FITZGERALD & ADDERLEY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1636, 14 March 1866, Page 3

FITZGERALD & ADDERLEY.

Lettebs from Mr, FitzGerald, in New Zealand, to Mr. Adderley, in England, occasionally obtain publicity in the columns of the Times. We do not know whether Mr. FitzGerald always writes, and his letters are sometimes printed, or whether his letters are written at irregular intervals and always printed. The latter seems the more probable conjecture, since the series of letters, as we read them, do not contain a regular narrative or exhibit a consecutive train of thought, but leap suddenly from point to point, and from one opinion to another. The correspondence has the semblance of marking eras both of colonial history and of individual thought. In one letter, for instance, Mr. FitzGerald denounces the Governor violently; in the next he has come to believe his Excellency right on almost every point. In one, he is a private individual criticising with excessive freedom the actß of the Government; in the next, he is a deposed official justifying all the acts of the Ministry. In one, he deprecates war and violence in all shapes; in the next he declares that certain hordes of cruel and treacherous rebels ought to be destroyed. And so on, through a variety of apparently irreconcilable inconsistencies. Of the two styles of letter we prefer the former for its vivacity. The letter we lately reprinted from the Times is a comparatively tame production; there is more history and less fancy in it than belonged to its predecessors, and than we have a right to expect from Mr. FitzGerald's pen. Of course the tameness is due to the writer's sense of responsibility, since he had been so lately a member of the Government, and was bound not to endanger his own or his colleagues' reputation. The letter was intended to do good at home, not to come back here for the edification and amusement of the colonists, as was the fate of its predecessor in the series. Returned to this side of the world, the letter before us does little more than remind the public of the events of the time when it was written, and satisfy curiosity as to what so able a writer conceived to be the proper case to lay before the English public. The time of writing, it will be observed, was in the interval between Mr. Weld's resignation and Mr. Stafford's assumption of office. The letter was written obviously with the desire of publicity, through a means which had already made the writer's name public property ; and his name was attached to it. The public may therefore indulge with perfect satisfaction their curiosity as to what Mr. FitzGerald—and probably colleagues too—really did think about the state and prospects of the colony when they went out of office. Mr. FitzGerald was of opinion that the war in the Waikato was over, that much land had been conquered there at great expense, and that it ought to be occupied by military and other settlers; but that no real submission of the Maoris had been gained by the war. He thought that another campaign must be commenced between Wanganui and Taranaki; that the colonial troops were very successful, and that General Cameron had shamefully misused his power and opportunities. He believed that peace would be shortly restored through the whole of the East Coast, but that the whole centre and W«st of the North Island was bitterly hostile and inaccessible. He regretted that fresh taxation had not been imposed by the Assembly, and that Mr. Stafford would, if he could, reverse -Mr. Weld's policy of selfreliance. He was proud of his own acts as Native Minister during a brief term of office, aind was convinced that if carried out they would change the whole features of the Maori question. He hoped to see the tone of Native Administration raised, distrusted the missionaries, and approved of Sir George G-rey's conduct in all respects. We have called this letter apparently inconsistent with similar productions of the same writer at a somewhat earlier date. But we are far from thinking the inconsistencies remarkable or blameable. Mr. FitzGerald had passed out of the condition of critic into that of actor; he had gained experience of men and of things, and had to deal with facts which could not be overlooked or forgotten. That his opinions were modified is not to be wondered at, and is rather honourable to him than the reverse. The same change of views may be noticed in all men who pass from theory to practice, from opposition to administration. Mr. Stafford is an instance in point. And it is wonderful how nearly these two very opposite politicians have met in their views. There are differences of method, no doubt, but little apparent difference of principle. The Waikato land is conquered and must be settled. The Taranaki and Wanganui campaign is already accomplished. The seat of Government is to remain at Wellington. The Governor is on terms of cordial friendship with his advisers. The British troops are going, and a colonial force is being raised. And, above all, Mr. Stafford and Mr. FitzGerald thoroughly agree about imposing further taxation upon the people. With such absolute harmony on essential points, what signifies a difference about the manner of taking office, or a sum of money advanced to Auckland ? May it not be possible that the Middle Island will have next session to excuse Mr FitzGerald from auy special devotion to its interests, in order that he may strengthen Mr. Stafford's hands in the administration of Northern Island Maori affairs ? I