Hawke's Bay Times. MONDAY APRIL 6, 1868. MORE NATIVE DISTURBANCES.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume XIII, Issue 567, 6 April 1868, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Times.

MONDAY APRIL 6, 1868. MORE NATIVE DISTURBANCES.

NhlUus addldus jurare hi verba naylstri.

Our columns this morning contain news of fresh Native disturbances both on the West Coast, between Wanganui and Taranaki, and on the East Coast, beyond Poverty Bay. In the latter case the King natives have seized on a herd of cattle, the property of Messrs. Firth and Buckland, which were being driven on to a run leased by the above gentlemen from some ot the aggressors ; and in the first case they have committed depredations on sheep, the property of some of the settlers in the neighborhood.

Neither is this all—they seem to have returned to most of the barbarism of their worst state, in that they have resorted to acts of cannibalism on people of their own race taken prisoners of war —just, it would seem, to show their intended course of action in case the Pakeha should again take up arms against them. The recent attempt on the part of the Government to chasten the rebels at Opotiki has resulted in failure. There is the oft-told tale of a difficult country ; shortness of sup plies, necessitating the use of horseflesh for food; the attacking of pas from which the rebels have just escaped ; and the close of the campaign for the season—leaving matters, so fails the subjugation of the rebels is concerned, in almost as backward a state as at its commencement. The Maori rebel is, in fact, growing bolder and more insolent, seeing, as he does, that he is able to baffle us at every step He feels himself safe from defeat, and ready for fresh acts of aggression. Tin King is reported to have said, in view of the tribes that are rallying round him, “ 1 feel my arm growing stronger and stronger” ; and as he feels this ha sees the Pakeha as if about to retire from the contest against him, and leave him the victor. It is to be sup posed that those who were so clamorous for direct dealings with natives for land have proof of the fallacy of their favorite panacea for the native diflicuty. We are told that amongst the aggressors on the cattle of Messrs. Firth and Backhand were the very individuals who had taken from those gentlemen the .rent for the runs to which the cattle were being driven, and of coarse

they Imve no remedy ; they cannot ask the Government for aid in forcing an enemy to fulfil a contract in his own territory, and must just submit to the failure of their speculation and the loss consequent on it.

, The result of our struggles hitherto with the rebel has been of a most hu* miliating character. True, we have beaten him ia fight, driven him from his strongholds, and in numer-

ous ways showed him our power, but we have made no impression on him because we have weakly conceded all that we have gained—while the cost of these operations has crushed us. We have threatened confiscation of his lands, but our justice (?) is so tempered with mercy that we do not do it, or only make a most feeble pretence of doing it. We say that all violations of the law shall be punished but we allow the arch-traitor and murderer Kereopa to live and defy us. The rebel has nothing bat his land to lose, and that we will not take even in payment for his crimes. He finds, in fact, that he is none the worse off for his late rebellion, while he has succeeded in crippling us and forcing us

for the tuae at least to suffer and bear without resistance. Well then may be chuckle and assume the right to draw his aukati here or there to the extent of taking the lives of nmr who e ------ J - may presume to cross such boundary line. Well he may in his conscious strength assert Lis independent rule over a vast tract of country; threaten to lay his embargo on tbs anviwnHftQ of the rivers ; define the limits of the gold-fields ; and “ threaten to send away Europeans who have lived a quarter of a century” with him. He feels he shall be let alone ; that he has defeated the Pakeha and reigns supreme. The * Southern Cross ’ hopes there may be no further outrages to report, but it fails we think to give any grounds for such hope. Both it and the ‘ New Zealand Herald 5 advocate what is called the “ let alone policy,” and it is certain that that is the policy which must be adopted for a time, burdened as we are by the results of the last mismanaged struggle with the rebels, and unpopular as any interference with them would be in all the Southern provinces. If they are at all wise they will appreciate the forbearance of the colonists, and not, as we rather think will be the case, by adding outrage to outrage, irritate them until a “ let alone policy” becomes no longer possible; for in that case the mistake of the last war would scarcely be again repeated, but the memory of it would make the next a reality, and not a mockery and a snare.