The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, NOV. 25. 1881.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6473, 25 November 1881, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, NOV. 25. 1881.

Many persons are beginning to wonder where Mr Brype ends and the British Constitution begins. Both are at present “ mixed up,” like Buttercup’s Babies. Which is which at Parihaka is a puzzling question. Magna Charta says: “ No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of hie freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise damaged, nor will we pass upon him, nor send upon him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.” Mr Bryce’s will seems now to be the “ judgment of peers ” and “ the law of the land.” He takes and imprisons men, women, and children at bis sole discretion; and arbitrarily destroys their property and despoils them of their goods. He sorts out families as he would deal a pack of cards, and deports them wholesale to what he is pleased to call their homes. If a native does not Iroluntarily state his name he is forthwith handcuffed and sent to prison, not ' to a civil prison authorised by law where he would be treated under known rules and be dealt with according to law, but to some military Bastilles improvised for the occasion. We might excuse all these “fantastic tricks” were there any pretence of martial law, or were they tried on armed and resisting men. Allowance most be made for extraordinary action when civil law requires suspension; and the exhibition of brute force extorts some admiration, when it meets resistance on something like equal terms, and when it evokes courageous conduct and other warlike virtues. But, in the present case, there is no pretence of martial law, and no necessity for it, and it is needless to say that heroism is impossible where the aggressive body is an army of soldiers, fully equipped and bristling with rifles and bayonets, and the enemy is a confused crowd of unarmed men, women, and children, helpless, and not making the slightest show of resistance. It is not, of course, the fault of the Constabulary or the Yolunteers that there was no resistance. They are bound to do what they are bid, and must show as much zeal in capturing an old woman as in charging armed men. All that we say is that in the former case there is no brilliance to dazzle the critical eye. We are now able to see the conduct of our rulers in its true light, or, wo are sorry to say in this instance, in all its genuine deformity. It is said that Mr Hall, who is very particular about the mint, anise, and cumin of politics, has routed out, and has had printed for private circulation in the Native and Defence Departments, a manual, written by a judge, for official guidance in oases of riot and sedition. It is, we suppose, owing to this “ happy thought ” that the Biot Act was read aloud to an unarmed and perfectly quiet assemblage of Natives, men, women, and children, in their own village. Wo never before heard that the reading aloud of the Biot Act made, do facto, an orderly meeting forthwith riotous. But assuming for the sake of argument that the words of that Act, when uttered by the human voice, have that miraculous efficacy, wo are quite unable to understand how they could similarly operate on villages twenty or thirty miles off, and, of course, altogether out of hearing. What law justified imprisonment, plunder, and destruction of private property, at those villages P Wo can to some extent admire a despot who openly avows bis own will os his sole law, and who, at his own risk, forcibly gives effect to that will. utterly abhor those " candid friends’ of constitutional government who protend to adhere to its letter while they outrage its spirit, and who betray with a kiss tho birthright of the people. Wo can furnish Mr Hall with a precedent which he has, perhaps unconsciously, much more closely followed than any which ho can find in English history or in musty law books. The precedent is nearly three thousand years old, but its authenticity will scarcely be questioned ; and in many particulars it bears a remarkable resemblance to the case o Parihaka. Wo refer to " Tho King of

laracl v. Naboth.” In that oaao, a» in the preient one, there was land whioh tho Crown wished to possess, aod whioh tho owner would nob give up. Further, wo have there, as we recently had hero daring the Governor’s absence, letters written ” in the king’s name and sealed with his seal,” and sent unto the elders and to tho nobles. The Pro* olamation is also common to both. The alleged crime of blasphemy against God and the King is, also, not unlike. At this point, the analogy ceases in two respects. 02 course, in these refined and highly moral days, " men of Belial” will not witness against To Whili, either from tho witness-box or tho Bench, and ho will nob bo stoned to death. But tho practical end, we (ear, is too maoh the same. 11 To Wfaiti” and his tribe must ho put away in order that the " vineyard” of Parihaka may be given up to European possession. Tho notorious Proclamation of October last certainly announces this now departure ; and Ministerialists are already boasting that we are well on in onr way of expelling and taking possession. It is not tho fault of the Government that Te Whiti and his followers have not been shot down like dogs. Every preparation was made for that contingency, and fighting was only averted by the wise counsels and wonderful influence of Te Whiti. But if Te Whiti and his tribe are not actually stoned to death, they are killed in tho sense that life is takes, when those who livo are deprived of their liberty and their possessions. To Whiti may well exclaim : “ Nay, take my life and all, pardon not that. Yon take my konao, when yon do take the prop That doth sustain my boose % yon take mr life. When yon do take the mesas whereby I live.'’

The practical question which the Oolooy wants to know is the probable issue of this policy of violence and spoliation. New Zealand has already bad sad and costly experience of fighting for the acquisition of land. Is her future experience likely to be happier and more profitable when for fighting there is, for the present, substituted the arrest, imprisonment and exile of the owners of the land desired P Let ns for the moment set aside the question of right and wrong, and take the lower test of profit and loss. We must keep up for a considerable time to come a large armed force throughout the whole district. We take away by force above a thousand visitor-residents at Parihaka, and they will be on our hands. Can we prevent their return P Are we perpetually to roll up hill the stone which will perpetually roll down again P Then let ns consider the position of the original owners of Parihaka. Suppose, as is most probable, that they will not move, off the lands which they regard as their ancestral home. Are we going to imprison them and their wives and children during their natural lives, and make their propagation penal P All this means enormous cost. It means the stoppage of settlement throughout the Colony, and a heavy addition to the burdens of the settlers who remain. Confiscation is a fatal heritage. Look at Ireland ! The truth is that we cannot ignore the great principles of right without retribution. Every acre that we unjustly seize will cost the Colony an incalculable price in treasure, and, sooner or later, we fear, in blood. The opponents of the courpe taken at Parihaka by the Government have been asked to point out what should have been done. At the risk of repetition we do so, and we trust, that, if not now too late, it may yet be done, in spite of our present rulers, who care nothing about the justice of their cause, so long as a war-cry carries them well through their elections. It is evident that the underlying motive of Te Whiti, since we took steps to assume possession of the confiscated lands in South Taranaki, has been to have tested in the highest Court of Justice the lawfulness of the confiscation of the lands of himself and his tribe. He has, according to his lights—and we must say that his conduct bears favourable comparison with what Europeans would be advised to do in questionsof trespass—employed peaceful means to compel the Crown to submit its whole title to the consideration of the Supreme Court, and, if necessary, of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He is not satisfied with leaving the decision to Eoyal Commissions, to Governors, and to Ministers of the Crown. He wishes to appeal to the most impartial, and to the highest constituted authority the tribunal of justice; and the Ministry, profuse enough in the hypocrisy of lip-service to the majesty of the law, has studiedly denied him that appeal, and is now trying to force on him the arbitrament of the rifle and the bayonet. It is, we deliberately say, an infamous policy, in regard to his claims, to shut the gates of the temple of justice, and to open the gates of the temple of war. Our hope now is that the imprisonment of Te Whiti will bring about that which Ministers wish so much to avoid. Public opinion, when the present excitement subsides, will demand his fair trial. And a fair trial will do much to lift the fog which now shrouds the doers of wrong, and to force right to bo done.