The Star. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1868.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 196, 29 December 1868, Page 2

The Star. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1868.

Tub Government has found, or shall we say "secured" as in Wellington, a defender in Canterbury. Looking at the fact that this champion contrives to bring the Hon. Mr John Hull's name very prominently into the defence advanced, those who take the " trouble to speculate on these matters will probably credit the production to the honourable gentleman himself, whose unwearied industry is an ascertained fact, while the plea on which lie resigned office some time ago is doubtfully received, even by the most charitably disposed. With Mr Haughton in Wellington, enjoying the salary attached to the office of Undersecretary for Defence — defence of the -Government that means — and Mr Hall in Canterbury, who, on a recent occasion, publicly taught the doctrine .that men took part in the government of the country simply on account of the salaries they were paid, the Stafford Ministry is not quite so friendless as ib was generally supposed -to be. The only drawback is, that the defenders are interested parties, and may therefore be said — Mr Hall's doctrine again — to fight for the •Government because they draw so many pounds a year from the Treasury. But we are glad, for one reason, that the Government has found a defender. Those who feel it their duty to criticise their conduct can now do it more freely. What is this defence of the Government? In the first place, it relates to the Poverty Bay massacre, concerning which the Colonial pre s generally has «aid that the Government is at least ministerially responsible. The defepce set up is, that Major -Biggs was privately warned some days before {the massacre occurred. Mr. Hall, in j his speech at Prebbleton, attempted! to make considerable capital of this ; brit; somehow, the meeting declined to j see it in the same light as he did. Ib a letter from Archdeacon Hadfieldj to Mr Stiifford, it is asserted that a Mp Williams warned Major Biggs. Mr Hull said the warning was given] by Mr Richmond. Which is right? "~Not that it matters very much, jbufc the discrepancy is worth some notice. We are bound to believe Mr Mall when he says that Major Biggs iwas warned, but we cannot help saying that it would be more satisfactory to all parties were it possible — which it now is not — to prove whether jthe warning was given, and what wa| its \ Having seen what the defence amounts to, we have now to enquire whether it is sufficient to exonerate the Government in a case of the most serious importance. In passing; we may just poiut out that at. the very time the Government is said to have warned Major Biggs of, wo presume, imminent danger, they were publishing quite a different tale in the columns of fcheir organ at Wellington. So, if 4hey choose to claim exoneration be* <

cause they did the former, they must submit to the charge ot having attempted to deceive the public by false telegrams. We suppose they are content to accept this position. But the point is this — can* the Government free itself from blame by Baying that Major Bi was learned ? Certainly not. That officer was subject to their orders, and, if they were couvmced that the danger was so imminent as? they now try to make people believe they represented it to be, why did they not order Major Biggs to do what spemed necessary for the proper defence of the district ? If the commander of an army, possessed of reli able information that a detachment of bis forces is in danger of being cut to pieces, merely sends a warning to that effect to the officer in charge, is he to be held blameless when the massacre actually takes place ? Reasonable and reasoning people will say emphatically — No; he ought to have taken the proper steps to provide against such a fearful contingency. And so we say of the Government — if they were in possession of facts which, convinced them that Major Biggs and the settlers about him were in actual danger; if they believed that the intelligence which they say was conveyed to him was genuine and boded serious evil, they ought to have provided against it, not merely warned Major Biggs. There is another aspect of this question, which does not appear to have occurred to the defender of the Government. It is this — if the Government are blameless in the matter of the Poverty Bay massacre, on whom must it be laid ? On Major Biggs ? An attempt is made to incriminate Mr M'Lean, who is said to have " doubted and declined to act " on the information supplied both to him and Major Biggs. Now, this is just the same style of defence as that adopted in regard to the " warning." Even allowing that Mr M'Lean " doubted and declined to act," what were the Government doing all the time ? Were they acting as they ought to have done ? A Government must be badly off indeed for a defence, and cowardly to boot, when it tries to escape by blaming its subordi nates. Yet this is precisely what the Government is doing and getting done in the way of defence. If the Government is not responsible for the Poverty Bay massacre, will they tell us plainly, or will their solitary defender tell u» on their behalf, who is responsible ? Responsibility must rest somewhere, and it would be satisfactory to know exactly irhere.