The Press. MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1881.

Press, Volume XXXVI, Issue 5068, 5 December 1881, Page 2

The Press. MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1881.

Some curioue but -very important considerations are suggested by the correspondence between Mr. Rolleston and the Bishop of Nelson, which has recently been published. Mr. Rolleston asked the Bishop whether it was true that he had stated," that the Government's treatment " of the Natives on the West Coast had " been actuated by political considerations, " with a view to influencing the elec- " tions;" and the Bishop replied, " The " remarks complained of, whether made - by mc or not, seem to be self-evident and '' harmless." That is the essence of the correspondence, and for the present we propose not to deal with any other portions of it. The Bishop, then, held it to be " selfevident" that the course taken by the Government, which culminated in the arrest of Te Whiti and the dispereion of the non-resident Maoris who were staying at Parihaka, was taken " with a view to "influencing the elections." It is not easy to understand what is meant by a " self-evident" remark: but we desire to do something widely differing from mere cavil at the Bishop's neglect of logical forms. A self-evident proposition, we take to be one, the terms of which are such, that to any man of ordinary understanding the conclusion, involved is made clear by the statement of the proposition. If that ba so, then the conclusion involved in the terms attributed to the Bishop is, to the great bulk of the people of New Zealand, neither self-evident nor demonstrable. To them, the action of the Government appears to have been required in the interests of Europeans and Maoris alike, and to be calculated to secure justice, at least, to those of the Maoris who were the subjects of it. The people, it is manifest, do not think the Government acted for the purpose of influencing the elections: the press, with exceptions that are few and inconsiderable, believes that such was not

the motive. But the Bishop of Nelson considers further, that the remarks, which he is careful not to deny having made, are " harmless." To us it seems that ifc will be " self-evident " to tho great majority of sane men everywhere *. that if the Government did, for the mere sake of getting a majority at tho polling booths, incur great expense in adding to the colonial armed forces—did encourage volunteers to leave their employments and homes—did risk the lives of many men, Europeans and Maoris—did initiate a course of injustice towards the Maoris as regards land—then the Government were guilty of political ruffianism, for which they ought to be thrust from office as soon as Parliament meets, and to be branded as blood-careless schemers. The Bishop of Nelson thinks at least as much as this to the discredit of the Government. He also thinks that, whether or not he said so much, the saying of it was "harmless"! Can ifc be harmless, that such statements should be made by any person of any Government P If the statements be false, there should be much harm to the maker; he should suffer in reputation, at least, for slander of the foulest kind. If the statements be true, ought not the first utterance of them to be the utterance of the swift coming doom of men who have so sinned against their fellows, so grossly abased the highest trust? "Harmless"! Does the Bishop of Nelson wish the publio to believe that, supposing ho made remarks pregnant as are those which he does not deny having made, he ia so frivolous and irresponsible a chatterer, that even the men maligned ought to treat them as commonplace nothings P We by no means think that a dignitary such as the Bishop of Nelson is required, in virtue of his office, not to take note of secular matters, or that he is required to be silent in presence of what he thinks a great secular wrong. Nay, any Bishop of any Church, believing that any Government had been guilty of the heinous wrongs which, in our view, were charged against the New Zealand Government by the remarks attributed to the Bishop of Nelson, would, in our opinion, be doing a duty imposed on him by his office in denouncing the perpetrators of those wrongs, and calling upon all true men to aid in securing their punishment. If he did this, he could be met: if he prefers to privately circulate such charges, he must not complain when he is challenged for so doing. " Harmless," indeed ! Is there anything a Government, in a British community can do, which would be more harmful than would be the action attributed to the Hall Government in tho remarks which tho Bishop of Nelson does not deny having made ? The Bishop, bo it remembered, has not hesitated to interfere in secular matters. There was certainly a case not long since in which ho did so interfere : it ie alleged that there was another case recently. The former was when he wrote a letter touching public works administration as affecting the Nelson district— tho latter is said to have occurred when the Nelson members were " stonewalling" the Representation Bill. We have no desire to suggest that censure is deserved either for what the Bishop did, or what he is alleged to have done. But the letter that was printed in pamphlet-form was not meant to be harmless—that is without effect—nor was the letter to the "stonewallers," if such a document was written. The Bishop of Nelson mast have at least hoped that his pleadings fer public works expenditure in the district of Nelson wonld have effect; and if he addressed words of encouragement and cheering to tbe *' stonewallers," he doubtless thought that those words would hearten the members in their arduous task.

