will be led to live in greater comfort, on a small space, than
they enjoyed before it occurred, on their extensive original
possessions."--Reply of His Excellency Colonel Gawler, to the gentlemen
who objected to sections of land being appropriated for the natives,
before the public were allowed to select.]

Without laying claim to this country by right of conquest, without
pleading even the mockery of cession, or the cheatery of sale, we have
unhesitatingly entered upon, occupied, and disposed of its lands,
spreading forth a new population over its surface, and driving before us
the original inhabitants.

To sanction this aggression, we have not, in the abstract, the slightest
shadow of either right or justice--we have not even the extenuation of
endeavouring to compensate those we have injured, or the merit of
attempting to mitigate the sufferings our presence inflicts.

It is often argued, that we merely have taken what the natives did not
require, or were making no use of; that we have no wish to interfere with
them if they do not interfere with us, but rather that we are disposed to
treat them with kindness and conciliation, if they are willing to be
friends with us. What, however, are the actual facts of the case; and
what is the position of a tribe of natives, when their country is first
taken possession of by Europeans.

It is true that they do not cultivate the ground; but have they,
therefore, no interest in its productions? Does it not supply grass for
the sustenance of the wild animals upon which in a great measure they are
dependent for their subsistence?--does it not afford roots and vegetables
to appease their hunger?--water to satisfy their thirst, and wood to make