native speeches at the end of Mr. Hadfield's Second Year of one of England's Little Wars' are worth careful reading. It is not a fight for 'life. No, it is for the land. The Maori will not be daunted by 'his weakness, his inferiority, or the smallness of his tribe.

He

sees his land going: he will resist... The Queen's sovereignty has been acknowledged long ago.' These speeches strengthen our assurance that the Confiscation Bill will be the signal for a war of races.1 Such a war the colonists have not been unwilling to hasten on; their argument being (says Archdeacon Hadfield) even less sound than that of a murderer who should 6 say, Ι 'killed the deceased, it is true; but he must have died some day or another'; for (he adds) there was nothing but colonial greed to hinder the two races from settling down quietly side by side. Would that they could begin to do so, now that the victory at Rangatiri has made us paramount; for it is, indeed, a rude blow to all our optimist notions to find the same thing going on on the Waikato which, centuries before Christ came, used to go on on the Strymon and the shores of the Euxine.

We might use very hard words in reference to this modern colonization which veils, under the sickening phrases of a cant which deceives no one, a more steady and certain extinction of aborigines than that wrought by the rougher method of old times; while (as Mr. Huxley says in his recent lecture) wherever the European race comes in contact with inferior races it brings, along with the blessings of civilization, drink, syphilis, and the demoralization of the lower race.' But, after all, what is the use of so much talk and pother about less than 60,000 souls? Races far more numerous have gone with less than a tithe of the trouble which these Maories are giving before they disappear. Dare we flatter ourselves that, because we have really been far kinder to them than to any other aborigines, we are beginning to get truer notions of our duty to these primitive races, just as the last of them are dying out before us? Certain it is that, from the nobly-worded Russell despatch in 1841 down to the letter of the Duke of Newcastle twenty years later, hoping that just and effective Government will

1 See also Dr. Pollen's speech in the 'Debate of the Legislative Council' reported in the Protest named at the head of our Paper.

give the natives what they are blindly feeling after,' the language of our home Government has been honest and upright, and its efforts have been earnestly directed towards doing the best for the natives. It is in the carrying out that they have failed: vacillation, time-serving, and gross official ignorance (like that of which Mr. Richmond is accused by Archdeacon Hadfield-who even denies his knowledge of the native language) have defeated all the good intentions of the HomeGovernment; and now Maories and Colonists are met in a stand-up fight (fair in all points, except in the trifling one that the colonists have all England to back them) just after the fashion which the Pakeha-Maori' desired to see. We want their land; our excuse is, that we should make a better use of it than they do-a dangerous principle on which to claim a right of transfer. 'Good old leisure' is dead for us individually here in England; we will have him die all the world over. Every race must be actively employed in doing or making something, or else we have a right to oust them in favour of those whom we keep sending off year by year, as year by year our country gets more and more divided between the manufacturer and the larger farmer. As to the native, we care not whether he is improveable or not. We do not reflect what might have happened at home if (as Professor Goldwin Smith remarked) instead of good S. Augustine a set of men had come to our shores as superior to the Anglo-Saxons in all arts and appliances as we are to the Maories, and as determined to use their superiority in ousting our forefathers. It is not that we are as cruel as the old conquerors. Cæsar was ruthless enough in Gaul; but the Romans did not take away the means of life from the survivors. Their colonies were (as we are always boasting) very different from ours; but the difference was all in favour of the natives with whom they had to do. The talk in New Zealand is of establishing round the disaffected parts a chain of military settlements after the Roman fashion: it is at least permitted us to hope that the result may be as successful as were many of the Provinciæ. We had, perhaps, a right to expect higher and better things, after all that had been said and all that had been done by Missionaries and Colonial Secretaries and Governors; but, after the blow which recent affairs have given to our hopes, we should be satisfied to feel sure that the remnant of the Maories would quietly and happily amalgamate with our settlers, as Gaul or Spaniard did with the Roman colonist; and that so the inevitable absorption of this interesting people might go on without any more violent interruptions.

* Some of our readers may not have met with a strange letter in the Examiner of March 5th, which puts the fight at Rangariri in a new light. Our men were thrice led up to the assault; General Cameron swore at and abused them, and then ordered up the artillery, in heading whom poor Captain Mercer fell; lastly, the sailors rushed up, but had to fall back, and then we drew off for the night. We all know what followed the next morning. Now, unhappily, the Maories measure a victory not by its results, but by the number of the slain.

Whatever Confiscation laws are passed, we trust they will be clearly explained to the natives at the outset; otherwise, the carrying out of them will give rise to future troubles. Every one should read Mr. Swainson's admirable speech in the 'Protest' which stands last on our list of books.

