The Oamaru Mail. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1880.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1319, 6 November 1880, Page 2

The Oamaru Mail. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1880.

However much there may be in Mr. Bradlaugh that e;ills for the disapproval of the orthodox, there is at least one question upon which Lis views are sound. He lias taken up the cause of the oppressed A\ est Coast prisoners by writing to the English papers representing the facts connected with their illegal detention in prison without trial. "We should like to sec Mr. Bradlaucrh. or some other member of t!u> li::[» ri;il Parliament, introduce the subject in i!i<- House of Commons. Sir j I[erculos lb)bi:ison. our latt: Governor, j we are convinced, improperly exercised ! his vice-regal powers when lie assented ' io the measure which legalised such ail injustice. and the Government had no riiilit to bring pressure to bear upon his Excellency in order to induce him to perform such an act. Virtually, with the exception of Ministers who had undertaken to crush the West Coast native difficulty, and who were driven to their wits' ends to lenow how to accomplish such a task, there was not a m:tn in the House who did not recoil at the bare- thought of the carrying out of the policy set forth in the Bill. But the Government had a. subservient majority who were willing to sidler the pangs of remorse rather than permit their own judgment to successfully assert itself to the detriment of their party*. The end, it was urged by Ministers, would justify the means. "But what do we find?— That during the past few months more native disaffection has risen to the surface than at any other period during the existence of that fertile prerlisuosin" cause, the Native Office. At one time we hear that the evil has broken out in "Waikato—at another that it has shown itself on the "West {.' ; > r .j,t—the locality where the Native policy was designed to strike terror into the hearts of the native delinquents. There noyv exists in the native mind neither fear nor vc-spect for the Pakeha. The natives had been industriously drilled in the belief that the same laws governed both them and the Europeans. When they infringed our laws "they were told that they could not expect any clemency because the authorities were bound to recognise no distinction. The reason for such a statement is obvious. It was recognised that they are semi-barbarians,, nttd are not. as such, expected to j possess a knowledge of our laws. I any* distinction yvero made at all in our treatment of the natives it should be on the side of leniency. But the Government have made criminal their pardonable ignorance. They have treated them as they yvould have done escajKes from a menagerie. It is gratifying to see that Mr Bradlaugh has concurred in the opinions that were expressed by the opponents of sucli unparalleled injustice. Even if his representations in the English Press do nut develop into something more tangible, we feel grateful for his expression of opinion.