PARIHAKA.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11487, 21 January 1903, Page 7

PARIHAKA.

TO THB EDITOR OP TBS PRESS,

Sir, —I have not yet had the pleasure of leading Mr Alpers's book, but I have read with interest .your article on Saturday and Mr Alpers's reply to your review. There ore portions of tow article with which I agree, and much of Air Alpers's reply tliat i* matter-of-fact truth,. In 1881-'B3 I was stationed in Patea, and had pastoral oversight of the Wesleyan settlers from Patea to It is pleasing to find that M: Alpers's views of the ' "Pairihaka fiasco" are in accord with those I held when on the ground, and , to which I freely gave expression, from pulpit, platform, and in the press, bringing on myself the execration of members of my church and settlers generally. 1 have sometimes thought that sympathy with the Maoris may have confused niy view of tilings, leading m« to lessen the gravity of the ploughing and exaggerate the wrongs of the Maori. After more than 20 years I can survey the past with a clearer sight and with impartiality, and I still think the Hon. John charge onParibaka was one of the most childish and ridiculous episode in the history of this colony. I can understand the bitterness of the settlers toward the Maori. They were stif) smarting from the effects of a, war that had slain relatives and devastated homes.

The ploughing of settlers' farms and Lawns was a menace that Tequired putting down, but it was done as a political protest against the "confiscation" of Maori lands. By the bye, this word "confiscation" is conveniently dropped now, a> though 20 years ago and more it was as familiar as current coin.

A few weeks prior to the " Parihaka fiasco" I visited Parihaka itself, and on returning home reported through press and from platform that there was not the slightest sign of preparations for warfara in or around Parihaka. This visit aroused the ire of the settlers, wbo denounced it as " foolhardy" and "an unwarrantable interference." Tohu, speaJdng to me through an interpreter, expressed tea surprise at the enlisting of so many constabulary and building of blockhouses, and laughed at the idea of -war, but denounced in unqualified terms a matter hinted at by your correspondent, " Zealandia," regarding the conduct of the soldiers. Instead of bloodthinstv savages I found hundreds of Maoris cultivating land, but all depressed and bewailing the "land confiscation."

A very important fact mentioned by Mr Alpers. in his reply, is that tine Hon. John Bryce had resigned his portfolio as Minister of Native Affairs, and tire Hon. Wm. Rolleston had taken Ms place. Why had he resigned? Because his colleagues had objected to the suggested Parihaka raid. A short time after they recalled him, and, making a virtue of a'neoessity. gave him a free hand. One of his first arts was the celebrated: charge of armed men in martial array against a foe (?) wbo, neither by -word, look nor deed, since the cessation of the Titikowaru war, had threatened violence other than by ploughing settlers' land.

My opinion was then, and still is, that Titikowe.ru was the only man to f«ar. but ho <lki not live-at Parihaka; that Hiroki. the murderer, could have been arrested in th 3 ordinary way, and Uiat the fanaticism of Te Wniti and Tolm was irritating and demanded a ebtsi. bat the call of an army of volunteers to make the arrest* was an exaggeration of lie situation, and I am glad that Mr Alperse book records the position ua it really was.—Yours, «"tc., JOHN A. LUXFORD. Wesferan Paraonage, LytteHon, January 19tfi, 1903. [We hurts referred to thie tetter in our leadin* odtuate,—EA "23» Fnu."l