(FROM THE " LYTTELTON TIMES," NOV. 4.)

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXI, Issue 2600, 17 November 1865, Page 5

(FROM THE " LYTTELTON TIMES," NOV. 4.)

Ihe meeting at the Town Hall on Thursday evening has had the effect of interesting the people of Clnistchurch in the Separation question. Mr. Fit/Gerald evoked the enthusiasm of the Canterbury public in the cause of the war. Mr. Waul appealed to figm es to show that we could not pay the cost of war. If we may judge by the result, the large majority of the meeting were able to see the reasons on both sides. They were leady to acknowledge the adviseability of reducing the Maoii lC bel tribes to submission ; but they weie not ready to undertake the task at a higher coat than it is in their power to pay. 11ns is the truly wise way of looking at any such question. Englishmen are proverbially ready to do anything that may be their duty ; above all, they hold that to refuse the duty of lighting is cowardice. If the Maori war can be put in the light of a duty, the cry of "vigorous prosecution." will always biing a cheer fiom the Enghshmeu who live in C'anteibury. But they are in the habit also of asking, when a plan of action is submitted to them, not only whether the object is desirable, but whether the plan is feasible. \V ith all their fondness for fighting in a good cause, they are extiemely particular about war estimates. And so are the people of Canterbury. The meeting on Thursday evening listened to and applauded Mr. FitzGerald, who urged them on to fight, regardless of the cost ; and they listened to and applauded Mr. Ward, who warned them that the cost of the war would be far beyjnd their means. The question for consideiation lies at this point exactly. Is the desirable object of Maoii subjugation feasible or not ? We hope the public of Canterbury will coolly and prudently look their position in the face, estimate the cost of a vigorous prosecution of the war, and say whether they are able and willing to pay for it. Our opinion has been stated very plainly and fully. Whatever may be the object, we have no light to undertake a plan which is sme to land us in public rum. The native war cannot be piosecuted as the late Government proposed, except at a cost of £300,000 a-year. Wo have ne such sum either present or prospective to pay, unless we give up our land fund. If we sacrifice our laud revenue for the war in the North, wo shall have brought about the niin of our prormce. Theiefore we cannot prosecute the native war, and ought to give it up to those who will. If we seek for a confirmation of our opinion on this point, we have it at once in Mr. Fit/.Gei aid's own speech on Thursday evening. Nobody holds Mr. FitzGeiald personally responsible for the Jinan, cial policy of the late Government ; it is probable, indeed, that he had not examined it. His department was Native administration ; and his enthusiasm and fondness for experimentalising would lender him, doubtless, quite insensible of the question of cost. We do not ask him, theieforc, for api oof of the financial soundness of the -war piosecution policy ; but we look to his speech for an account of the policy itself, and of the state of the native population, to which the policy is diiected. From these facts we may judge what is meant by the war. In the first place Mr. FitzGeiald has been led into an unfortunate mission by his natiual anxiety to prove Mr. Stafford in the wrong. He said that it was lidiculous to talk about maintaining the defence of the country foi £25,000 a year; the operations since July, for the first quarter only, would cost over that amount ; and four tunes that would be wanted for the year. If this be so, then Mr. Fitzherbei t was far under the maik in putting down £00,000 for the year, considering that the Militaiy Settlers are still drawing pay to boot. If Mr. Staifoid is so far wrong, then the late Government had not told us the woist of it, but were ready to let the colony in for a much laiger expenditme even than they placed on the estimates. If it is impossiblo to save anything from the enormous estimate for war, the more reason why we should have nothing to do with the idea. The next point is that the war is to be made selfsupporting. Mr. FitzGerald claimed for himself the cicclit of fiist pioposing that the native question should pay for itself. He showed what that proposal was. If disturbance arises in any district, the duty of the Government will be to send a force and seize the land there. The land of the natives is to be the fund from which they will repay the expenditme to which we go in subduing them. But it would frustrate the policy if the natives supposed that we wer6 sending soldiers in order to seize the land for our own purposes. Therefore the land is not to be sold, but placed in trust to provide funds for the maintenance of order in the district for the future. Mr, FitzGeiald seems to have overlooked the fact that in the first place we have to conquer the land. That is the first and worst oxpense ; whence is the money to be found for it ? We must positively have conquered the natives before Mr. FitzGeralcl's plan can possibly begin to work ; that is exactly what our money is wanted for, and what Mr. FitzGerakl's plan does not provide for. And besides, Mr.' FitzGerald was at geeat pains to show that the Three Million Loan could not be repaid out of confiscated lands, because the cost of survey and compensation to friendly natives formed so enormous a proportion of its value. He urged this as proving the folly of the Whitaker Government, who had proposed to pay the war expenses out of confiscated land; but he forgot, perhaps, that surveys and compensation would be necessary under his own scheme ; and that the funds for the military cost of seizing the land would have to be provided in advance. - — Then Mr. FitzGerald urged that, after all, even if the sacrifice to be made was. great, it was only temporary. If this were so in fact, it would form a strong argument against so permanent a relief as separation. But we look into his own speech for proof of what ho urged, and vre find exactly the contrary statement. Mr. FitzGerald told the meeting that he had proposed a Native Districts Act, the object of which was to separate from Auckland a large territory, reaching from coast to coast of the Northern Island, and a* present nominally a part of that province. In this territory, he said, the Queen's writ would not run, and nobody dare venture there for fear of being tomahawked. Is this large district of the Northern Island, where no Englishman dare venture his life, so very near pacification that the sacrifices which are to achieve that object need only be temporary? Mr. FitzGerald proved too much when he tried to prove that the work of subduing the natives is nearly accomplished, and also that the Native Districts Bill was necessary on the grounds which ho stated. If a considerable portion of the Northern Island is in such a state, we need not expect to get rid of the Native difficulty for many years. 'Chat brings up the Middle Island point exactly. We had no objection to assist the North to the cxteltt of our resources, and we have done so ; but that does not mean that the Middle Island is to be taxed always and without limit to pay for the wants of the North. „,,„/« „ The self-defence policy, said Mr. FitzGerald again, is in fact founded on a sound financial basis, because it is! infinitely cheaper than the plan of retaining British soldiers at £40 a man. No doubt it is cheaper, and 'more effective too, ' if the events at Wangamii and the East Coast have any meaning at all. TBut that is not the point. It is not the quea^

