Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 6438, 1 December 1881, Page 2

The Hon. W. Rolleston, in his address to the electors at Papanui, referred at considerable length to the Native question. He gave explanations, in the course of his remarks, which command attention. It has been advanced in mitigation of Te Whiti’s attitude against the Government that he has not always been morose and rebellions, and that through his exertions peace has been, on more than one occasion, maintained between the Maoris and Euro • peans. Mr Rolleston shows that as far back as 1867, as evidenced by Blue Book records, Te Whiti’s tribe, by their impracticability, rendered settlement by Europeans on the West Coast impossible ; and he argues that it is not at all reasonable to say, as opponents of the present Ministry persist in saying, that the Government allowed, the confiscation to pass by, when they were deterred by the risk of bloodshed, combined with financial difficulties which the colony could not at that time meet. _ In 1869 he made proposals for the appointment of a Commission to wind up transactions, because then there appeared to be a possibility of a settlement; but the Commission was never appointed, Tifcokowaru’s war swept over that country, and which was for some time practically deserted. Passing over the intermediate stages until the time the present Government took office he showed that the Commission appointed to do the work which had been neglected by their predecessors submitted a report which the Parliament considered a fair settlement and a most liberal interpretation of the promises of the Government. But, while in some portions of the country the Natives accepted the terms, Te Whiti and the aggregation of people he had drawn around him would not. Mr Rolleston said he believed that the wish of Te Whiti, if he had dared, would have been to come to some understanding with the Government; but he dared not do it. ‘ ‘ He had assumed the position of a man to whom the Aiwa—the Divinity—spoke. He had assumed a position from which he could not recede, and he felt that he was done-for if he gave way to the Government.” Many days before tho Proclamation was issued, Mr Rolleston wrote a letter to Te Whiti, in which, after referring to their personal interview previously held, he again explained to him that he (Te Whiti) must stop the fencing on lands sold to the Europeans, and in respect of which he had ample warning. The subsequent result is known ; the Natives showed their determination to resist, and the Government determined to make the demonstration, which resulted in the complete overthrow of Te Whiti’s authority and the dispersion of his fanatic following. The “ Lyttelton Times ” blames Mr Rolleston for withholding until now his present authoritative account of his negotiations with Te Whiti, and asserts that the fact “ that he went up in mystery to Parihaka, and kept the details quiet until he got to the Papanui platform, is proof that he does not value publicity, independent or otherwise.” This is unjust. It would have been an interesting item of intelligence had Mr Rolleston given in detail the narrative of his interview with Te Whiti, and his subsequent correspondence with him, but the Proclamation, which was made public throughout the colony, epitomised every material point affecting the negotiations attempted with Te Whiti; and the addenda now given by Mr Rolleston, though conveying one more among the many convincing proofs that the Native policy of the Government is sound and equitable, reallyinvolves no new principle.