TE WHITI.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11484, 17 January 1903, Page 4

TE WHITI.

* TO THE EDITOR OF THE TRESS. Sir, —When nearly two months had' elapsed since the publishers sent you for review a copy of " X«w Zealand in the Nineteenth Century," and yet no notice of it had appeared, I concluded that you intended to pass it over in silence, and was under that impression when I left Christchurch. ' I am new glad to find that I wa* mistaken. That the publication would meet with a "mixed reception" at the handy of the Christchureh. " Press" I fully expected. The book professes in part to be contemporary hiatory, written from a. non-party standpoint; it finds much to praise, both in the Lands Administration and the Labour Legislation of the last decade; it even essays to prove that this colony is not only financially prosperous, but politically enlightened, A book that inculcates such rank Jwreey could not expect to meet approval at the hands o. c a paper that consistently adopts an tincompromising party attitude. I had dared, moreover, in the part of the volume for which I am alone responsible, to criticise adversely the native policy of '80-'Bl—a parlous sin! But I confess 1 was not prepared to find the " Press" so nervously jealous for the reputation of the "Continuous Ministry" that it would resort in its defence to the futile weapon of misrepresentation. Yet books are ■damned by faint praise, not by hostile criticism, and I have nothing but thanks for the flattering amount of space you devote to reviewing the book; for the kindly commendation you give to all of my partner's work, and to some of mirle, and for the obvious pains both your leader-writer and your reviewer have been at to administer a criticism that should be thoroughly adequate to the demerits of the volume. I should much like to reply to your article, " Tlie Truth about Te WMti," by writing in return " The Whole Truth about Te Whitd." But the limits of space render this impossible. I must perforce content myself with supplying a few of your omissions in the account of the Parih&ki prophet with furnishing one or two strife ing illustrations of Mr Bryoe's "bold and statesmanlike achievements," and with combating your charges of "grotesque perversion" of statements " ludicrously wide of the mark," and—most unkindeet cut of all!—your calling the book "history" within quotation points—tine interrogative raising of the compositor's "eyebrows." And as to these last, first: "Apparently," you say, "Mr Alpera baa not troubled to consult any authority but Mr Rusden." My answer is simple: I have this duy seen Mr Rusden's "history" for the firet time m my life. I purpoeely avoided consulting an " authority " whom I knew to ibe shockingly biassed and truculently unfair. Ha.l I known what a valuable mine bis volumes are of verbatim quotation from Governors' despatches, State papens, and Parliamentary speeches, I might have saved myself some trouble by reading his book—with discretion. As it is. Mi- Rusden is about the only accessible " authority" whom I did not consult. Your statement, Sir, is "ludicrously wide of the mark." So us your inference that I wa* not aware that the famous Prenderyast proclamation was signed, not by Mr Bryce, but by Mr Rolleston. As there is absolutely no mention in the book of the proclamation or its signature, 1 am at some lose to understand "the grounds of your iuference. I was not only aware of the fact; I was also aware that on the same day the proclamation was gazetted Mr Bryce was reinstated as Native Minister — that the wise Ulysses withdrew into the background and Acliilles returned from sulking in his tent to lead his myrmidons on—Parihaka.i May I ask, were you not aware that Mr Rolleston resigned the Native portfolio before the "Paribaka fiasco" was consummated? And if you Mere, why did you omit to mention this eijjnificant fact in Mr Rolleston's political career? But the sorriest shift in your attempt to discredit my "history" is the following: — You say I " grossly misrepresent the moi tives and actions of Mr Bryce." that I dej scribe him as a man "' with embittered feel- | ings on native questions, who utterly refused to negotiate with Te Whiti." And this sentence occurs in the paragraph in which you infer that Rusden was "my only authority!" and to leads your readers to conclude that I am guilty of the same vindictive violations of fair play ac those for which Mr Rueden, as you &ay. had to pay exemplary damages. Now the only passage in the book in which Mr motives ara dealt with is this: — " Mr Jehu Bryce was ci well-meaning, , honest, and capable man; but his experience iv the Taranaki war had warped his judgment and embitteied his Teelings on I uitive questions." You deliberately leave i out the first clau.se in which I admit the j worthy motives of " Honest John Bryce" I as frankly ax even you could wish, and" yoa le.iv*" tiie remaik about "embittered feelings" cUnudt , . , ! of the qualifying clause which explains them as the natural rtsult of bitter experience as a soldier in a cruel war. A* u> iua "utterly nfuiiog to ntgottate

