The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, JAN. 5, 1882.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVII, Issue 6508, 5 January 1882, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, JAN. 5, 1882.

Mb Justice Johnston had, like Mr Justice Gillies, something to Bay of the Native policy of the Government when he addressed tbe Grand Jury at tbe opening of the present sessions. Unlike his judicially critical predecessor, he did not offer any opinion upon the legality of the policy of Parihaka. Mr Justice Gillies Bpoke of the display of armed force as unnecessary, and, therefore, as something approaching to an outrage on the liberties of the people. This opinion his brother Judge did not, when he addressed himself to the subject, contravene. He contented himself with confining his reference to the expression of a nope. He said that he could do no more than desire that measures of this kind may produce permanent good to the Oolony. In thus expressing himself he was careful to lay aside the judicial character. He did not speak as a Judge interpreting the law, but as a Judge in his capacity of good citizen. It would not become him, hdis reported to have said, to say more than tbat. Every good citizen must desire that all measures of tbe kind may produce permanent good. " As subjects of Her Ma-

jesty," he said "wo should all participate in the satisfaction arising from such a result." This is the third opinion which we have had from men holding high independent positions in the Colony upon the Native policy. The opinion of Mr Justice Gillies wo have already referred to. That was remarkable for outspoken candour of hoßtilo criticism. The opinion of the Bishop of Nelson was evidently not less hostile. Its expression was made remarkable by the curiously false position in which it induced a Minister of the Grown to place himself. The opinion of Mr Justice Johnston is in contrast to these two opinions, not because it is favourable to the polioy of the Government, but because it is not hostile. It is hopeful, but its hopefulness is apparently only a matter of duty, which it is incumbent on every good citizen to discharge. There are, as far as we can see, two ways in whioh this, the latest expression of a person in high independent' position, may be viewed. Either Mr Justice Johnston refrained from going into the question of the details of the policy, as to their legality or otherwise, because he felt that they are not to be justified by legal methods of judging. Or he confined himself to the expression of a desire that everything may go well in consequence of the polioy, in order to administer a rebuke to his colleague, Mr Justioe Gillies, for an outburst of frank critioism, unbecoming his judioial position, upon a question not before him in his judicial capacity to be dealt with. The public will be divided upon the point, some taking one alternative and some another, according to their political proclivities. Those who think that the Government can do no wrong will certainly hold that the Canterbury Judge has, by the contrast of superior judicial savoir faire, administered a telling admonition to bis brother of Taranaki. Those, on the other hand, who agreed with what fell f ro m Mr Justice Gillies in November last, during the Farihaka week, will see, in the remarks of Mr Justice Johnsten, evidence that he, too, agrees with that opinion. To them the absence of any reference to the legality or otherwise of the polioy will be a sign that one Judge has just corroborated what another had pronounced two months ago. The latter opinion is, we feel sure, the correot one. Judges of the Supreme Court never administer rebukes gratuitously to one another in this public fashion, or in any other fashion as far as we know. If there is one thing more unbecoming than another in their eyes, it is to make cutting remarks at their colleagues in their absence.- Moreover, if Mr Justice Gillies did wrong, it was not by condemnation of the policy, but by reference to it. Mr Justioe Johnston's reference to the policy, therefore, could not be intended as a rebuke to Mr Justice Gillies. Clearly, therefore, Mr Justice Johnston did not defend the policy on legal grounds, because onlegal grounds the policy is indefensible. In this there are not many orumbß of comfort for the party of the Hon John Bryce.

We wish we could unite with Mr Justice Johnaton in his desire that permanent good may result. There is so much in this charge of his to the Grand Jury which commands adhesion, that we should like to agree with everything in it. We rejoice with him at the diminution of crime in the district; we regret with him the loss the Oolony has sustained in the death of Mr Chapman, who was in the habit of adorning everything which he undertook, judicial political and social; we deplore with him the loss the district has sustained in the death of a respected magistrate: and we grieve with him for the loss which a yet more recent death has inflicted i upon society. But we cannot desire that permanent good may come to the Oolony out of the Native Policy. A desire of that kind involves hope, and hope must be based on reasonable grounds. We look upon the policy as evil, and we cannot see how good can come out of evil. There may be good in a material point of view. For instance, the Europeans may possess the land. But this good will be purchased at a heavy expense of principle. Against possession of land we shall have to set some loss of the eenee of justice, some impairing of the high value which belongs to a promise solemnly made, much diminution of the spirit of generous humanity whioh should be the special attribute of a superior race, a tendency to substitute arbitrary power for the law. The price is too heavy a one to pay for the kind of good which is represented by material wealth. That good, moreover, can be but partial. As loyal subjects of the Queen, and as good citizens of the world, we are bound to include our, Maori fellow-subjects and fellow-beings in our desires for permanent good. If material wealth is the only good, one set of the people of New Zealand will have to part with it, in order that the other set may have it. Those who unlike ourselves see their way to echo the j. desire of Mr Justice Johnston, will say that for this loss the Maories will have a gain in tbe victory over fanaticism and lawlessness, which has been gained for them by the policy. For our part, we have never admitted that they required to be delivered from either, because wo have never been convinced that they were dangerously under the dominion of the first, nor tbat the second existed at all. Beyond a great deal of assertion, and the discovery of a very limited stock of arms (mostly bad), and of ammunition still more limited in quantity, nothing haß been put before the publio in Support of the theory we find it impossible to accept. Whatever good, then, may come from the polioy, can only be to the white race, and to them at a price out of all proportion to its value. For this reason we cannot hope for any permanent good from the polioy. But we can agree in a desire on one point with nil good citizens. Tt is that the Natives may not, in their own interest, prove foolish enough to do anything to provoke the further lawless but paternal care of the Government. We should like also to be able to hope that Government may refrain from farther con-

fißoations. But that hope «e fear it it net in the power even of the wildly over-sanguine to entertain.