Known, then, as the Bishop of Nelson was, not to be disinclined to deal, and that trenchantly, with political questions, it seems to us that when Mr. Rolleston heard what he felt to be a charge of the gravest kind attributed to the Bishop, he was entitled to ask whether such attribution was warranted. We believe the people of New Zealand will not think Mr. Rolleston's question was met as it ought to have been met by a gentleman holding tho high position of a Bishop of the Ohurch of England in New Zealand. When a member of a Government asks a dignitary of the Church whether he has, in effect, charged that Government with squandering public money, disturbing labour exposing men to violent deaths, and planning the robbery of an aboriginal race—with, in fact, exposing the country to the miseries of a civil war;—the pur. -ose being to wring an undeserved tajority out o£ the ballot-box, it __ no t aough that that dignitary should talk bout espionage, or Russia, or his calling, r his independence. Such & !-___ _^

such a case will be expected to answer "aye" or "no." To deny having made such a charge, if he can do so, is a duty to himself; to affirm it,if he has made it, is a duty to the State. In the latter case, no boldness would be misplaced; in the former, no man whose esteem is worth having, would suppose that dignity had been lowered or calling disgraced. But the Bishop of Nelson has not been pleased to answer either " aye " or " no •" and we are sure that those who are most truly his friends will mos*; deeply regret the course he has taken.

Me. McCosh Clash: has not hitherto been very well known in the southern portion of the colony. Beyond the fact that he has been Mayor of the Oity of Auckland, was a member of the Railway Commission of 1880, and is a thoroughly respected Auckland citizen of old standing, he has not acquired much general prominence. His comparative obscurity appears, however, to be on"a fair way to be removed. He is now opposing Sir George Grey for the constituency of Auckland City East, and at the nomination he very properly took occasion to administer to that gentleman a sound castigation for his repeated misrepresentations on a variety of public questions, more especially on the land laws of the colony. But Mr. McCosh Clark did not stop here, and it is well that he did not do so. He assailed Sir George Grey with great effect as the friend of the advocates of the murder of Irish landlords, and although he appears to have retracted the statement that Sir George Grey was himself an advocate of assassination, he does not appear to have withdrawn the allegation that those advocates were to be found amongst his friends. This persistency on the part of Mr. Clark appears to have irritated his opponent beyond measure. We will just give the facts, and people can then judge for themselves whether Sir George has been unjustly accused. During last session a meeting was held in Wellington in support of the Irish Land League, and was attended by Sir George Grey and a number of members of the House of Representatives. At that meeting the following remarks were made by Mr. John Lundon, member for Mongonui and Bay of Islands. "As to the shooting of " landlords, he said, only twenty had " lost their lives, and when he took into " consideration the amount of misery, " privation, and death caused by land- " lords, he was only sorry one of them ** escaped." Mr. Lundon is not a person in any respect upon whom we are anxious to make any remarks. Neither do we propose to do so. But he is a friend of Sir George Grey, and we have Sir George Grey's authority for it. Writing to a Native chief in the Bay of Islands district on the occasion of the election before last, he said, send Mr. John Lundon, "that " he may be a friend and companion to "mc in the House." Tho telegrams say that Sir George Grey, after the proceedings at the nomination were over, refused to take the hand of Mr. Clark. It can be readily believed that Sir George may hare expressed his unwillingness to do so. But there is no evidence before ns that Mr. McCosh Clark made any overtures of the kind, and under the circumstances he will be none the worse for going without such an exceedingly doubtful honor.