It seems that the war is not over: the news of January 5th is very warlike. The Waikatos are building fresh redoubts, other tribes have gone home to look after their own land: "their subjugation (says the Times) is a necessity which cannot be foregone. There is a talk of disarming the natives as they are conquered.

455

ART. VII. 1. Papers of the Russo-Greek Committee [of the American Church]. New York,

2. L'Union Chrétienne. Paris, 1863, 1864.

3. Η ΘΕΙΑ ΛΕΙΤΟΥΡΓΙΑ. The Scotch Liturgy translated into Greek. London: Masters.

4. Apology for the Greco-Russian Church, with reference to the Filioque. By the Rev. R. ABERCROMBIE, Rector of S. Paul's Church, Rahway, N. J. New York: Edward O. Jenkins, 20, North William Street.

5. A Handbook of the Eastern Church. By the Rev. J. M. NEALE, M.A. Warden of Sackville College. Oxford: Parker. 6. La Papauté Schismatique. Par M. L'ABBÉ GUETTÉE. 1863.

Paris.

7. The Liturgies of Malabar. Translated from original Syriac MSS. procured by himself in India. By the Rev. E. B. HOWARD, B.A.

If there be one thing more cheering than another in the midst of the many afflictions of the Church Catholic-afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted '-it is the yearning for reunion which now, perhaps to a degree unknown since that melancholy year 1054, is beginning to make itself felt, to a greater or less extent, in this or that manner, among the scarred and mutilated members of the body of Christ.

Since that fatal year, two chief efforts were made before the great schism in the Western Church: the Council of Lyons, and that of Florence. In the Council of Lyons, the Latin Church showed herself in all her glory. It was her second spring; her age, not of saints only, but of intellectual power, such as the world had never seen before, and probably will never see again. And the Eastern empire, though far fallen from its original excellency, though the mere shadow of the dominion of Constantine, yet held a realm to which the largest Continental monarchy (excepting Russia) of the present day is not to be compared. The two Churches then came together, complimented each other, and parted more inveterately hostile than ever before. When the Filioque both in Greek and Latin was, in the same creed, chanted three times over, it was a clear case of 'Væ victis.' And the worse then, because, not four hundred years before, the successor of S. Peter at Rome had (though not formally) anathematized those that held the new doctrine. As to the Council of Florence, the only marvel is that an empire of more than two

thousand years, struggling in the very agony of its dissolution, confined within a radius of some twenty miles from the capital, ventured to hold its own, as it did, against the united force of the Western kingdoms, which cared nothing for the doctrine of the Filioque, but were bound by a thousand ties to the claims of Rome. The compromise of Florence, 'proceeding from the Father and the Son as by one principle, and by one spiration,' never did, and never could, satisfy either East or West. But on this subject it is not our intention to dwell at greater length, because we hope, in our next number, to enter in some detail into the Filioque question.

The next attempt at union was between certain of the German Reformers and the See of Constantinople, in the middle of the sixteenth century. As they had no common ground to go upon, the treaty lasted but a very short time. Still, it is a curious chapter in Church history, which deserves to be written at length.

Next came the negotiation between the Nonjurors and the Russian Church. Had the life of Peter been prolonged, it is scarcely possible to tell what the consequences might have been. But it was the intolerable pride of the Nonjurors which, for the time being, shipwrecked the whole affair. Here, of course, the question turned on the Invocation of Saints and the honour due to the Blessed Mother of God. But for a Church which could scarcely have counted nearly two hundred thousand faithful to dictate to one that reckoned half as many millions, only makes one admire the patience of the Russian bishops in their replies.

And now, then, we come to the present movement; and first, it is to be observed how differently the two Churches-the Eastern and the English-stand, with respect to their former position. In the eighteenth century, had the whole English Church been in negotiation with the whole Eastern, there would have appeared, on our side, about forty-five bishops; on theirs, about two hundred and sixty. As the treaty was commenced, a division from (we scarcely like to use the word schism) the Established Church, consisting of certainly not more than twelve bishops, tried to treat on equal terms with the four great Eastern sees. Now what is the case? We have the English Church (including that of Ireland), with its thirty-eight bishops; the Colonial Church, with its forty; the American Church, with its forty-three; the Scotch, with its seven; besides the prelates in Orangeland, by the Zambesi, in Honolulu, and in Melanesia. This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes." That is, we have some hundred and sixty prelates against some two hundred and sixty; ours increasing every year in number,