THE “POLICY” FROM THE MINISTERIAL VIEW.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 46, 15 May 1862, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE “POLICY” FROM THE MINISTERIAL VIEW.

lo the Editor of the Hawke's Say Times. Sir, Presidential messages are proverbially lengthy documents, and the latest novelty in that line is no exception to the rule. His Honor Isaac the first, of the superior city, is not the man to allow either his own light or that of his friend and colleague to be hid under a bushel. If his statements are to be relied on, Wellington has a prosperous future dawning upon it. Fortunate men, the Wellingtouians, to have such clever statesmen as the three F’s to guide their state ship. How much more fortunate the colony, whose happy lot it is to be governed by one of the Trio, seeing that virtually it has the benefit of the sagacity and services of all, although nominally only paying the price of one. But to what purpose was the address of his honor composed ? It could not be for the edification of the gentlemen who compose the Provincial Council of Wellington, for it is well known they were, with one or two exceptions, thorough supporters of their Superintendent through thick and thin, so that it was quite unnecessary to trouble them with such a document. But there is “game a-foot,” and Dr. Featherston’s speech is the feeler; the ice is broken, and the direction of the current may be found out, and a coui'se shaped accordingly. The speech will be read and commented on all over the colony, and beyond it. In England, the backers of the Hadfield party may be expected to have it engrossed on vellum, framed and glazed, and exhibited in Exeter Hall on special occasions. Such phrases as a “ wise, humane, and equitable policy,” would read well there at any rate, particularly when followed by “ war impossible.” But the “ message” would be robbed of half its value, if it were not considered as an intimation of the ground on which the Fox Ministry will fight during the ensuing session of the General Assembly. Whether Fox really made a slip when he offered to refer the Waitara land to arbitration, or whether he deliberately resolved on that course, is immaterial now, for he is not the man to admit he made a blunder, but will rather put a bold face on, and fight it out. This is evidently his intention, as his compeer has boldly declared that the establishment of permanent peace rests not so much on the re-ap-pointment of Governor Grey, or on the institutions (he should have said salaries) offered to them, as on the offer to refer the disputed land to arbitration. Literally, on “ allowing the natives to have the deciding whether they will allow the land in question to pass to the pakeha,” on receiving any amount of hard cash they choose to accept by way of consideration. This, certainly, accounts for Mr. Ward’s conduct on his visit to this district. It is all plain as daylight now, “ let the natives decide how much they will take,” and let the question be settled at once. But there are other portions of the address to which attention may well be directed, particularly the part where he alludes to matters that came under the cognisance of a secret committee of the Assembly last session. If we may take Dr. Featherston’s word on the subject, it was “ a danger as great as ever threatened any one of England’s numerous dependencies.” That there is probably a great deal of truth in this assertion, I will not for a moment deny, but cannot forget that the danger, great or small, was considerably increased by the conduct of the three " F's and their political allies. The exact tenor of the advice they gave the natives, will, of course, never' be fully known, but enough was published to aggravate the “malady”fearfully. But there is another question connected with this subject. The secret committee took some oath, or pledged themselves some way, not to divulge what passed under their notice. Their proceedings were kept from the public ; yet Dr. Featherston, for political capital, wishes the public to infer that “such and such things were, or might have been,” as we shall not find out till we know what that committee did, and what they found out. What is this but an indirect method of informing us of something that the committee deemed ought not to be published ? But after all, the history of the colony for the past ten years would be turned to little advantage if we had not learned to distrust the speeches or writings of either Fox or Featherston. They are thorough political gladiators, who stop at nothing, when a move is to be gained on the chess-board. To denounce then - opponents in unmeasured terms, is no more part of their game than to eat the leek, i.e., “ retract all they have said,” is another part, and all his honor’s speechifying may be founded on facts, or on air. If we bear in mind Ins attack on Mr. Richmond at the last

general election, and how he shrunk from the task when Mr. Richmond required him to substantiate his charge, we may estimate his words at their proper value; and this is as necessary in the portions in which he proclaims the “ success of the policy,” as in those in which he attacks his opponents. Take for instance the phrases, “ the changed attitude of the natives,” the “ withdrawal of some of the most influential chiefs from the king confederacy,” the “ confirmed loyalty of many of the most powerful tribes,” the “ unxnistakoablc wavering displayed in the ranks of the king’s adherents which he asserts to be “ acts, patent to allall of which assertions will carry more weight out of the colony than in it, and be most believed where the political career of their author is least known. But of all “ his honor’s” statements, the one most open to suspicion and doubt is that where he charges Governor Browne and the Stafford Ministry with having “ during a panic concluded a truce.” This out-Herods Herod! A panic! By what caused? What could the Governor and his ministers fear ? Was the fact that the tedious sap had almost reached the heights of Te Arei likely to frighten the old soldier. Gore Browne ? surely “ his honor” made a mistake when he penned this word—panic ! Will Stafford and Richmond, will Whitaker and Weld, allow this to pass unchallenged ? Surely not. Silence is consent in such a case as this. Time will show whether they tacitly admit that they were afraid of the issue when, of all times, success had been gained in actual combat! The public generally formed, rightly or wrongly, a different opinion. It teas thought that the Government were anxious to avoid severity, and thinking (erroneously) that the natives were sufficiently convinced of our might to allow us our rights without bloodshed, attempted to please the Maori sympathisers by offering exceedingly easy terms, hoping thereby to leave no loophole for the Maori party to complain of; but if “his honor” is to be credited, it was fear, not sentimentality, that prompted Governor Browne and his advisers into this unmistakeable blunder. It was a blunder, and a gross one. To show mercy to a prostrate foe is commendable. To stop bloodshed is an act of humanity when it can be done with safety. But to offer easy terms to an enemy who has attacked you, and although somewhat the worse for the encounter, is still standing armed before you, and defying you and vaunting-his prowess, is an act of iveakness that should never emanate from the rulers of a country situated as this is, as it encourages our “ dark friends” in the idea that they are nearly a match for us, and may take up arms with impunity when they choose. This view of the question may be disputed by “ Maori doctors,” but common sense and history will alike shew it is correct. To be slow to begin a light, to be sure to have justice on your side when you do begin, and to strive to the uttermost to conquer after you have entered on the struggle, are no more “ good policy” than to “ never yield an inch till your opponent is, and admits he is, beaten,” is equally so. Governor Browne began a painful operation, but having begun, should have carried it through firmly. It would have been the best course for all parties in the long run. It would have been the last Maori war, for the Maories are too shrewd to rashly begin a war, after having been once taught that they will have to pay for their fun. An act of positive injustice they have never suffered since the Treaty of Waitangi, and there would have been no reason to fear any change in that respect, so as to compel them to fight in self-defence. Hence war would have been, not impossible, but extremely improbable. For Governor Browne’s mistaken clemency, the pro-Maori party have the ingratitude to fling in his teeth a charge of fear. It is a fit retribution for his weakness. Yours, &c.. May 9th, 1862. A Saxon.