THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 1881.

Evening Post, Volume XXI, Issue 10, 13 January 1881, Page 2

THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 1881.

THE RESIGNATION OF MR. BRTCE. 4 So long as the explanation of Mr. Bbtce's unexpected resignation was couched in the vague and diplomatic language whioh conveyed the first intelligence oi the event, we did not care to express any opinion on the matter. We considered that no adequate information had been afforded which justified anybody in arriving at a positive decision as to the merits of the case. Mr. Bbtce might have been quite right in his view of the situation, or he plight have buen altogether wrong. It was impossible' to judge as to the sufficiency of his reasons ;for taking bo strong a step until it was accurately known' what, he really wanted his colleagues to agree to, and what they refused to do. It would, perhaps, have avoided a good deal of misconception, and much of that sort of idle speculation which is not merely negatively useless," but often positively harmful, had the Government, in making public the fact of Mr. Bbtce'b resignation, stated this plainly and explicitly. The telegraphic reports of -'the opinions of the Press on the occurrence show that there has been already a considerable amount of groping in the dark. This iB always to be regretted, because it invariably involves a danger that a permanent misunderstanding may be established, which subsequent events may fail to remove. The explanation which we gave last night, on what we have every reason to believe unimpeachable authority, indicates with the utmost clearness the nature of the difference between Mr. Bbtce and his colleagues. We now know that he proposed to the Cabinet that the advance on Parihaka, the military occupation of that place, and the arrest of Te Whiti, all of which lie had for some time been, urging upon the Government, should positively take place on the occasion pf the monthly meeting at Parihaka, which will be held on the 17th instant ; and, the other members of the Ministry disapproving the adoption of this course, Mr. Bbtce then submitted as his ultimatum that the only alternatives were either to agree to his recommendation or to accept his resignation. Such was the position assumed by Mr. Bbtce, and, as -now made public, it leaves the question at issue between himself and the other members of the Cabinet perfectly clear. It has long been no secret to those well-informed in political matters that a certain amount of difference did exist between the Native Minister and his colleagues on this point, and that Mr. Bbtce held very strong views as to the advisableness of adopting a more "vigorous and progressive" policy than found favor with them. It is known that he has chafed somewhat under the continued course of vexatious obstruction and persistent aggravation pursued by Te Whiti, and under the restraints imposed upon him by his colleagues' reluctance to do what he deemed equivalent to avoiding a danger by meeting it half-way. This danger is the one which has always suggested itself with unpleasant vividness to the minds of most thoughtful persons — that however submissively Te Whiti, Tohtt, and their followers might accept the inevitable, so long as an overwhelming force of constabulary was on the spot,, they would merely bide their time, and, on the removal of the constabulary, would sooner or later adopt the sanguinary measures of reprisal to which their race has always been addicted, the victims in that case being the unfortunate settlers. Mr. Brtce, we understand, firmly believed that thiß prospective peril might be averted, the whole native difficulty on the West Coast finally settled, and the continuance of the present heavy expenditure in the maintenance of a' military force there dispensed with by the sudden adoption of bold and aggressive tactics. He therefore counselled the occupation of Parihaka and arrest of Te Whiti on the occasion of the next monthly meeting. Hut bo far as we are aware, he did not bring forward any conclusive evidence that this strong measure would have the desired effect, merely giving it as his own belief that this would be the case. Nor did he, we understand, succeed in making clear to his colleagues the grounds on which he based biff opinion. Neither was he able to convince them that the results of the step recommended would stop short at at the mere disappointment of expectations, or that it would not have the immediate effect "of involving, the Colony in a native war of a sanguinary and formidable nature, which would secure ultimate victory only at a cost in blood and treasure not to be contemplated without a shudder. There would be all the difference" in the world' between the energetic prosecution isf a war unhappily forced on us by the natives, and a deliberate' breach of the peace initiated by ourselves.It is idle to call Te Whiti an " arch-rebel." In what does his "rebellion" consist? He has maintained that he and his people have been aggrieved by the action of successive Ministries, and a Royal Commission has endorsed his complaint. A new Royal Commission has only just been specially appointed to adjudicate on these grievances, with a view to their redress. True, Te Whiti has instigated his followers to take certain measures in the way of protestaccording to native cnatoms — against the seizure and sale of his land until their wrongs should have been righted. But their proceedings generally were not of an illegal nature, as is shown by the fact that express legislation - and ex post facto legislation too — was necessary to empower their arrest and detention. Even their fencing and other obstructions were only created an offence by a special Act of Parliament. Tb Whiti, moreover, has taken no personal part in the proceedings, although he has freely admitted '•inspiring" them, and we ku.ow absolutely that grave doubt exists whether he has brought himself in any way within the reach of the law. Suppose he had been arrested, tried and acquitted, or convicted and sentenced by a manifest straining of the law, or acquitted and yet detained under the Maori Prisoners Act, what would hava been the benefit? Would not his followers have very naturally regarded him as a martyr, and believed in him more than ever? Nay, might it not have excited a widespread sympathy of a very dangerous nature? For it must never be forgotten that Te Whiti has consistently followed out a plan never before pursued by a native opponent. He has kept the peace for us at all costs and at all hazards. He has deliberately sent to prison all his likeliest fighting men,- and those from whose turbulent disposition he saw most reason to dread a breach of the peace. He has preached nothing but peace throughout, while at the same time strongly maintaining his claim for redress of his wrongs. That these wrongs to some extent do exist, if they are of less magnitude "than he not unnaturally imagines them, has been distinctly admitted by the Boyal Commission, by the Government, and by Parliament. Ministers stand pledged to Parliament to proceed on the lines laid down by the Royal Commission and accepted by themselves, for the redres3 of those grievances and for the pacific settle-

