NOTIONS OF THE "LYTTELTON TIMES" ON THE NATIVE QUESTION.

Press, Volume XIV, Issue 1880, 24 April 1869, Page 3

NOTIONS OF THE "LYTTELTON TIMES" ON THE NATIVE QUESTION.

[From the "Daily Southern Cross."] We hare promised to allude to some ideas apparently prevalent in the South as to the present position of affairs in this country. We have ajready said that we believe the only sensible point to which these can lead is that of a separation between the islands forming the oblohy—?a political change not to be effected in a day in any "way, and certainly not to be effected at all but at a considerable cost to our Southern neighbuours. This however is not the popular view in Canterbury. It is there gravely argued that the cost of our native war is a sort of luxurious living on the part of the colony, which should be at once got rid of, and can be got rid of at a moment's notice. According to them it is only a question of a vote of the Assembly, and the thing "will be done. Before the magic " Open, Sesame," the gates of peace, so long closed, will, according to their view, spring open at once without an effort, and, instead of wars and massacres, high taxes and depressed trade, New Zealand will be all she ought to be, and Canterbury will enjoy her land fund unharassed by a single doubt of its permanence. The idea is Mrigularly pleasing, and we must add singularly illusive. There < is no such power resident in our own or in any Assembly, and no such hope as that hinted at exists to Jghten the dull horizon of New Zealand polices. Even those who propound the idea Bcarcely, we should fancy, can impose enough pa their own intelligence to suppose it. It v easy to do things in this rapid way very often, but, bo far as we know, it is quite iuipossible to undo almost anything by a stroke "when it is once entered upon. And this is specify true of a war. It might, ye do not say that it would, have been a possible thing to avoid war at Tarannki in 1860 j but a Ministry chiefly composed of Southern men went |nto it, and were fully borne out in doing co oj the approval of the South in the Assembly. It might have been possible to have averted the renewal of the war in 1563, but again a Cabinet composed chiefly of Southern reprej*ntatiTes went into it, and were approved &v Ue Canterbury members in the House in doing so These were the times when, if ever, the Assembly had it in ita power by a fote to do something material towards arresting a war and avoiding a war expenditure.. And whether wo think the power it wen possessed great or small, there can be no reasonable question that it has long since passed away. a ne proposals of our Canterbury friends are not, it must be confess c i eaP or definite, the first place have the point ™-Jy agreed upon that anything which seems w make it a matter of honor for Canterbury people to eapport their fellow settlers in the is only bo much siokly eenumen-

talifcy fchafc should at onco be cast aside as a mere dodge to impose upon them. Now euppose this was granted for the sake of argument, we do not quite see that it would great Ir advantage the people of Canterbury. Let us suppose our Canterbury neighbours to have no honor, or at all events that it does not suit them to euppose what they have of the commodity at alt involved in this question : they are not now bound by honor, but by necessity, to see the Northern Island through its difficulties. But it may be answered that by die carding the idea of honor they will very soon see us out of our difficulties, and we only wish we could see something that promiaed such a result. The grand panacea proposed by the " Lyttelton Times" id to give back the confiscated lands to the natives. Now there are only two grounds on which this course can be urged by any sane man, we suppose—either it is right in itself because we ought never to have confiscated them, or it is expedient because that is all the rebel natives want, and having it they will be satisfied. We do not eeriouely suppose that our Christchurch contemporary belieTes the first. It is 1 almost too absurd at this time of day to argue the point whether or not it is just to take the lands of an enemy who is bent on dispossessing us of our lands by force. Whether as a protection to ourselves for the future or as a just punishment to them for the past misdeeds, the step is clearly just. But of coarse strict justice is not always expedient, and it Jmay be argued that, in spite of our right to take the land, our interest is to give it up. And if it were bo we should not blame the proposal because prompted by somewhat doubtful motives. But we are convinced that nothing but the most utter ignorance of our position could render it possible to make the proposal and call ifc expedient. Nothing which is impossible can be expedient, and the course recommended■ is simply impossible. It is as easy to give j up this island now to its former native owners as to relinquish the confiscated lands, and neither course is a practicable one. i It is true that we could leave the land confiscated beyond Whanganui, and possibly but most improbably might thereby escape the need of fighting for the farms and homesteads at Whanganui itself. But if Whanganui were given up nothing could hinder the demand for Waikato to be given up j and Tauranga and Opotiki —yes, and not a few valuable pieces of land close to Auckland, now occupied by Europeans who have paid highly for them to Government and spent much money, on improving them. To those who know what the proposal means its utter absardity is evident; to those who do not it is impossible to convey an adequate idea of it. The thing however is certain that to give up one part of the confiscated lands is to place ourselves in the weakest possible position with regard to all; and to give up all is as difficult as to yield up possession of the island.

It is not perhaps surprising to find our Southern neighbours floundering a little when they approach subjects so difficult as this. That which the Government has, as yet, got no clear idea abont, it may be hard to expect clear ideas upon from the Canterbury papers. But it is of importance that in this emergency, when our power is at so low an ebb, we should not waste any of it in the discussion of absurb impossibilities. The crieis is a grave one, and must be met. The failure of the Government to put an end to war seems almost finally established, and, as they seem to have no other plan to fall back upon, it may not be unfair to consider the Cabinet unequal to tlie occasion. But if the Assembly is to discuss those things, let it be from a reasonable point of view. If a Cabinet is to be turned out or reconstructed, let it be for some definite reason, and with some definite a ; ms. If our Assembly is only to meet to discuss such ridiculous proposals as that of abandoning the confiscated territory, it had better not meet at all. And if our friends the members for Canterbury have nothing more reasonable to propose than their newspapers, we are afraid their position in the Assembly will be, and wilTjustly be, a very humble one indeed next session.