THE MIDDLE ISLAND AND THE NATIVE QUESTION.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 12, Issue 977, 12 September 1868, Page 3

THE MIDDLE ISLAND AND THE NATIVE QUESTION.

(From the " Lyttelton Times," August 25.)

Mr. Travers took, an early part in the debate on the policy of Government, speaking after Mr. Stafford, who followed Mr. Fox. As one of the Opposition, he criticised the action»of the Grovernment with. much_ severity, on the question of constitutional reform as well as upon Native matters. We shall pass over the former part; of his speech, with the exception of remarking upon a very liberal statement made by him to the effect that "if the Middle Island has larger resources, it must be content to part with a share of those resources to aid its less happy brothers ; and the finances of the colony must be so regulated that we are not to allow one portion of the colony to remain in a comparative state of wealth, while the other remains in a state of grinding poverty." The observations here quoted had immediate reference to the condition of Auckland. We are not very clear about what Mr. Travers meant when he used these words, and we may be allowed to doubt whether he really knew himself what he meant. The only rational conclusion we can arrive at is, that he thinks if Auckland or any other province in the North dissipates its funds and falls into a state of poverty, the Middle Island must come to the rescue. Now everbody who knows anything whatever of the state of our finances, knows that our land fund has already to be trenched upon to a certain extent for uses alien to its original purpose. If, therefore, we are to be called upon to help the bankrupt provinces of the North, as Mr. Travers implies, we must do so with our land fund. And this is exactly the result we have all been fighting against for so many years past. But it is with regard to Mr. Travers' views upon native affairs that we are chiefly interested. On the occasion of moving for a- return of the number of men serving in the militia, volunteers, and armed constabulary, he spoke twice upon the native question. During the course of his speeches he let fall one or two observations which enable us better to understand his views of the liability of his constituents for the expenditure upon native wars. The date of this debate was some days after the Christchurch meeting, and when he must have been fully aware of the views of a large portion of his constituents. During the debate, Mr. Travers gave it as his deliberate opinion that a war expenditure was then going on at the rate of from £1000 to £1500 a day, so that he must have been fully acquainted with the magnitude of the evil. And yet we find him saying that "if the object of the Government was to protect the settlers in the possession of their lands, he was prepared as a member of the Middle Island to give full and fair consideration to it, and no mere question of money or of peculiar local interests would prevent him doing his duty to the colony as a whole." Now this sounds very fair, but what does it really amount to P That the representative for Christchurch is prepared to wage war, if necessary, to protect the -settlei's in their lands: -

Mr. Travers, being in opposition, does not approve of the method adopted by the Government, and, being a very ingenious man, doubtless has a plan of his own which he thinks much better adapted for the purpose of maintaining these settlers. But he approves of the principle that the colony should maintain these outlying settlers by force, and, as the representative for Christchurch, he is prepared to carry out that policy, undeterred either by money or local considerations. We again askthe electors of Christchurch if these are their views. Are they prepared to colonise the North Island by force of arms ? If not, Mr. Travers misrepresents them upon a most vital point. The question between them cannot be brought to an issue a moment too soon. According to Mr. Travers, we are now spending from £1000 to £1500 a day upon war purposes. And, as we have again and again shown, the colony has nothing wherewith to pay the bills when they are presented. Under the cry of a united colony, the. Middle Island is being dragged slowly on to destruction at the heels of the North. We affirm, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that no possible moral obligation exists why the people of this island should continue to incur further taxation to carry on a war of settlement in the North. And yet every clay that passes is adding another rivet to our fetters.

We say most distinctlygthat we cannot afford, at this crisis, to be represented by men whose interests are divided between North and South. We say so because we affirm that the interests of the two people are not identical. Mr. Travers, the member for Christchurch, is following a profession in Wellington which renders him dependent for success upon the good opinion of the people there. Mr. Cos, the member for Timaru, has a run and sheep in the heart of the 'North Island. Others of the Middle Island members may have like interests in the North. We do not suppose that either of these gentlemen would allow their interests to stand in the way of their duty. But they would take a colonial view of that duty, and upon this native question we say most distinctly that our interests are not what they call colonial. They are not identical, but essentially antagonistic. The North insists that we shall pay to fight their battles, and that our money and credit shall be absorbed for that purpose. We say that we have paid more than enough, and that we cannot consent to be ruined in such a hopeless, unprofitable pursuit. If this is the verdict of the electors of Christchurch, they had better settle the question at once with their representative.