THE NATIVE POLICY.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 40, 28 October 1871, Page 2

THE NATIVE POLICY.

[lndependent, October 21.]

What is wanted by the Opposition in the way of a native policy ? We confess to being most sadly puzzled in endeavoring to reconcile the fire* breathing speeches of members anxious to vindicate the honor of Britons, and sacrificing so largely on the altar of buncombe, with the sweeping reductions already proposed and the views of the member for Cheviot. It would be far more consistent if either a motion were brought up, that in the opinion of the House it is advisable that whenever a frontier settler has a pig or a calf killed by a stupid native, war is to be at once declared with the whole race, or that every portion of our forces should be done away with. We could understand that some sincerity lay at the bottom of either of these propositions; but we fail to see how Mr Gillies can persist in advocating war, when Mr Creighton wants retrenchment,and Mr Ingles hews at the root of volunteering, while we feel perfectly certain all three would go out in the same lobby on either question if they only saw their way of dispossessing the occupants of the Ministerial bench. In stating that Mr Gillies advocates war, we are not going beyond the mark. He has so repeatedly talked about striking blows and about settling the matter in a short, sharp, and decisive manner, that every sensible person has long ago come to the conclusion that, unless by this Mr Gillies means fighting, there must be in him an amount of self-deceit, not to say ignorance, of a marvellous character. Mr Wood, too, has followed suit; and between the two they have, done as much to get up a “ sensational alarm ” as any unprincipled trader could to raise a “ sensational rush.” First of all we had a motion to lay on the table a series of papers about some petty squabbles between a squatter at the Thames and the native landlords of his run—squabbles dignified by the name of outrages ; then there was an attempt to make the murder of Mr Todd a peg whereon to hang a political hat—and here we must give Mr Gillies the credit of having acted most properly in his acceptation of the answer he received. After which Mr Walker’s cattle rushed in, like bulls in a china shop, threatening to play the very mischief. It is not at all our intention to argue upon the facts of the case, which are after all very simple, and far from presenting the hideous features attributed to them. We merely wish to point out one thing. It is, of course, the abstract duty of every Government to protect the lives and properties of its subjects, but the question arises as to whether it is bound to take up the quarrels of settlers in frontier districts with a few savages who, influenced by superstition or any other cause, deem themselves of sufficient importance to embroil the two races by their acts. We do not include Mr Todd’s murder when we speak thus, although that was also the act of a few individual fanatics, and we feel certain the country reposes sufficient confidence in the present Ministry to be satisfied with the assurance of the Defence Minister, that no condonation of the offence will be tolerated; but we allude to cases like those of the MacAskills and the Walkers. We have every sympathy with settlers of Mr Walker’s class who form the nucleus of a future flourishing population, but we must protest against every petty theft by Maoris living outside the pale being constituted a “ casus belli .” Indeed in either of these cases it would be hard for the Government to know precisely whom to punish; and an attempt to inflict chastisement which must end in the innocent suffering for the guilty, would be not only impolitic but highly reprehensible. We have had quite enough of “three months’ campaigns,” and of “ sharp and decisive blows.” We much prefer trusting in cases like these to other remedies beside the sword ; and we have but little doubt that Mr Walker, situated as he is, will cordially agree with us that it is far better for out-settlers to put up with a few (and how few !) occasional difficulties than to run the risk of losing their all by once more committing the country to a ruinous warfare. While objecting to the “hanging-tomahawk” ideas propounded by some of the members, we must, at the same time, with sincere pity, differ from Mr Ingles—we say

with pity, because the hon gentleman, so well known as a mere puppet, was evidently not at all at home on his subject. We understand the hon gentleman was formerly a member of a cavalry regiment, and from his assurance we can now believe in the reputed “ cheek” of plungers. That anyone from having seen, and most likely yawned over, two corps, should insinuate that ihe volunteers of this Island are inefficient, is rather too good. We rather think that, should unhappily any other difficulties arise, Mr Ingles would find that the despised volunteers of the North Island could lead him a very pretty dance. We believe in the Defence Minister’s views, that we have to look forward to the future; that we must make provision for days to come; and we feel certain that the country will throw aside with scorn propositions of “ vigorous action” on one hand, and of “ retrenchment in Defence” on the other—both emanating from the same party, and put forward with the same selfish object. We have, however, to congratulate Mr Ingles on one thing—he has, by his speech, afforded the utmost help to the passing of the Defence Estimates.