The Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, THURSDAY 21st DECEMBER, 1865. THE RESULT OF THE LATE AMNESTY.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 6, Issue 334, 21 December 1865, Page 2

The Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, THURSDAY 21st DECEMBER, 1865. THE RESULT OF THE LATE AMNESTY.

Diabolical Murders are again the order of the day with the Hau-hau fanatics on the West Coast, as appears by the intelligence to hand by the last mail, and full particulars of which were given in our last issue. These are but the legitimate results of the pernicious policy of the late Ministry, as exemplified in their proclamation of amnesty to the rebels in arms, and a free pardon to the murderers of Job Hamlin, &c. We were not singular in predicting the most unfortunate results from the publication of that proclamation. To the rebels it could have but one meaning, and that was that they had so far beaten us, and might thenceforth go any length in the way of their rebellion ; —and the result has too plainly confirmed the truth of this prediction. It was issued with the ostensible intention of satisfying the rebels, and so bringing about a peace; but it was not calculated to do so. It said that the war was at an end at a time when it was in one of its worst aspects. It was not true, and the rebels knew it well. They—as might have been known beforehand—attributed it to our defeat; and, so far from tending to produce peace, confirmed them in their rebellion. During the debate on the question of this proclamation in the House of Representatives the above view of the case was taken by, we may say, a majority of the members of the House, and among others by Mr Crosbie Ward, who could well see that it was a false step, and altogether unjustifiable in any sense whatever. Job Hamlin was not slain in war, but was waylaid and murdered while driving his cart on a public road near his own house ; —murdered in cold blood. His murderers were known, taken, tried, found guilty, and condemned to death by the representative of the law upon the clearest, evidence ; and the amnesty steps between the criminals and their punishment, and turns these worse than wild beasts loose upon society, to repeat, if need be, their bloody deeds upon other innocent victims. The state of affairs on the West Coast was as bad, or even, if possible, worse than this, for it was from the murders at Oakura in 1863 that the Taranaki war was renewed • yet this proclamation steps between these’ murderers and justice. It also pardoned the arch-rebel Rewi Maniapoto, the Waikato leader, whom the Government could not get hold of to punish—thus adding an aspect of ridicule to the affair in the eyes of the Maoris, who would give no thanks for such a boon! Mr Ward, as we have said, among others protested against it, and this subsequently gave rise to a scene at a meeting in Canterbury. where Mr Weld accused him of clamoring for blood and war in the Assembly; for the blood of the Maori race generally, and especially for the blood of men then oil trial and in jeopardy of their lives. We were very greatly grieved when we saw this reported of Mr Weld ; and especially so to find that he commanded the sympathy of a Canterbury audience. The murder of the messengers employed to convey his amnesty to the rebels, should have convinced him before that, that his policy had proved itself powerless for good, and a provocative of war itself. The result had already justified Mr Ward and those with him who had condemned a proclamation that set convicted and sentenced murderers free-" cried ‘Peace peace,’ when there was no peace,” and par! doned rebels who were beyond the reach of the law. The rebels had been stimulated to the performance of other other and, if possible, greater deeds of atrocity, and confirmed in their rebellion against Her Majesty’s Government. The public press is a court of appeal. In this instance Mr Ward laid his case before the public by means of a letter to the editor of the Canterbury Times, thus acting wisely, appealing, as it were, from the excited feel! ings of a meeting inflamed by the eloquence of an orator, to the same people in their calmer moments, when reason had regained her sway, and he is justified. For although it elicite I a reply from Mr Weld, and for aught we know the discussion may still be going on, we cannot find in Mr Weld’s reply any argument in favor of the policy except that which refers the matter to the

purses of the Ounte rbury settlers. He says, "If Mr Ward was prepared to continue the war, and tux the Southern Island to pay for it, he was consistent in opposing the amnesty, or if he could have brought forward a policy that would have secured peace without amnesty he would have been consistent,” &c., to which it is sufficient to reply that the amnesty itself has not produced peace—was not calculated to produce peace ; but has in every sense fulfilled the predictions regarding it made by Mr Ward and tho party that thought with him.