tiou whether the army or the Defence Force is the cheaper; but whether either of them is j.racticable withm our means, Ifithe former would! coat, the colony £400,000 a year, and the latter £300,000, we can still only choose the latter if we have to pay. If we have not that sitm it is folly to talk of paying it. We admit readily the little use that* the Imperial troops have been to the colony, and the excellent service which the colonial forces have rendered. But even the cheaper and better mode of fighting ia too much for the colony to maintain with due legard to its lesources. ' ' Every argumtmt used by Mr. FitzGlerald tells iii favour of separation. If the difficulty ' is temporary, because the European population increases while the natives decrease, why insist upon the European settlers in the North fighting now ? We do not fight 'ourselves; but there the Militia' and Volunteers are expected to fight. Let them wait for a,' moio "favourable time, since such a time is coming. If the expense' of war is to.be covered by land confiscation, let them carry on the war, for they will receive the payment. Whether the land l ealizes the cost of conquest or not, it is always ' a gain to the province in which it is situated, but not to any other. The North will make its certain profit out of the war, but we shall not. And since the colonial forces are, bo exceedingly successful, let them go on without our interference. The Militia and Volunteers of the North will fight best without our meddling. They do not want us ,to step in and direct how their lives and property shall be defended, any more than they want the Imperial General to command them. 'Uie recent fortunate and creditable successes show how thoroughly able the North is to defend itself, as it wishes to do, though it may not wish to cany on an extensive Avar.