The Star. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1869.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 478, 27 November 1869, Page 2

The Star. SA TURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1869.

Tu:*. Press, if we may judge from an :>!■*' ?c!e which appeared in its issue of -i'li-if-d^ty, is of opinion that the recent • {".vs from the Ninth Island — relative < > Mr M'Lean's successful negotiations w'ih the Kin.; Natives — ought to be ■/■■-•wvled by Mr Stafford as a " testi- '•* iiiony to the success of his conduct

"of fche war, which, though extrava : " ganfc in money and men, is acknowledged to have achieved such emi"nently satisfactory results." In politics, the bitterness of defeat is often made more bitter by the success of tin victors, and ifc is nofc unnatural to suppose that Mr Stafford waa not exactly gratified when it was announced that Mr M'Lean had succeeded in virtually puttiug an end to tho war. The only consolation which is possible under the circumstances has been administed by the Press. Don't fret over the substantial successes of those who sup planted you, says our contemporary to the ex- Premier, you did the work after all. Looked at simply in the light of a well-meant salve to Mr Stafford's feelings, the remarks of the Press might be allowed to pass unchallenged, but it is another matter if they are to be insisted on aa the statement of a fact. Tho Press says : — " The friends of " the Ministry attribute the submis- " sion uf the King natives to the effect " produced by the operations against " Titokowaru under Colonel Whitmore " and the defeat of Te Kooti by Colonel " Whitmore and Colonel M'Donnell ; " and generally, to the events of the " last two years, which bave convinced " them that in a war with the colony, " even though victorious for a time, " they are sure in the long run to be " thoroughly beaten. It ia to the fear " inspired by the success of the colonial " arms that we owe tho tardy adhesion '• of Eewi and Tawhaio, nnd the pros- " pect that now at last presents itself " of permanent friendly relations for " the future." We are nofc aware that the friends of the Ministry make any such admissions as are attributed to them in the above passage. They could not do so, unless they are prepared, like the Press, to sacrifice facts. What was the actual position of affairs when the Stafford Government was ousted from office ? Had Colonel Whitmore, as the Press says, thoroughly beaten Titokowaru and Te Kooti ? Nothing of the sort. Titokmvaru had been _ driyen_ from the country which ho overran, it is true, but he waa not thoroughly beaten. As for Te Kooti, he was just as powerful for evil when Colonel Whitmore left the Taupo country and his command to attend the General Assembly as he had ever been. There can be no doubt about that. The very fact that Eewi aud the King Natives were on the point of joining Te Kooti after Colonel Whitmoro had left the field shows that no fear had been inspired " by the scccess of the colonial arms." Our contemporary should have taken the trouble to look up the history of events a little more carefully. It was after Colonel Whitmore had retired from the command of the forces, after the Stafford Government were driven from office, that the thorough beating of Te Kooti took place. We think it can be very easily proved that the Stafford Government, up to the timo they were compelled to retire from ollice, had uot inspired any fear whatever in the minds of the Natives. What they had inspired was, a belief that the colony intended to subjugate the whole Native race at any cost. They had not, as tho Press tries to make out, inspired the Natives with a conviction that they could do it. They had only succeeded in bringing the Native mind to that state when it was prepared to commence a general tear. The Natives had not been convinced that we were able to thrash them. Why should they? Colonel Whitmore had not gained any substantial success. But Colonel M'Donnell did beat Te Kooti thoroughly on every occasion. We are not, however, anxious to institute any comparison between these gentlemen. We do not attribute Mr M'Lean's successes to the result of their operations, but mainly to his own personal influence. Ifc may suit the Press and its friends to ignore this, as they have persistently done. They are in the habit, as ia weli known, of sneering at Mr M'Lean. Mr Stafford did this in the General Assembly. So did Mr Eolleston aud others, It cannot bo expected that tliey would frankly admit tlieir error, and give Mi MLean his due. He has falsified ali tbeir predictions, and has earne.l, as tliey weU know, the lasting gratitude of tlie colony. Tliey might havo for-

given the former, but the latter is an unpardonable political achievement. If the Press article means anything at all, it must mean that Mr Stafford, if he had remained in office, would have been as successful as Mr M'Lean has been. Is there any man in the colony who believes this? We should havo been committed to auew loan of a million and a half, or more, and Mr Stafford would have been engaged in conquering a permanent peace at the rate of £40,000 or £50,000 a month. That would have been the position of the colony. On the other haud, we should in all probability have seen the whole King party in open and active rebellion. Eewi, with the full fighting strength of the Ngatimauiopoto and Waikato at his back, would most likely have been in the field, and the Government would have found themselves engaged in a war all over the North Island. We are not, be it remembered, saying positively that this would actually have been the case. We are simply stating what, in ouv opinion, Mr Stafford's Native policy was tending to, and what effect his determination to conquer a permanent peace at any price was likely to produce on the Natives generally.