OUR SLANDERERS.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 63, 11 September 1862, Page 5 (Supplement)

OUR SLANDERERS.

To the Editor of the Standee's Say Times. Sir, — When the gross untruths uttered by Canon Stowell became known at this side of the world, there was an outburst of indignation at the author of such slanders on the colonists of New Zealand, who had apparently been misled by some of his clerical brethren, and taken their intemperate writings against Governor Browne to be facts, instead of opinions. To have been misled in this case was the only possible excuse for the slanderer, for, being ignorant, he had no right to state as facts what existed only in his imagination. It was hoped by many in the colony, your humble servant among the number, that some of our clerical dignitaries would do what little they could to repair the injury they had, perhaps unintentionally, done not only to the colonists in a body, but to themselves and the society which with they are connected, in the only practicable methods, by publicly denying the charges made against the colonists, and by setting their reverend brother right, and so induce him publicly to retract his words, as is the duty of an honest man when he finds he has unintentionally stated an untruth. It is to be regretted that our bishops and archdeacons did not see their duty in this light, as it appears that they have practically allowed the stigma for which they are morally responsible to remain on the heads of the colonists. Two exceptions to the rule deserve mention ; first, Bishop Williams, who, in the colony, has denied the truth of the charge in a sort of general milk and ivaler style, contrasting remarkably with the fiery zeal shewn by the ecclesiastical party when advocating what they term the rights of their pelted flock; and secondly, the Rev. H. Brown, of Taranaki, who has fearlessly asserted the false nature of the accusation in a letter to the great Cau-aou himself. More power to you, Mr. Brown ; you appear to have some little sympathy left for your injured and ruined countrymen, instead of following the rule of your ecclesiastical superiors, and carefully keeping all your cares and sympathies for the plunderers of their homesteads ! Unfortunate settlers of Taranaki! Dragged about the country at the caprice of incompetent officials, penned up at one time in sight of your burning homes, compelled to witness the destruction of your property, but not allowed to prevent it; at another time marched backwards and forwards, a la Duke of York and his ten thousand men, up hill, then down again ; your bodies targets for Maori sportsmen to practise on, your conduct equally the butt for Maori ridicule and insult, you needed but a shepherd of the Hadfield class, sympathising with your spoilers, and abetting their efforts, to make the bitter cup overflow ; but this infliction has been spared you ; your pastor appears to be worthy his brave but unfortunate flock. But. what does Can-?mn Stowell do, when told he has slandered a community ? Does he retract his words fairly and honestly ? Nothing of the kind. He simply consents to express regret that he used strong language (!) in reference to the colonists ; adding immediately an endorsement to his original slander, to this effect, “ that the natives have been treated with injustice, oppression, and cruelty, to the dishonour of our common Christianity, and the disturbance and hindrance of the blessed ivork of Evangelisation, which has been so successfully carried on by the Church Missionary Society.” This is indeed an apology, adding to the original slander, if such a thing is possible. To back up his words, the Can-non drags in some nameless person, who, he says, has the fullest information on the points at issue, besides being one of the ablest, most impartial, and most sound judging officials of the Society. And what does this well-informed and impartial witness say ? That the Cannon’s words are covered by—what, hear this impartial but untruthful witness, “ The declaration of martial law against a party standing out for what they regarded as a legal right; and which they were willing to submit to any fair tribunal, &c.” I cannot find words Jit for ears and eyes polite to apply to apply to such unblushing falsehoods as these are. Regarded as a legal right, indeed ! Equally as Alexander of old regarded the world as his legal heritage ; as Nicholas regarded Turkey as his by legal right; as Francis Joseph regards Yenetia and Hungary; in plain terms, as Black Douglas regarded the purse he had just received from Simkins on the Queen’s highroad in Australia ; (Simkins of course doimr

so under the influence of an article bearing the name of Colonel Colt;) yes, each of these in his line considers he has a legal right to all that he has might to acquire. The plain, unvarnished answer of Wi Kingi to the question—is the land theirs ? is the fit answer to the Can-won’s witness so impartial and true. Yes, it is theirs, hut I won’t let them sell it ; if they sell it, you shall not have it, for I will take it myself. Learned ecclesiastical casuists may twist this as they will, it cannot he unsaid, and was fortunately witnessed by a man, also a Christian missionary, although of a different denomination, who was many years before admitted to he thoroughly acquainted with the Maori language. So much for the legal right! As for the willingness to submit to a fair tribunal, no one in the colony can he expected to believe that, however “ well-informed persons” at home may he gulled by it. Submission to a fair tribunal on the part of a Maori has hut one meaning, which is, decide the case as he wishes it, and all is right; decide against him, and all is wrong, and he will decline to acquiesce. It is not necessary to bring much evidence to prove the correctness of this assertion, or I might quote from a statement lately published, how, when Colonel Tlussell wished to act arhitx*ator in a dispute, “ brown-skin” said, All right, tell us your decision, and then we will consider whether we will accept it. Above all, in Wi Kiugi’s case, everybody in the colony knows, or might know, that no tribunal could bind him, except the good old system ; he supposed himself the strong man armed, and only the stronger could alter his will. After this it would be vain to seek redress from Canon Stowell; he has what he considers the “ best information,” backed by certain pamphlets, one by a “ William Fox,” a member of the House of Representatives, and others by “ Octavius Hadfield,” Archdeacon of Kapiti; the views expressed in which latter are said to be concurred in by Bishop Selwyn and other Church dignitaries ! The moral is, look at our home; we tolerate sowers of sedition, abetters of rebellion and murder; we tacitly allow them to appear to be the exponents of public opinion to people at a distance ; they write and publish falsehoods, and poison the minds of our countrymen at home against us; the mischief they do here is great, but what they do in England is incalculable; “he who steals gold steals trash, but he who robs us of our good name leaves us poor indeed,” as our poet lias said, and might have written specially for this occasion, so fitting is it. In future, when deluded men in England vilify us, we may put the saddle on the right horse if we null, and say, the real authors of the calumny, the men who charge us with crimes dark as hell, are the Fox and his tail, the Hadfields and Selwyus; in short, every Church Mission agent or clergyman in this island who fails to raise his voice against the slander is by silence a consenting party to it, and is morally responsible for it, seeing that the recognised organs of the society with which he is connected arm called in as evidence in support of the falsehood. Yours, &c., A Saxon. Ahuriri, 30th August, 1862.