ment of the native difficulty. Sir Wim-iah Fox has only now entered on his new duties in this direction. Upon what possible plea could the Government resolve deliberately to cast all these considerations to the wind and suddenly take a new departure of a most grave and pregnant kind, from which they were practically pledged to abstain? The sole plea on which such a course could, in our opinion, have been juati-. fied would be the sudden revelation of some fresh or previously unsuspected peril. We have no reason for supposing ;hat Mr. BryCJ5 disclosed to the Cabinet the existence of any such new and pressing danger. On the contrary, we have the best reason for believing that this was not dven assumed as the ground on which his recommendation was Dased, but that he simply gave it as his personal and unsupported opinion that the course suggested would effect an immediate settlement of the native difficulty. Such being the facts of the case, we have no hesitation in expressing our view that Ministers not only were amply justified in rejecting that counsel, but that they were' absolutely bound to do so, and that they could not have acted otherwise without f or£ feiting the confidence which the Colony had reposed in their discretion, by taking a step so fraught with danger of needlessly plunging the country into all the horrors of a native war. The question next arises whether the refusal to adopt this course justified Mr. Bbtce in so precipitately resigning a position in which he had done such valuable service, and so deservedly won the hearty support and approval of the Colony. We cannot think he was justified in acting as he did. The question at issue was clearly not one of mere departmental administration which he might,. fairly claim full control and discretion, but a most important matter of policy involving peace pr war. It would tie monstrous and undesirable in the extreme for one Minister to have the power of dictating to the whole Cabinet ,pn such a question as thiß, and, while, undoubtedly, it was permissible for him to resign if he regarded the difference as a vital' one, he assuredly would have better sustained the high reputation he enjoys for good sense and judgment had he consented in this case to subordinate his own opinion to that of his colleagues. In representative government these matters must inevitably be decided by the majority. Mr. Bbtcb might well have yielded to the opinion— we believe — unanimous of the other members of the Cabinet, instead pf causing a breach at a somewhat critical juncture. Mt.Bbtcb. however, has never been disposed very cordially to accept the verdict of the Royal Commission, while the Government, as a whole, stood pledged to carry it out ; and there is little doubt that their decision in favor of this course introduced the "thin end of the wedge," which their hist resolution- has; " driven home," producing a complete "rift" between themselves and their colleague. We heartily appreciate the valuable services Mr. Bbtce has rendered during his term of office ; we sincerely regret the loss of his Ministerial counsels to the Colony ; but we entirely approve the action of the Cabinet in refusing to adopt the rash course on which he insisted ; and we cannot admit that such refusal formed adequate ground for Ms precipitate resignation of his trust.