THE BISHOP OF NELSON AND THE HON MR ROLLESTON.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 302, 20 December 1881, Page 2

THE BISHOP OF NELSON AND THE HON MR ROLLESTON.

lo the Editor op the " Evening Mail." Sic—How does Mr Roileston know what I said about the Government? He asked me in wbat I must characterise under the circumstances aa an impertinent telegram what I had said. I did cot choose to tell him whether hia impressions of what I had said were correct or not, but told him tbat tba remarks complained of, whether made hy me or not appeared to me self-evident and hsrnless. Supposing that he thought that, what I said was opposed to the Government, I wen' on to oi.le kirn _r,ni. r__.r_.nent •iur smouo, which he did not find it convenient to answer. As to the publication of the words whicb he then put into my mouth, and for which he is answerable, not I, he may thnnk himsslf fcr that; I should not have published them if be had not threatened to do so. I gent my answer to him on the Saturday, expecting, of courße, that he would publish tbem a: once a3 he threatened. I waited Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday; I ascertained that they were not yet pnblished; I received no communication from him, and accordingly, as J did not care to be threatened in vain, and bad waited sufficient time, I requested the papers to publish them, and on my return to Wellington received a telegram from him saying that he himself would publish them on Friday, or after he arrived in Christchurch. I waa in no haste to publish them; other telegrams reached me from Christchurch, why this did not I do not know. I consider, therefore, that an apology is due from him for flying at me with abusive language, and implying thafc I. had usad my office to, disseminate opposition to his Govern ment, when I had done nothing: of the kind. I talked indeed about politics to one or two gentlemen or lady friends, but Dever to an aodience of more than two or thre* ai mest, who were frequently his supporters well able to answer for him. After perusing Mr J. G. Eichmond's letter I still think it was a fair matter of opinion whether " bringing matters to a crisis," to use his words, on tbe part of the GoTernmen' was not hastened on by the Government with a viaw to settling tha Maori question, or in other worda quashing the Maori claims on the West Coaat, so as to come bsfore the eouutry,as tbey knew ibey would have to do, with that question settled. Settling the Maori difficulty any way would be ft feather iQ the cap of any Government, and Mr Roileston stid, or is reported to have said, at bis election:-^«Wa think the peoplo are satisfied with all we have done, and will return us." But suppose I said what Mr Roileston wishes to make out that I said: What is that to him that he should be offended, or his former chief come to his defence? I never spoke disparagingly of Mr Roileston, scarcely ever referred to bim, or thought of him, and if I did it was to express __ conviction that whatever political exigencies might

require Mr Roileston at al! events was an honest man; at least I believed him to be so though I see by Hansard ho is not above being called to" order by the Speaker for strong language to an opponent. I suppose every Government ia affected by a view to the elections in all that it docs; doea it therefore necessarily follow tbat a person who thinks and says so (I do not say that I said so) means that such a Government would trample on all honesty or insfch? Certainly not— but political situations are very exacting, as yocr correspondent "Charity" naively says, "We might have expected guch uncharitable conduct from a hard pressed political opponent. ' As for charity, I too can refer to the description of it for ray purpose — " it rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth " — it is very hard to discover the truth in regard to the Maori land question, but the recent Commissioners have let in some light on the subject, and from them we learn that, so far "from justifying the self complacent tone used by Mr Richmond in bis letter to you some six weeks ago icspecting the self approbation with which we might regard aU that had been done for ihe Maoris — we have in *?ery miny instate?'**' grossly neglected our premises, and it will take a long lime to work up the arrears and settle their just claimsToe action of the Government is of course affected by what the Maoris actually did say, and I am told that there is uncertainty about the word used by Te Whiti. whether it meant actual violence or only moral resistance. lam told this by old Maori scholars, not by younger ones only, and throughdut the whole affair I have not acted or spoken on my own views or impressions alone ; I am not, however, going to bettay any of what the Government would call my accomplices, or band them over to the tender mercies of an arbitrary Ministry. But tbis I will say, that I have very frequently had the remark made to me "* you are not the only person that thinka this." If the Government were so anxious to prevent misapprehension, why did they not protest or guard against such an indecent proceeding as tbat Mr Parris should sit on the Bench against Te Whiti, whereas Mr Parris is one of the parties whose actions are now en trial as much aa Te Whiti's. The settlers ronnd Mount Egmont ever cry " Delenda est Carthago," "away with the Maories," «nd the maxim accepted by the Government is— settlement most proceed, fei possis recte, si non qnocucque modo. lam one of those who do not think so ! If indeed the Government had summoned the Volunteers to go after Hiroki, supposed to be & murderer, I as a Volunteer would gladly have gone with them and supported them ; had we been defeated, even by bloodshed, it would have been in the interests of life. Had we been on the other hand worsted in this conflict, we should have been overcome in a dispute which was not oue of life aDd death, but over land which had a bad title, acd perhaps after all enforcing an error ! It appears to many that the purchase of blocks of the confiscated land amounted to the removal of the confiscation, at all events tha native proceedings under such circumstances caa scarcely be regarded aa evidences of designed lawless hostility as if the ownership had been clearly defined, and as if there were no room to doubt about such ownership. Bnt after all Mr Rollestoo does net know from me wbat I did say, and I will thank the Government and their supporters in future to confine themselves to my public utterances, or to snch as I make public, not under pressure cr threat — and to leave my private character for charity or anchaiitableness alone io t&ke care of itself. I am much obliged to Mr Richmond for bis being glad to see Bishops and ministers of religion (what is a Bishop if be is not a minister of religion?) taking part in politics. We shall do bo, if we think fit, whether he is glad of it or not, nnles*. New Zealand h further Rußsianised, and I hope too we shail ever, as he sa\*3, bring our special advantages acd qualifications to bear on politics. Oae of them at least ought to be, to see that the rick man dres not take the poor man's lamb, or in Te Whiti's graphic language, ■** pu!l the blanket right over to the other side;" or if we have good grounds for fearing that it be co, to remind these exposed to temptation to do so of Nathan's solemn words, " Thou art the man." or in more classic phrase, " Mutato nomine, de te fabala narratur." I am, &c , Bishop op Ndlson.