THE PETITION FOR THE GOVERNOR'S RECALL.

Colonist, Volume III, Issue 308, 2 October 1860, Page 4

THE PETITION FOR THE GOVERNOR'S RECALL.

Three weeks ago we received some " further papers on Native Affairs." They contained letters of the most startling character relative to Archdeacon Hadfield, so startling that we felt obliged to keep our judgment in suspense until the arrival of another mail from Auokland. The Airedale has brought us further information which proves that the particulars first received were utterly untrue. We condense the main facts. A letter dated the 30th March covering a petition, signed by 501 natives of Ofcaki, Manawatu, &c, was forwarded to the Governor for transmission to England praying the Queen to send " a Governor who is oompetent properly to carry out her measures, that they and the Europeans may live peaceably together and in attachment to the Queen." A large number of the signatures were apparently in the handwriting of one man, and the Assistant Native Secretary thought that the wording of the petition gave evidence that it was not indited by Maoris, but only a translation from a European copy. The Governor wrote to the Duke of. Newcastle informing him that be had retained the petition for these reasons, and intended tomake inquiries as to the genuineness of the signatures. Mr. Turton, R.M., and Mr. Serancke the Assistant Land Commissioner were instructed by the Governor to visit Otaki and make the necessary investigation. Ou the 12th May, Mr. Turtou informed his Excellency that he had made inquiries and that they resulted in his ascertaining that the petition originated with Archdeacon Hadfield. This he had been told by some Europeans, who had been told by some natives. The native chief, Ihakara, had also told him :— 1. That Archdeacon Hadfield and the Rev. Eiwai te Ahu had advised the petition to be got up. 2. That the former had said he did not wish his name to seem in the matter, and that he had stopped away from the meeting so that it might appear to the English residents as a spontaneous act of the natives. 3. That the signatures were for the most part forgeries. The names were, however, those of men and not of women or children. 4. That the petition was got up hastily to send home direct by the next mail from Wellington, and that had it not been for Mr. Turton's exertions on the 3rd April it would never have been sent to the Governor at all. Mr. Serancke also made inquiries of the same native, Ihakara, and adds numerous details. He informed the Governor that the petition was not a translation, as had been supposed, but that it was corrected by Mr. Hadfield. That Ihakara had bad a long conversation with Mr. Hadfield in which the Archdeacon had characterised Governor Browne as " a lazy old man," &c, and intimated the possibility of his being sent to gaol if the conversation became publicly known ; that when the petition was shewn to the Archdeacon he was very angry at there being only 100 signatures and that the names of the others were added without their consent; and that Ihakara appeared "to have objected throughout to this memorial and yet allowed his name to be put to it justifying himself with the idea that Mr. Hadfield is responsible for it all." A letter from Ihakara himself, to Mr. McLean is the next of the series of letters. In it he says that his own* name was put down without his consent. Mr. Turton writes a second time to the Governor, forwarding a letter from the Rev. Mr. Duncan, Presbyterian Minister at Manawatu, who had been requested to make euquiries. Mr. Duucan states that he sent for Ihakara who again repeated what he had already told Mr. Turton and Mr. Serancke. Mr. Duncan concludes his letter by saying "It shakes ones confidence in the natives when it is known that' some of the touchers can thus forge signatures; and one cannot but feel indignant when it thus comes out that a glergyman can accept as genuine what he must have known was really fictitious." A letter from 106 natives at Manawatu to the Governor, concludes the series on this subject. This letter is dated 7th June, and complains of Taukana (Rev. Mr. Duncan) and Ihakara, having "unwarrantably cut up their names" AH the above letters were forwarded to the Duke of Newcastle, who is told that Mr. Duncan's " high character and good knowledge of the native language are sufficient guarantees for the impartiality and correctness of his statements.'' Such a mass of evidence seems to be overwhelming to those who lose sight of the fact that Mr. Turton, Mr. Serancke, and Mr. Duncan all obtain their information from the same native (Ihakara); but no sooner is attention drawn to this point than it will be seen that if fifty Resident Magistrates, Land Purchase Commissioners, andnninisters had beea sent to investigate, and followed the plan of asking the same native, the same evidence only would be forthcoming. When these papers were laid on the table Mr. Hadfield became for the first time aware of the charges brought against him, and as they had been forwarded to the Duke of Newcastle, he sent a deuial to the same quarter. The charges are declared to be false from beginning to end. Ihakara, on whose testimony they entirely rest, was formally employed by the Arobdeacon as a teacher, and dismissed several years ago, since which time he has owed Mr. Hadfield a grudge and has tried to pay it whenever he could. That Ihakara is a liar is plain from bis own admission; first telling Mr. Serancke that he consented to his name being put to the petition and then writing to Mr. McLean leading him to believe that it was put there without his consent. Mr. Hadfield denies the memorial originated directly or indirectly with himself, and therefore his having intimated his intention of stoppiuj away from the meeting to prevent exciting the suspicion of the European residents is a malicious invention. Nor did the Rev. Riwai te Ahu take any part in the proceedings imputed to him Mr. Hadfield also states, that so far from the petition having been sent to the Governor by reason of Mr. Turton's exertions on the 3rd ol April (without which exertions Mr. Turton intimates that the Governor would never have seen the petition until a copy returned from England) it was forwarded to the Colonial Secretary for transmission through the Governor j on the 31st March, being several days previously —that so far from Ihakara having had a long conversation with him, in which he (the Archdeacon) characterised Governor Browne as " a lazy old man &c." and intimated the probability of his being sent to gaol by his Excellency. Ihakara has had no conversation with him whatever, and the particulars of the iuterview detailed by Mr. Serancke are consequently false ?H;hat he did not request the natives to got as

