SUMMING UP.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11499, 4 February 1903, Page 6

SUMMING UP.

Mr Alpers seems as loth to leave the public stage as a popular tenor, and, therefore, when he again announces his "farewell performance" this morning we are not altogether free from a misgiving that at no distant date we may find him again coming forward for "positively one last appearance only." We hope it will be conceded that we have been sufficiently generous to him in the matter of space. To be quit* candid, Mr Alpers's requirements in this respect are on so large a scale that we feeJ sure pur readers would regard any more excursions on his part with alarm, if not with resentment. Aocept ing it, therefore, as a fact that he has really made his exit, we forgive him the melodramatic scowl which'he has cast in dur direction as he flings his cloak over hia left shoulder and stalks- towards the wings. We wish at the same time emphatically to aeeure'him that we had! not the slightest intention of questioning his veracity in the passage to which he take* exception, and we frankly apologiee if by any unintentional clumsiness of expression our words seem to bear that interpretation Mr Alpers has now printed the Parihaka chapter from his book, and given bis authorities for the stolemente therein made. Nothing could better serve to demonstrate the absolute truth of every charge we have made against his want ol accuracy and impartiality as an historian. It will be observed that every public man and every writer cited by Mr Alpers, not onl.r in hie list of authorities to-day, but in his previous letter, was politically opposed to Mr Bryce—with one exception, Captain Russell, whom he quotes for- a chance passage in praise of Te Whitj. It wae Sir An hut- Gordon who supplied the libel* •for which Mr Rusden was cast in £5000 damages. Sir Robert Stout was a political opponent of Mr Bryce, so was Mr Gisborne. so was Mr A. Saunders, so was Mr W. P. Reeves, so was the Hon. W. Montgomery, «o was Mr W. Hutchison, and co was the Hon. James Ma«andrew. Judge Gillies and Bishop Suter, from their positions, might hare been supposed to keep themselves free from politics, but both were ardent pro-Maoris. THieee aie the authorities on whom Mr Alpere relies. On the other hand, Sir Hercules Robinson, when questioned about the Maori prisoners after he had left the colony, by the Earl of Kimberley, the Secretaiy of State for the Colonies, wrote in terms of the fullest approval of the steps taken, by the Hall Government as being "the best tihat " could be devised for the purpose of avert"ing the Maori war," and necessary "not " so much in the- interest of the Europeans " as that of the Maoris themselves." Mr Alpers ignores Sir Hercules Robinson. Mr Bryee's policy had the unanimous approval of the 'whole of hie colleagues. Sir John Hall, the Premier, in hie evidence in the Brycfc-Rusden case, said —'"I entirely share. Mr liryce'e opinion that ''the Parihaka dispersal was necessary to *' avert the war, and I may say I am very tliankful to share- Vhe responsibility of "that proceeding, as it was the hums'., euc"cessfnl proceeding towards the native* *' thai could possibly have been adopted." Mr Alpers ignores Sir John Hall, &» he does the opinion expressed by the learned Judge who tried the case. Let us name

were Sir F. Whkaker, Sir H. Atkinson, the Hon. R. Oliver, the Hon. W. W. Johnston, Mr Dick, and th© Hon. W. Kolleston. The names of moat of them will live long in the history of tihe colony, and all are men not in the least likely to connect themselves with an net. of folly or wrongdoing. Mr Alpers ignores them all. The whole Prese of th* colony, with, perhaps, one exception of any note, supported Mr Bryee; Mr ~.-jpen <pin» his faibh. t» the exception. Why has he chosen only hostile authorities for the purpose of a work whkh professes 4o give an impartial history of the period? What would he cay of a writer who professed to give an impartial account of the Boer war, of Mr Chamberlain and of hk policy, and who took his cue on all debatable points from a pro-Boer newspaper acid pro-Boer politicians? Even in the use of hostile cuthorities we regret to say Mr Alpers hixs sometimes gone further than their words would warrant. We showed how he embroidered the correspondents' account of the occupation of Paribsika. Let ua'take another instance front his letter to-day. Uisborne, ah opponent of the Hall Government, and of Mr Bryee, writes: — "Their 25«tive policy (frke H»!l Government*) in Tarunaki was iv ussy respects rasli siid unstatesmaulike and would certainly have p'.uuged tho colony into another war had it tot been lor two things. One wag thitt the disaffected natives were, under what they considered the inspired direction of Tβ VThiti, perfectly passive. »j*d th* second was that the labours o5 the West Coast Commissioner*. Sir William Fox and Sir Francis Bell, bal done raucb to remove "the wrongs of which t>ha natives concerned had justly complained." We ask our readers especially to note the second cause mentioned 'by Gisborne, and to remembsr that the West Coast Commission was the creation of the Hall Government. Then lei them note how Mr Alpers puts the matter in his "ffietory": — "That -wa.r wae averted was due entirely to the wise patience end generous forbearance of the Parihaka Maoris; for they were at this time completely subject to the influence of a most remarkable man—Te Whiti." Let them also note that in giving Gisborne as his authority for this view, Mr. Alpers deliberately omit* Glsboroe's reference to the West Coast Commission. We reprint his "note and reference" to show how he lias mangled the extract from Gisborne printed above:— (1) "Their Xative policy (the Hall Government's) was in many respects roah and unetatesmnulike,. and would certainly have plunged the colony into another war had it not been v . . .. that tie natives were, under w.hat they considered the inspired direction of Tβ Wluti, perfectly passive."—Gisborne, "N.Z. Rulers and Statesmen," p. 209. If thu U not evidence of partisan bios we <fco not know what is. But there is no need for us to say more. It is our privilege to-day to publish an historical document of rare value and interest. The letter from Mr. John Bryee state* in detail the circumstances under which he left and rejoined the Hall Ministry, and the part taken by Mr. Rolleston in the matter. Some of these details, we believe, hare never been published before. It is a touching, dignified, and impressive letter, which we are sure: fewwill be able to read without emotion. No one who reads it will believe for one moment that the man who penned it is rightly to be written of in flippant strain, or> that the proceedings at Parihaka were in any sense a "pitiable farce." Even Mr. Alpers, who. has doubtless learned some things during this controversy which he did not know before, will regret having used that phrase, and we cannot help believing that if a second edition of his book is called for—as we hope may be the case —this chapter about Parihaka will be rewritten. Whether this be so or not, future historians, when the tumult of party strife has died down, will realise the great service rendered to New Zealand by Mr. Bryce and his colleagues. AH previous Maori risings had been productive of many atrocities and much bloodshed, and were only: rtipprewed after long and costly warfare. The. last—and, in some respects, the molt formidable—movement of all was put down without one shot being fired, without one* single drop of blood being shed.