THE NEW ZEALAND WAR.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume V, Issue 233, 1 March 1865, Page 2

THE NEW ZEALAND WAR.

The following letter is from an active and influential member of the English House of Commons ; To the Editor of the Times. Sir, —Allow me to offer a few remarks on the information which you have already giveu on the present imbrogilo of affairs in New Zealand. We once controlled our colonies for our own supposed benefit, while they maintained and defended themselves. We next undertook to govern and defend them from home. Lastly, we gave them free Constitutions, and leave to tax us with the costs incurred for their defence. We were about to correct this anomaly, but here comes a new phase of things;—a combination of the newlyconceded colonial self-government with the old limitations from house —a colonial Governor appealing from his own constitutional Ministers, and the Assembly to which they are made responsible, to Ministers in England. There is a celebrated despatch from Lord Russell to Lord Sydenham in 1839, truly averrim* that “ there was no very definite meaning then attached to responsible Government for coloniss.” “ A colonial Governor,” it says, “ may at the same time receive instructions from the Queen and from his own Council totally at variance. If he obeys the first, responsibility fails ; if the latter, he is not a Governor, but a Sovereign,” The things so misrepresented appears impossible. The incomplete recognition of the principle conceded in colonial self-government the present New Zealand news shows to exist, and the confusion in that colony actually illustrates. In 1853, representative institutions were granted to New Zealand, and two years afterwards responsible Government was fully inaugurated, and, finally, entire control over affairs was conceded to the local Administration. A war breaks out with the natives in 1863, in the conduct of which we largely assist the colony indeed, but the colonjal Legislature undertakes the policy and part ofthe supplies. At length we are told the war is suppressed, when suddenly, by a dispute between the Governor and lus Council, the enemy is let loos©

again. The representative of the Queen writes home to the Queen roundly abusing the Ministers wiiom his Parliament has approved, charges them with cruelty to the prisoners taken in this war, and himself puts these prisoners in a position to escape and renew the war. The fact is that Mr Fox’s Ministry have simply carried out the policy of icbellion forteiturcs wnich Sir George Grey indicated wdien the .Maori war of ISG3 broke out, and which the Assembly sanctioned by votes amounting to £3,000,000, by a levy of 5000 troops, including a cavalry force on'permanent pay, and by chartering seven steamers for the service. The Aborigines’ Protection Society in England no sooner heard of this than they issued °a letter condemnatory of that policy, and their sentiments were echoed in the House of Commons. Mr Cardwell supported, indeed, the colonial authorities and seemed to adopt the wise answer of the Duke of Newcastle on the cession of native atiairs to them, u that it can only be mischievous to retain a shadow of control when any beneficial exercise of it has become impossible.” He almost naively enumerated opprobrious impediments to interference, winding them up with the fact that seif-government had been so fully acted on in the case that the law of confiscation had not been reserved for her Majesty’s pleasure but was finally passed by the Governor, and in force. But he truly argued that while England continues to furnish 10,000 troops and animal millions for tbo defence of a colony she had a right to advise, and that she had a special interest in the termination of this war, which she had provided to be the last she should be so implicated in. Avoiding, therefore, the infraction of constitutional responsibility, and recognising the act of the colonists for indemnifying themselves by forfeiture, he gave them eouusels of moderation and a suggestion of partial re-cession of forfeited land, which wras the mildest form of interference ho could adopt, though perhaps too much assuming the shape of a specific proposition. Advice or withdrawing our own co-operation are clearly our only possible modes of constitutionally interfering with a free and distant Government, made responsible to an elected Parliament, and presided over by a chosen representative of the Crown. But what has induced the Governor of New Zealand to turn round upon his own Ministers, to act without them, and even against them, and in reversal of his own policy ? He might have called his*Assembly together and recommended to them a modification of their acts. But what does he ? Sir George Grey issued a proclamation (Gazette July 13, 1863) upon a large plan of confiscation and settlement on the confiscated lands. He retains now for eight mouths more than two millions of acres under the terms of this proclamation, and when his Ministers ask him to take such steps as may enable them to keep faith with those soldiers and settlers who have claims on his own plan of resettlement, and with the Assembly, who distinctly, in reliance on his proclamation, have been incurving a debt, growing at. the rate of £BO,OOO per month, he suddenly arrests his own policy, suspends proceedings without any consultation, appeals to the Homo Government, and makes a new attempt in a contrary direction to patch up a sham peace with the natives, which is almost certain to end in renewing the war. He would not be so unjust to Mr Fox and his colleagues to insinuate that they were abusing his proclamation for the prolongation of the war, however true it may be that there are colonial interests in that direction. Why did lie not change his Ministers? Clearly because he could not get others, as the deadlock of Government upon their resignation has shown. Can he get the Home Minister to draw out of the ignorance and carelessness of the English Parliament any real amendment of his local policy independently of his constitutional advisers? Will the theoretical friends of the Maoris here understand, or make them understand, their interests and our treaties better?

Lot us directly recognise the fact that, considering the absence of knowledge, the physical impossibilities of time and space, and the contradiction involved in popular government held in antipodean leading-strings, even if colonists leave all virtue and wisdom behind them, we cannot do more for them when they assume freedom like our own than discharge honorably the responsibilities we may have entered into. We cannot even undertake the office of a Court of Appeal on their local difficulties without creating more confusion, and the sooner we clear ourselves from all pretence of such undertakings and them from all reliance on them, the better for every interest, whether of good government, humanity, or friendly relationship. I hope Parliament will, immediately on its meeting, be put in, possession of all papers received from New Zealand since the prorogation relating to the present confusion of affairs, and be satisfied that constitutional means are reinstated for a speedy realisation of our recent stipulations for peace. I am, your obedient servant. Hams, December 17. C. B. Addehlet.