Yet such is exactly the position we are in with regard to the inhabitants of Australia.
[Note 41: "The invasion of those ancient rights (of the natives) by survey and land appropriations of any kind, is justifiable only on the ground, that we should at the same time reserve for the natives an AMPLE SUFFICIENCY for THEIR PRESENT and future use and comfort, under the new style of things into which they are thrown; a state in which we hope they 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 their fire ?--or are these necessaries left to them by the white man when he comes to take possession of their soil?
Alas, it is not so! all are in turn taken away from the original possessors.

The game of the wilds that the European does not destroy for his amusement are driven away by his flocks and herds.

[Note 42 at end of para.] The waters are occupied and enclosed, and access to them in frequently forbidden.

The fields are fenced in, and the natives are no longerat liberty to dig up roots--the white man claims the timber, and the very firewood itself is occasion ally denied to them.