The Lyttleton Times. TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1865.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1382, 4 April 1865, Page 4

The Lyttleton Times. TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1865.

A week ago we wrote in terms of praise of Mr. FitzGerald's letter to Mr. Adderley, written in November last. We do not the least go back from that praise so given. But it is impossible to pass over criticisms on that letter, and its consequences at home, which have arisen since that letter was published here. In the first place, in the Press of the 28th March was published Mr. FitzGerald's letter, and the remarks of the Times of the 25th January upon it. On the next day, the Press published the remarks of the Times of 24th January, upon a print from Nelson, entitled—" The Case of New Zealand;" and also the commentary of the Otago Daily Times upon Mr. Fitz Gerald's letter.

Since that, on the Ist of April, Mr. Travers has published in our columns a letter, taking the question, as between colonists and Home Government, further back by many years than either Mr. Fitz Gerald's letter or the commentaries on it do.

Mr. FitzGerald, in his letter to England, dates his opposition to the present policy with regard to the natives rather indefinitely; but still, *as far as we can make out from his letter, he began liis present career on that subject in about the year 1860, when he returned from England. Mr. Travers dates his account of doings with regard to this question as far back as 1855; that is to say, the session immediately after the first session of the General Assembly. In the first session, Mr. Fitz Gerald and his supporters, a majority in the General Assembly, did not succeed in establishing a Government by the advice of a majority of the Assembly on any matters; still less did the minority, whose ministry was in for about 48 hours; and the whole control of affairs relating to the whole colony reverted to Acting Governor Wynyard, advised by the old officials, who were in no way responsible to the representatives of the people. Mr. Travers gives us the history of the next session; when, as he explains, most of the Southern members absented themselves in consequence of knowing that there was no likelihood of a Ministry being appointed whose advice should control the Governor's actions, especially as to Maori affairs. Mr. Travers gives us chapter and verse for what he himself proposed, and the Jlouse of Representatives adopted, with regard to this question. It is evident, from the resolutions come to by the House in that session, that the colony as represented by its members in the House of Representatives, as far back as 1855, repudiated the responsibility of the measures which had then already been taken by Governor "Wynyard and his irresponsible advisers. The House expressed its hope that Governor Wynyard's measures might prove successful; but most distinctly absolved themselves and the colony, at Mr. Travers' instance, from any evil consequences which might result from those measures.

We must, however, in one instance, go further back than even Mr. Travera. In the second paragraph of his letter, he speaks of the affray between two parties of natives at Taranaki in 1854—one willing, the other unwilling, to sell land to the white man—as " the first violent attempt on the part of the natives to resist the acquisition of land by the Europeans." Mr. Travera must surely have forgotten the Wairau massacre in 1843; when a party of natives from the North Island crossed over Cook Strait in a white man's schooner (by special bargain) to resist the survey of a part of the Wairau Valley— now the principal district of the province of Marlborough—and murdered Captain Wakefield, the Nelson agent of the Zealand Company, Mr. Thompson, the Resident Magistrate of Nelson, and several other leading Nelson settlers. Governor Fitzroy, a mouth or two afterwards, forgave and shook hands with the principal murderers, and thus involved the Home wovernmeut in responsibility as to wars about land so long as, twenty-two years ago. These successively retrograde reminiscences merely prove the difficulty of determining who first called attention to the subject. As far as the colony is at present concerned, it matters little, practically, whether FitzGerald, Traverser the commentators upon Fitzroy did bo. The main point is, how are we to get out of our present difii-

cutties; and who, either at home or here, is to help us to do so. As affairs stand now, the war in the southern part of the province of Taranaki, assisted from Wanganui and the north-western portion of the province of Wellington, still drags its slow length along, accompanied, as usual, by small triumphs and losses on our part, great expenditure to be shared between us and the Imperial Government, and no real gain either of peace, or of territory that can be peacefully used by industrious settlers of either race. Nobody seems to know whether either Ministry or Governor have either, power or will to stop the enormous expenditure or the useless bloodshed. Perhaps J;he best solution might be, that the Imperial Government should make up its mind to leave everything to the colonists and withdraw the whole troops. .In that case, no doubt, a Government really representing the colonists throughout both islands would either establish a peace with the Maoris on good terms for both races, or else fight them better than even 10,000 of her Majesty's troops can do, when fighting savages on the same system as they would fight French or Europeans. Till the English Parliament chooses to determine this question, we can only thank Mr. EitzGerald again for having brought the main points of our position before the public of England, but we must also give our share of praise to the author of " The Case of New Zealand," and to Mr. Travers, for having traced back the history of the Maori question,'as between colonists and mother country, at least five years further back than Mr. EitzGerald.