THE HAWKE’S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, JAN. 30, 1862.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 31, 30 January 1862, Page 2

THE HAWKE’S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, JAN. 30, 1862.

“ Circumstances alter cases,” is a motto that may with the greatest propriety [be adopted by the honorable Colonial Secretary. Not to go so far back as the “ Six Colonies” at this time, to show the wondrous “ change that has come oer the spirit of [his dream,” nor even to the time, not so very long ago, when the Fox party and the Hadfield party were at “daggers drawn,” we will only ‘ take the short period that has elapsed since the defeat of the Stafford Ministry, only some six or seven months agd, to show the applicability of the motto we have given :—ln July, 1861, Mr. Fox “ deprecated such a Runanga as that at Kohimarama, where the chiefs gorged themselves with the beef and bread provided for them, the excellence of which they had not ceased to praise,” evidently regarding the feasting of the native chiefs as a kind of bribery adopted by the (at that time) Government to influence their minds, and “ make them say what they were told.” Of course the resolutions regarding the hostile tribes, and the right of Teira to sell his land to the Governor, with the professions of loyalty made by that Bunanga, all were worth nothing on account of that feast—certainly Mr. Fox could never become a party to such conduct. Yet, in the December following, we find the same system of feasting the natives, forming a very prominent feature in the methods adopted to make the new policy popular, and aid in its adoption. From the account of the feasting of the natives at the Lower Waikato, as given in the Government organ, the Public would hardly suppose that it was provided by the Government—in fact, rather too little was said about it, considering the important part it played in the negociatiqns ; but the contemporary press of the capital has given us details of this grand affair, which was not afforded by the New Zealander. One of the natives is reported to have described it thus, —“ The Kohanga meeting was good ; Government gave us many loaves, three tons of flour, and a ton of sugar. Mr. Mauusell seven sheep, Waata five sheep. I was well fed for four days.” When asked about the Governor’s korero, he replied—“ The talk of the Governor was good,” but his mind again reverting to the feast as the most important event of the meeting he added—“ and I forgot to tell you we had plenty of fish to eat.” Another native’s testimony is—“ There was plenty of food, for Government gave Waata Kukutai <£loo to purchase it. The talk of the Governor was good.” But on a point of vastly more importance than that of feasting, the charge we have rereferred to, is to be observed, and that is—the terms OF PEACE offered to the rebellious tribes. In the oration from which we have already quoted, given in the House of Representatives during the debate on the want of confidence motion, July, ’6l, Mr. Fox “ alluded to the terms of peace offered to the different tribes, and censured the Government for not enforcing those terms, and making each of the tribes enframed in the O O late struggle compensate the settlers for the destruction of property.” “ The terms of peace were ingloeious, — they were not such as would cause the natives to regard the British power with respect; the greatest offenders were let off the easiest ,* the Governmentcontented themselves by allowing Hapurona to say ‘ I accept your terms,’ without enforcing the restoration of the plunder, which was one of the conditions of those terms.” Now,

if this could be said of the Stafford Ministry then, what words can be found sufficiently strong to express the condemnation of the terms offered to the rebels now, and by the mouth of Fox himself? Certainly none. The terms he has offered them, if we except the single condition " Let the Queen’s subjects alone,” are no terms at all—they are nothing but concessions—“We claim no right to interfere with your king, nor his subjects ; we claim no right to make a road, or otherwise interfere on his territory, to impose our laws against the robbers and murderers of the Queen’s subjects—-on his people so long as they take care of themselves ; and we beg your permission for the Queen’s men to make roads on her own land; we assure you they shall not interfere with you nor your land, but only work on the Queen’s road on her own land.” The'se are the terms of peace offered to the rebels by the same gentleman who, six months before, objected so strongly to those terms offered by the late Governor and his ministers. Are these terms calculated to ensure “ respect for the British power ?” Are they not rather such as to render that power contemptible in the native mind ? Was a Maori ever known to look upon a concession other than as a sign of weakness, or to accept it other than as a right, add as a plea for further concessions ? The result, even now-, is just what might have been expected ; the natives say —“ We are requested to allow the Queen’s soldiers to make her roads through her land as far as our boundary. Of course we have the right to do as we please about that, or else we should not have been consulted. The Governor can’t want to make that road to our territoiy for nothing ; let us drive the soldiers back j he has told us they shall not fight us and so this is now the grand question in debate in the Council of His Majesty Potatau H., recognised king of the natives of these islands, whether they will accept of the only condition of peace that is offered them or not—whether they will let Her Majesty’s subjects alone, or fight them on their owm land. Probably the next mail from Auckland will bring us their decision.