The policy of the Government on the New Zealand question
is certainly very shabby. We quoted last week from the despatch in which the Duke of Newcastle approved the policy now so bitterly assailed by Lord Granville and with the confessed object of reversing which, he denies the colony even the appearance of support from home. Some one,—we suspect, though we have no means of knowing, writing on the part of the Government to the Times of Saturday,—quotes at length the despatch of the Duke of Newcastle referred to, and describes the inference drawn from it,—the inference, we suppose, that the Home Government had sanctioned absolutely that confiscation policy which Lord Gran- ville now declares that "the Home Government have always regarded as pregnant with danger,"—as "a singular misrepresen- tation." To this letter the Times gave a prominent place, but none to the reply sent by Mr. Sewell (the New Zealand ex- Minister) which amply sustained his position. In point of fact, the Duke of Newcastle's 4.spe4ch in question was one of those structures with two doors, expressly ctucted to enable the Government if attacked by one to run out at the‘other. It stated expressly that the Duke "acquiesced generally" the principles (of confiscation) adopted by the New Zealand! Government, but then went on to point out the dangers involved n the " appli- cation of the policy," "for which the Colonial Go rnment must remain responsible." "I must not disguise from y " it ended, "that if the policy does not succeed, and enlarges or srolongs the
sphere of the military operations, these consequences will be viewed by Her Majesty's Government with the gravest concern and reprehension." To promise to view ill "consequences" with " reprehension " was certainly a great stroke of art on the part of the person who drew the despatch, as it, no doubt, enables him now to say that Her Majesty promised to view the present acts of the New Zealand Government with "reprehension." The policy of the Home Government, however, speaks for itself ; that policy was not only sanctioned, but vigorously defended in the House of Com- mons by Mr. Cardwell five months later, on the 26th April, 1864, -when the Colonial Minister distinctly said, " We have accepted . the principles upon which he [Sir George Grey] has acted,—the .chastisement of the guilty natives, the exaction of a reasonable indemnity for the expenses incurred by the war, and a moderate security for the settlement and future protection of the colonists." Nothing can be plainer than that the Home Government really did concur heartily in the policy proposed in New Zealand, in spite of the back-door provided in certain despatches for a possible repudiation of that policy in future.
Previous page