with Te Whiti." tbs words or? not mine, but Mr .Bryce's own; and this your reviewer very well knew, for they are distinctly quoted as his:—-The idea of negotiating with Te Whiti," he (Mr Bryee) declared, "is perfectly * preposterous (p 304). Such disingenuous oomnangiing of the -suppressio veri" with the "suggesstic falst" stands self-condemned. I leave it with confidence u> your readers to judge whether your leader or my chapter best deserves "the chare* of "grotesque per-

version." , . Your defence of the Governments action rests upon tlie statement that a native war was imminent, and that Mr Bryce's firmness alone averted it. This statement lias bft?n so ofwn repeated by apologists for the Parihaka episode, that by sheer forre „of "damnable iteiation" the people of this colony will possibly ana day come to believ-.-it "Could it demonstrated that, le Whiti himself adopted an aggressive attitude, that his propltf weio gathviing aims, erecting forts or making hostile dispirit ions, gome colour would bo given to this pietensioii. lint the fact* wtro quite otlk'MVi.*e. The Government laid much stress upon the ambiguity of some of Te Whiti's oracular utterances. lr.ter[iiettis wero ftrtinJ who declared they boiled war; oiuevs affirmed as emphatically thul they we u< pacific. Hut even were these spe'tclics the worda of a veritable rireeater, empty rl«-torio unsupported by piepj rat ions "for it=*;.<uiHo'. wwe. no valid ground for anticipating var. For months beforehand reliable witnesses lwd repea-ted-lv assured the country thai thvvo wj,s no hint of vis et aima. " 1 will only quote one α-utlumty. and that I believe you will accept as trustworthy. Mr Holiest on, aft*r Iris visit to Parihaka a.s Native Minister, eari'.y in October reported: — "Neither in Parihaka nor elsewhere is there the slightest indication ©f any intention of the Maoris to fight. On the contrary, the whole attitude of the natives is thoroughly pacific and good-tempered, while they «re engaged to an unusually large extent in cultivation and other peaceful employments." It remains only to add that Mr Hamilton, the correspondent of the "Lyttelton Times," not only thoroughly inspected the pah, but ■was freely permitted by Te Whiti to penetrate the bush country at the back. He reported that he found absolutely no trace of fortification or hostile preparation. When the pah surrendered to the "a.rmy of occupation" on November sth, there was not an act, or a word,.nay, even a look, from any one of the 2000 people that indicated a hostile thought; and the only aims found were a few fowling-pieces used by the Maoris in shooting game! •'Wur' , could in any easa not have eventuated for "the enemy" was unarmed and defenceless. Yet soanethhig worse might easily have occurred but for To Wliiti's marvellous influence over a people naturally emotiond". excitable, prone to savage violente. They saw their village invaded; their personal belongings confiscated; their wharts razed to the ground or burnt to ashes by the score; their men, women, and little children arrested "in bulk" by the hundred. Yet they looked on stolidly impassive. When Major Take, about to arrest their chief, their prophet, as some thought him their Messiah, gave the order to the soldiery, '"If any Maori flashes a tomahawk, shoot ham on the spot!"—there was not a word, not P, gesture of defiance or resistance. Te Whiti had given his order: Whatever was done to them they must "not even lift their hands" —and never a hand was lifted—except to receive the handcuffs. Hail one single excited youth "flashed a tomahawk"—had some fierce virago spat her defiance—had somo indignant chieftain brandished a taiaha—what would not have happened? At the first shot fired, the first blood spilt, Te Whiti's man a might have failed', tte docile children of the quaker priest become ungovernaible savages, and the peaceful village of Parihaka turned into a shambles! It was not to Bryce's good management— it was to Tβ Whiti and good Luck that we owed escapa from a disaster that would have made the "heroes of Parihaka" blush in their graves! You seem to imply that the native policy of the administration was defensible on the ground "thait the feeling of practically the whole country was with them on the question." The Seddon administration lias now been thrioe returned to power by overwhelming majorities; but I have not heard ..that you have altered your opinion, say, on the Public Revenues Act. There was as a matter of fact a vigorous minority opj£>sed to Mr Bryce as there is to Mr Seddon. 1 will not refer to men like the Hon. W. Montgomery or MrTurnbull in Canterbury; to Gisborne, the historian, or to Bracken, the poet; nor will I quote from your contemporary, the "Lyttelton Times," which, to its lasting honour, strenuously fought against this "blunder worse than a crime." I will content myself with quoting from the speeches of men whose politics you would probably not condemn, in order to show that the' question as between Te Whiti and Mr Bryce was at least an open one, on which a writer may reasonably diffeT in opinion without being chargeable with "grotesque perversion." Captain (now Sir William) Russell, though lie supported Mr Bryce and the Maoii Prisoners Bill, spoke thus: "The men whom we look upon as rebels, and who some think are traitors, will, to my mind, occupy a brighter page of history than many of those men whom we look upon as faithful and loyal natives." Mr (now Sir Robert) Stout spoke- as follows : — "I suppose, amid the general rejoicings at the prospect of a Maori war, it is useless for anyone to raise his voice against the present native policy. Ido so more as a protest than with the hops that any one colonist can ever aid in preventing the murder of the Maoris on which it seems we as a colony are bent. I call it murder, for we know that the Maoris ars, as conupared with us, helpless, and I am not aware of anything they havo done to make us commence hostilities. Wβ are powerful, they are weak, and that is the only explanation the future historian will give of our conduct."

