MISTAKEN IDENTITY.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 44, 1 May 1862, Page 5 (Supplement)

MISTAKEN IDENTITY.

(From the New Zealand Advertiser, April 2.) There once lived in "Wellington a gentleman hy the name of William Fox, who, alter the death of Captain Wakefield, became agent of the New Zealand Company at Nelson, and, subsequently, after the death of Colonel Wakefield, the principal agent of that Company at Wellington, until it, too, gave up the ghost, when ho left the Colony. Immediately before leaving, he was, or reported himself to have bean, appointed honorary political agent in England for the settlement of Wellington. In that capacity, on his arrival in London, he sought, but was refused, an interview with Earl Grey, the then Colonial Minister. Determined to let. his views bo known, and not to hide the light he had obtained with regard to the misgovernment of Sir George Grey under a bushel; afflicted with the cacoethes scrihendi, and bent upon letting the Colonial Office and the British public know who Win. Fox was, he, forwarded to the one a carefully drawn up minute on the maladministration of the Government of New Zealand under Sir George Grey, and wrote for the edification of the other a book which ho entitled “ The Six Colonies of New Zealand.” He afterwards went to America, but whether he became a citizen of that republic, which from the views contained in his work was very probable, or whether he left that country for parts unknown, ho was left us no certain evidence of determining. Rumor —the lying jade—insists that this same William Fox is at the prescut moment “ Governor Grey’s right-hand man” ; but that we think is impossible. It must be one of those curious instances of mistaken identity which we sometimes read of in (he newspapers. We come to this conclusion on the following grounds. The anther of the “ Six Colonics” was the bitter personal and political opponent of Sir George Grey, and was wholly opposed to his native policy or government by moral force as it was called, but which Mr. I 1 ox considered was a government of immoral laxity. “ For,” said he, “it consists of yielding on every occasion to the caprices and violence of the natives, whether exercised amongst themselves, or directed against the colonists.” Consequently the author of the “Six Colonics” would consider that the present mode of governing the natives was immoral laxity, for the instances he gives in confirmation of this view of the subject could be furnished in greater abundance now than then. He says: “ The natural and inevitable result of such a policy is to destroy all prestige of (he moral and intellectual superiority of the Europeans, to bring the Government into the utmost contempt, and to terminate in rebellion, only to be quelled at a great cost of life and property, besides retarding for years the progress and prosperity of the country.” The gentleman who entertained sentiments like these, cannot be the same person who has recently been on a mission to the Waikatos, and who succeeded in bringing (he British Government there into the utmost contempt, by adopting a policy which the author of the “Six Colonies” so emphatically denounced, and (he fruits of which lie so shrewdly and truthfully predicted. It must be a case of mistaken indentitv.

