The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, DEC. 30, 1881.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6503, 30 December 1881, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, DEC. 30, 1881.

la Mr Bryce enacting the part of the ■“Old Mas of the Sea,” and ore Mr Bryce’s colleagues collectively is the unpleasant relative position of “ Smbad, the Sailor?” We have bees told by two Ministers that the Cabinet most thoroughly endorsed everything which Mr Bryce had done. We had our doubts about the “everything,” because the Ministerial asseverations were very touch stronger than the Ministerial reasons. There was each a curious incompleteness in the very laboured defence of the Native policy put for* ward by the Premier and Minister lor Lands, that it seemed as if portions of the conduct of Mr Bryce In hie autocratic capacity were passed over purposely in alienee. It was one thing to give a general approval to the policy of rigour; quite another to give unqualified sup* port to every illegal or unjustifiable detail of autocracy. We begin to sue* peot that disapproval of this kind is either extending or beginning. Having carte Mawdte, Mr Bryce is doing things which may well moke the hair of his colleagues stand on end. That ho has begun a new series of confiscations totally outside of all the legal power ho or his colleagues possess, and beyond all possible range of good faith or respect for solemnly plighted word, Is now quite clear. Thatbsbas inaugurated a policy of waste* which, destroying food almost in the presence of the hungry, is inexcusable, is also certain. Had these things been done with the cordial assent of bis colleagues, the knowledge of them would not have reached the Government papers unoU* dally. When Mr Bryce is in the Farihaka country, and hm colleagues in Wellington do not favour the Govern* meat Frew with ooMuulpl«, it 'is probable either that his colleagues know nothing of his movements, or, that knowing, they do not approve. In either case, the recent proceedings of the Native Minister cannot have hod the previous ament of his colleagues. The fact is, we, suspect, that when Mr Bryce was invited back into the Ministry be made his own terms. These he is now carrying out. Having made -Mr Bryce Sting, 'lns Ministry has to blindly adopt the formula that M the King can do no wrong,** or to depose the monarch Which shall it be ? If they continue to carry the royal burden, they will meet the fate which ”Binbad,

Ill* Seller 0 avoided, They will Has a. Mmlslry. stmagled. Mr Bp|6o*« fitei procrcdbg ba« b««D to Impose a fin* upon Ibo NatSm who eswrobkd at Patlbaka, by way of war indonilly to b# paid in kod. 01 Ibis w® do not entertain a doubt, tho infer* ttiUon baring been mad* pnbllo ibrougb tbreo Press Association, tbe correspondents of the Government papers, and acorrespotideal of onrs telegrapblsg from Ponga* r«ba. Tbcr* bus been, moreover, no contradiction. Now a war indemnity pre-napposes a war. Bat Ibtre bse been no war. But Mr Bryce says that there would hate been war bat for the die* play of force he made. We must remember that ho says it after he has, by diligent scouring of the whole country, from the Waingoogoro to.tho WhitccUffs, discovered the presence, by way of war preparation, of a small collection of antiquated arms with somewhere about ten rounds of ammunition to each venerable piece. The man who, after that, continues to say that the Maorics were certainly bent on war, is like Canning’s friend, who said he liked dry champagne. He will •ay anything. To levy a war indemnity is to make the Natives pay a heavy fine, because the Government was foolish enough, when It ought to have known hotter, to got a wrong belief into their beads. If, every time the Government think foolishly, the Native race has to pay a fine In land, there will not be much of the race left soon. Wo have now a new definition of the Native policy of the Government, or of Mir Bryce, without the assent of helpless colleagues. It is to make the Naiivea pay heavily lor theloUlea of the Government

As to the power of levying this Indemnity lor Government stupidity, where ia it ? Tbe confiscation proclamation of 1865 la the only aonroe of confiscation. That Proclamation cannot be made to cover, by punishment of deprivation of lands, acta done subsequent to itself. The acta themselves, moreover, are not criminal or illegal. Tbe gravamen of the charge, as stated in the Proclamation of last October, is that tbe Natives assembled at Parihaka. That was not illegal. They had a right to so assemble: first, because tbe owners of the land—owners under the terms of the Proclamation of 1865, guaranteeing their lands to the Natives remaining loyal allowed them; and, secondly, because Sir Donald M’Leaa had promised all Natives who came back, the possession of the lands that they might fence in and cultivate; and, thirdly, because the Royal Commission had said that the land at Parihaka was to be a Native reserve, in addition to the reserves elsewhere. Tbe right of these people to live at Parihaka was established. We can understand an advocate of the dispersion policy exonsing the dispersion on grounds of expediency. But it is impossible to understand how even the most thorough paced partisan of tbe Government can roe the justice of punishing the Natives, by deprivation of lands, lor an act not wrong in itself, which they not only had a perfect right to perform, but which they were actually encouraged to perform. Then there is the question of Motu’a country, in tha Stony River Block, and Matakatea’s country, known as the Oponake Block. To these blocks the Natives have, in the plighted word of the Qaeen’s representatives, and of the Queen's Ministers, an indefeasible title: a title which, in the eyes of every Government, ought to he superior to a Grown grant. To sum up the whole question of this new power of confiscating land at this time, there is no power to punish the Natives in this way now, and if there were, the Natives have not done anything to deserve such punishment Then there is the question of the food. The Proclamation of October insinuated that tha Natives were wasting their time at Parihaka. To encourage them to spend it better, in future, Mr Bryce has ordered the crops which they sowed when at Parihaka to be destroyed; and the ruthless order ia being carried out What the Natives are to do better than the cultivation of the coil it Is not easy to say. They are probably wondering whether, if they do not discover the answer to the question, Mr Bryoe may not be down upon them with another heavy fine, to be paid in land. This is the absurd side of tbe devastation now going on, There is a far worse side unfortunately. The destruction is a waste of valuable material, and all waste is unjustifiable, and sinful. The Natives who have been dispersed depended upon throe crops for their food, and are now in places feeling the want of food. But the destruction goes on nevertheless. As tbe Government will have to prevent throe people from dying of starvation, It would have been wise to have kept their crops to feed them upon. To destroy the crops is to deliberately choose the most expensive method of doing a neorosary doty. No doubt Mr Bryoe will pul the cost of maintenance upon the Natives themselves, making them pay, out of their lauds, for the food given to them in Ueo of their own food destroyed by his orders. The only axplanation of such a policy is that anything serves as an excuse to get hold of the land of the " nigger.” The waste going on may not then be quite so blind as it seems, and it may be wanton with a greater degree of mutouMNi than meets tbe eye at first Such are the results of autocracy in a Minister of the Grown, Are we to understand that Mr Bryoe. drunk with despotic sway, has cast off all restraints, or that the whole Cabinet is In toil unpleasantly delirious condition? We suspect that Mr Bryce stands alone. If our suspicion is correct, wo should like to know why the oilier Minister* do not cry, M hold, enough.” Surely Hey must know that If they do not, they will be committed to a most objectionable course of illegality and spoliation.