Thiat there was an overwhelming 'preponderance of opinion in favour of the native pd'.ioy it would be useless to deny. Mr Bryce's martial ardour found perfervid response in many ft patriot's heart. At Tenruka, for example, Mr Wakeiiedd, in addressing his constituents, did not disguise the noble ambition he had of marching vii Pexihaka. in the glory-covered uniform of the Temuka Rifle Voiiinteere! On the West Coast of the North Island opiaion was not only unanimous but nobly enthusiastic. It had been well trained. Only two years before a leading organ of West Coast opinion thus unburdened itself: "Perhaps oill things considered, the present difficulty will be one of tiie greatest blevjhigs New Zealand ever experienced, for without doubt it will be a war of extermination. . . . The time has come, in our minds, when New Zealand must striko for freedom, and this nu-ans tho death-blow to the Maori race!" Mr Bryce's newspaper apologists are entirely welcome to all the argumentative help they can derive from such "practical support, of public feeling." But I am sure honest Jalm Bryce himself was heartily ashamed of it. You charge me with calling the episode "tlie Parihaka fiaeco." I did worse—l termed it "a pitiable farce/ 1 hesitate to pursue further this clumsy story of ineptitude, but I must briefly summarise tne leading incidents of the drama. For months before the gaol-filling liad proceeded merrily. As fast as tne prophet'e plouglunen were arrested, others were forthcoming to take their places. As fast as the "suspect*" were released, they resumed their ploughing., "Arrest, release, and re-arreet"—so ran the political roundelay. Like a stage army, Mr Bryce s Maori prisoners went off on the left and came on again on the right. The process was interminable, and the audience wearied of it. Tlie "pit" in Taranaki clamoured for a more exciting spectacle, and "alarums and excursion*'' took ite place. An "army" was "mobilised" round Parihaka; to the standard there unfurled Hocked many of the adventurous spirits and most of the scallywags of the colony. In the early morning of November sth—saint's day, sacred to all guys!—the "army' marched on Parihaka.. There met. them 'it the outskirts of the village, not an horde of tattooed warriors, aimed to the teeth, dancing the wild "haka" and hurling words and speare of defiance, but 200 little children, dancing with rhythmic grace a dance of welcome, and laughing with chiidi»a 4m, in Uμ fee* of ti>» re*ooai»d •truaeao.