many signatures as possible, and that he ex j perssed no dissatisfaction with any petition ! whatever. ; i With regard to the forged signatures the Archdeacon leaves such a charge to be denied by those to whom it is imputed, and denied it is most convincingly in a memorial to the Assembly signed by 114 natives, dated 11th July— got up in consequence of the rumors that the petition, formerly sent, was dispised and retained by the Governor. The answer is so apt that we print its exact words. It will be seen that the names of those assenting in the meeting were added (equivalent to our fashion of signing a petition by the Chairman, who, to give force to it mentions that it was unanimously carried by such and such a number of persons), and that Ibakara, was one of the most busy in promoting the original petition :— When our letter was finished it was read out before the the meeting, and all agreed to it; there was not one man who stood up to object to the subject of the letter. We have heard that the ground of objection was the names of some of the men, which names were not written by each man's own hand. The reason why each man did not write his own name was because the letter was read out before the meeting. We have heard that it was Ihakara who raised the objection to the letter, but he did not object when the letter was read out; indeed, it was his idea to hire some one to take it to Port Nicholson to catch the steamer. The reason of our writing this letter was our approval of the Queen's laws, and tbe error of Governor Browne's deeds. Listen, friends, in the year 1849 we wrote a letter to the Queen, for we had heard that pakehas of bad character were to be sent from Hobart Town to New Zealand. We assembled to the number of three hundred and said, " We do not wish for men of bad character to come to our island." The men did not all write their own names, they were written by one man only (at each place). It was Hakaraia Kiharoa who wrote the names at Otaki, Riwai Te Ahu at Waikanae, and Rev. Mr. Duncan at Manawatu. When thatletter reached Governor Grey he made no objection, on the contrary he approved, and the letter went to the Queen. After this, in the same year 1849, we wrote to the Queen again about Governor Grey that he might stay in New Zealand, that he might stay to be a father to us, and not sent to other islands. This was done in the same way, one erson wrote the names of the men in that letter about Governor Grey, and he made no objection, and the letter went to the Queen, Do not suppose that it is one man's proposal that Governor Browne should be recalled; on the contrary, it is that of all the tribes of this end (of the island). | This is the end. We cannot but regret that all these serious charges against Archdeacon Hadfield should have been made on the evidence of a discharged Maori teacher—that Mr Turton, as a magistrate passing through the district, should not have made a more satisfactory examination before writing so positively to the Governor—and that the Rev. Mr. Duncan, who it appears got up a petition against the importation of convicts in tbe same legitimate way, should not have .plucked out the beam from his own eye before attempting to pull out the mote in the Archdeacon's. All these gentlemen ought to know that no one hates like a discharged servant, and that the greatest suspicion should attach to the statements they make and the proceedings they adopt to injure those who formerly employed them. Our contemporary the Advertiser having published all the charges against Archdeacon Hadfield as an illustration of missionary influence, will, we trust, carry out his own motto, and reprint the evidence which convicts Ibakara of falsehood, and Messrs. Turton, Serancke, and j Duncan of an undue haste to establish a fact well pleasing to the ruling power.— Wellington Independent. We observe that the Nelson Examiner, referring to the opinions recently expressed in this Journal on the conduct of the Governor and his Ministry relative to the war, affects to sneer at the Spectator as the organ of Archdeacon Hadfield's opinions; we presume be-, cause we do not choose to adopt the stereotyped opinions of the Ministry, but prefer examining their statements, and taking them for what they are worth. It is easier to sneer than to refute arguments, and the Examiner adopts the easiest conrse; but in its monthly summary we regret to observe its coarse and virulent abuse of Archdeacon Hadfield exposes it to the imputation of being not merely the organ but the tool of the Government. The Bishop of Wellington cannot escape this writer's censure because his Lordship has felt it his duty to express his dissent from the Governor's proceedings. We are certainly at a loss to know why clergymen, especially those holding such responsible offices, are to be debarred from expressing their opinions on public affairs of importance affecting in so critical a manner the well-being of the colony, especially when both races are placed under their charge. Of course if the Bishop and the Archdeacon had agreed with the writer in the Examiner in approving the Governor's policy, the Examiner would have been loud in their praise. Notwithstanding we have the misfortune to differ from so great an authority, now that the public have the opportunity, by the publication of official documents aad the discussions that have elsewhere taken place of acquainting themselves with the real merits of the question, we believe that this honest independent expression of opinion will do more than any other cause to prevent a war of races, into which under such guidance we should have inevitably drifted; and that, when all the facts are understood in England, his Excellency will be recalled aud a successor of greater ability and energy sent to replace him.— Wellington Spectator.