Moreover, the William Fox to whom we refer maintained that the ultimate cause of the wars in Now Zealand was none other than that “government by moral force” just alluded to. In common with other colonists, the author of the “Six Colonies” had often been hurt and annoyed by meeting with respectable and intelligent persons, newly arrived from home, whose minds had boon impressed with the belief that the wars in New Zealand arose from the oppression of the natives by tbc colonists, and that they all involved disputes about laud. “ Such an impression,” he said, “ is the very reverse of truth. The ultimate cause of the wars has been none other than that government by moral force before alluded to.” This, therefore, is not the same William Fox who calls (he present mode of governing (he natives one by moral force, but which the author of the “Six Colonics” would rightly designate^ 11 a government by immoral laxity.” That the William Fox of 1851 is not the William Fox of 1861 is shown by his remarks with reference to the settlement of Taranaki, the chief drawback to the progress of which lie describes to be the natives. “ After live years delay and litigation,” he observes, “the Commissioner of Land Claims decided that the purchase from the natives, made by the Company which founded it, was valid and good. But the Chief Protector, Mr. Clarke, interfered, and persuaded Governor Fitzroy to reverse the decision. Instead of 60,000 acres, which the Commissioner had awarded, ho reduced the settlement to 3,800, within the limits of which he compelled the colonists to retreat. The rest he abandoned to a turhuhnl hotly of natives who have ever since been ‘ a thorn in the side’, of the colonists.” The author of “ The Six Colonics” was also of opinion that in some thirty years there would scarcely be in existence an aboriginal New Zealander, and that as a consequence or by implication it was not worth while to adopt any measures for the improvement and elevation of a race (hat would so soon become extinct. There was no time to remove, or even materially to modify the force of the causes which were sweeping them from the face of the earth. “ His ultimate fate,” said ho, “ is certain ; it is summed up in the single word—extinction.” This cannot, therefore, bo the same William Fox who is recommending the expenditure of some £60,000 per annum out of the colonial revenue for the better government of a race so soon to be swept from the face of the earth. Besides, he thought that there were no feelings of loyalty amongst the natives. “ Queen Victoria,” said lie, “is a mere abstraction exercising no practical influence over them.” That the ally of Archdeacon Iladfleld, and the Governor’s present “ right hand man” is not the same person who wrote the work called “ The Six Colonics” is shown by the views published in that work with reference both to the missionaries and Sir George Grey. Ho considered the effect of the religious teaching of the missionaries on the native character to be little more than skin deep, and he observes : —- “As to interference of the missionaries in political affairs, it has been solely and extensively mis-

chievous. It is a fact too well established to admit of the least dispute, that the government of the country for the first six years was carried on (in all that related to, or bore upon, the natives) under advice of the leading members of the missionary body. Governor Hobson placed himself unreservedly in its hands. Governor Fitzroy went the length of stating to his Legislative Council that he relied more upon Mr. Clarke (the present Secretary to the Mission in the Colony, and formerly one of its catechists) than upon any five of the other officers of Goverment. Lnder these circumstances, a large share of responsibility for all the acts of Government relating to the natives, rests on the missionaries.” io afford some idea of the follies that were enacted he refers to the case of Ilcke’s earliest act of aggression, and to the conciliatory way it was treated. He then continues:— “ I wish that I could report that such weaknesses were no longer exhibited in New Zealand. Little more than a year ago Governor Grey visited the settlement of New Plymouth, in the'hope of terminating the long-vexed land question there. He was riding into the country when a small party of natives hostile to his object met him, flourished a tomahawk over his head, and ordered him back to the town. He proceeded to the residence of a a powerful and friendly chief, and, on complaining of the indignity, the tomahawk (but not the individual who used it) was brought in and laid at his feet. Sir George accepted the apology. It is not to be wondered at that before many'davs were over the hostile natives openly plundered some of the friendly ones of valuable presents which Sir George had given, and that the representative of British power shortly left the settlement without achieving his object.” The views of the author of the “ Six Colonies” on “ Native title to Waste Lands,” and on the “ Leasing of Native Lauds” are too long for extract here, but they shall be given verbatim in a future number of this journal. Suffice it to say that those views differ widely from those now promulgated by the Colonial Secretary, The opinion entertained of Sir George Grey and his policy by the William Fox of 1851, is thus recorded in the work he then published : “ When it is considered that the earnest desire of the colonists for self-go-vernment, and the conviction of the fitness of the Colony for it, have been thwarted by the opinion of one man of certainly no greater intelligence or position.in the home country than many of them, and whose experience has been limited almost entirely to the narrow institutions of New Holland, and the still narrower interest of one of its settlements —when these facts arc called to mind, we cannot help wondering at the infatuation which perseveres in a course so certain to alienate the affections of what was at one time one of the most loyal and attached of the British Colonies.” The author of this passage is certainly not the Governor’s “ right hand man.” The author of the “ Six Colonics,” like the present. Colonial Secretary, delighted in the name of Fox, of being a barrister of the Inner Temple, a graduate of Oxford, and of having once received the appointment of Attorney-General, but such evidence is not sufficient to warrant us in coming to the conclusion, after carefully comparing the William Fox of 1851 with the William Fox of 1801 that they arc the same person. It is clearly a case of mistaken identity.