(Editor. please note: "Ked-ooated stranger*" —niet-uiiymy for "soUliers.") Behind tiw children came their mothers, tearing 500 loavee of bread, which Te Wlutf had bid them bake to fred the invading hast, "Mr Bryee could appreciate neither the humour nor the pathos of the situation. Hf had.uskod for bullet*, anU they <ray« him broad! The "army' marched into the manu?, and there sat » r stood 2000 men. -women, and children u> receive them, "all silent and all damned." In their midst the mild-eyed fanatic l'« Whiti, more priest than chief, more prophet than warrior. They had tumbled on a veritable Quakers' meeting! Every canon of dramatic propriety, every law of stage effect demanded tnat "the" enemy" at this point should resist. But ilify "simply would not resist. _ "Be patient. "O my people, and even if tlie bayonet ooinwj to your breast, resist not, to "spoke Te Whiti. * The Riot Act was read, but it, had no terrors, even when translated, for this sober conventicle. It was ordered to be read by nun who had driven coudi and four through Uagnu, Chart* and the Treaty of Waitangi: who imprisoned without trial, and punished without offence ; who coupled li'inesi men with a murderer, and clothed a nitre political "uVttnu"' '« the offensive garb of a i-ommon criminal. The Riot Act,'in a word, was lead—by the riot els. Then came the pillaging, the burning. t« e arrests. It was desired to compel tlie Maoris of other tribes to return to their homes. "I have ordered them emphatically enough." wailed Mr Bryce,. by wire, "but apparently I might as well have called from the vasty deep." Identification was difficult—all but imposible; and the arrests had to be made in bulk. It was lite mustering sheep. One day the Wanganui ewes were culled; the next the Parakiao wethers were drafted , ; on a third tne Waitara lambs were penned. The "occupation ,, was accompanied by -fcha pomp and circumstance of a serious campaign. Newspaper coiTespondents were gravely forbidden to come within the "lin*s; ' the "specials" of the "Lyttelton Times" who cleverly eluded the vigilance of the "outposts," were solemnly arrested. And when the "investment" had been completed Mr Bryce—a perfect master of unconscious burlesque !—gravely thanked tne army for their discipline, steadfastness, and courage, and harangued the soldiers in language appropriate on the lips of a field-marshal alter a well-fought general action! To the charitable imagination of a party apologist, all this may appear "a bold and statesmanlike achievement." But is there a single wader, with the dimmest eye lor perspective in history, with humour enough to distinguish "Hamlet ,, from "Hot C<*l--lins," who will say that this was other than a very travesty of statesmanship, a theatrical absurdity, "a pickle-herring farce? In conclusion, 1 can only thank your reviewed for calling my attention to one or two errors in tlie book. There are, unfortunately, several such, and they are due to two causes: When forwarding my MSS. to America, I 'relied upon full opportunity for revision; at the last moment -he publishers found it impossible to send me proofs. A writer on contemporary Jawtory, moreover, forced to rely on materials in a multiplicity of sources, not classified or collated oy; previous hands, is under great temptation occasionaly to rely upon ws memory for facts he thinks within his recollection. That temptation, I regret to e«y, I did not always successfully resist. I can only plead that the field to be covered was wide, the materiak scattered and , diversified ; and I may perhaps be pardoned for giving in palliation of my errors the opinion of "The Australasian":—"ln this work the authors have indeed performed a wonderful task within the compass of 450 pages. They give & compendious liistory of the country. . . . The book is descriptive, historical, and, as regards ite second part, a valuable political and industrial record. In scope, therefore, it is far more comprehensive than any other single work on the colony."

The errors, happily, are not important; they do at least not blur the general lesson of the book. For if, as regards my own part, of it, it has a purpose beyond the iiterary, it is this: To prove that this colony is prosperous, enlightened, and progressive; that to jodge from statistical averages it is in the best sense the healthiest and -wealthiest in the Empire; that its people have a great and ever greater fature befwe them, and tJb&t even in the present this country i« one of the most highlyfavoured and bountifully endowed on_ Uod's earth. This lesson has been eadoteed and enforced by papers and reviews that will reach an incomparably larger circle of readers than a volume of such modest literary pretensions can hope to attain. While'the London "Daily News" thinks it "the best of the popular books on New Zealand we have read;" while papers of the standing of the "St. James's Gazette ,, and the "Athenojum," the "Spectator," and "Saturday Review" have no word of censure for the book, but only the wannest praise for the colony whose rstory it teiU, the book will not have failed of its purpose, even though that were merely to be a healthy counter-blast to the generation oi political croakers. —Yours, etc., O. T.J. ALPEKS. Parliamentary Library, Wellington, January 15th. [We have referred to 4\ris letter in our leading columns—Ed- "The Press."]