The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1869.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 2592, 27 April 1869, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1869.

The full report of Mr Richmond’s address to his constituents, which we republished a day or two ago from the Taranaki Herald, bears out the telegraphic summary already commented upon in our columns. The latter, indeed, turns out to have been singularly correct in its conciseness. Mr Richmond,as we have before remarked, has the reputation of being inopportunely candid. He exhibited this quality on one or two occasions during last session of the Assembly. He gave the impression of a man naturally honest corrupted by bad company and struggling against an adverse fate. In speaking to the Taranaki electors, he seems to admit this interpretation of his position. If, he said, his words could be confined to those he was addressing, he would be able to speak with perfect freedom. He had no political secrets to keep from the people of Taranaki, he added, and should like to open his mind to them. This, we think, is unworthy of Mr Richmond. If he had no secrets there could be no satisfactory reason for refraining from that perfect confidence, that opening of the mind, which he so feelingly alludes to. And it is still more unsatisfactory to find Mr Richmond repeating the very stale reason given by the Government last session for refusing to declare their policy in terms which could not be misunderstood. We do not expect the Government to disclose the plans of a campaign against the enemy, but it is quite reasonable to expect that they will explain the general outlines of the course they intend to pursue. If they do not, the taxpayers are denied an opportunity of saying whether they approve or condemn a policy from which, u it ultimately involves a large expenditure, heavy additional burdens will arise.

Mr Richmond assigned another reason for his reticence. He said there were, unhappily, political divisions in the country, which imposed great cautioi on a member of the Government while speaking on matters that might have to be subjects of negotiation and compromise. The political divisions are very evident, but Mr Richmond can hardly mean that the existence of these is a sufficient reason for the silence which he affects to regret. If he is to wait for perfect unity, we are afraid his patience will be exhausted. It is satisfactory to find that Mr Richmond does not deny the vital importance of the separation movement, and that, by implication, he admits the benefits which the South would derive were its political union with the North severed. He says that separation means ruin to the latter, unless it is obtained on terms which the former is not likely to agree to. But it does not appear that Mr Richmond supported this assertion by any argument, and we are therefore at perfect liberty to say that the ruin which he predicts may mean only the ruin of those hopes which have been founded on a belief that the Middle Island would continue to find the greater part of the money required for the colonization of the North by force of arms. It may not have occurred to Mr Richmond that he was making a very important admia-

sion when he said that separation would ruin the North Island. Such, however, is really the case. We have all along contended that large sums of money have been drawn from the South for the sole benefit of the North, that, in fact, the Middle Island provinces have been impoverished, and their progress completely stopped, by the prosecution of a war in which the North Island settlers only were interested. Mr Richmond admits all that we have contended for when he tells his constituents what separation means.

In describing the future policy of the Government, with regard to the Native race, Mr Richmond makes a show of being explicit. He has no doubt in his own mind, he says, what that policy should be. It must be large and comprehensive, not dealing only with a limb here and a limb there, but going to the heart of the mischief. This was what the Government had intended, what they had in mind “ for a “ long time past.” Mr Stafford took office on what he called the “let-alone” policy, and up to the very last moment he persisted in saying that what other men —well-informed and not given to exaggeration—called a grave crisis, was only a trifling disturbance which could be very easily put down. It would appear now, from what Mr Richmond says, that the Government really had a Native policy, but that they were prevented from putting it into execution by the rapid succession of local disturbances. If Mr Richmond’s mysterious hints mean anything at all, they mean that the Government intend to keep a permanent colonial force. “ The policy must be compre- “ hensive, but it must be prudent, “ and calculated to extend over some “ considerable period.” Again: “ they must fall back on more “ humdrum and less ambitious plans. “ Our design is, that the Legislature “ should authorise the maintenance of “ a regular force for a definite period “ —say five years.” Further, Mr Richmond speaks of this force as “ a mere handful of men,” and he indicates what the Government intend to do with them. They will be stationed at a central point—Taupo probably—and will operate in whatever direction their services may be deemed necessary. When not engaged in fighting, they will be employed in opening up the country by making roads. We suppose it may be taken for granted that Mr Richmond has given at least the main features of the policy which the Assembly will be asked to sanction. Comparatively speaking, the remainder of Mr Richmond’s address is unimportant. We know, for instance, that the Government have already spent a great deal of money in the prosecution of the war, and it has been made pretty clear that they intend to ask for a new loan. If, indeed, the information which has been received from London by last mail is correct —and there is no reason to doubt its general accuracy —the Government will endeavour to connect the new loan with a specious scheme of immigration. We have frequently said that the Government of which Mr Pitzherbert is a prominent member would, in some way or other, make an attempt to appropriate the land fund of the Middle Island provinces. We will do Mr Fitzherbert the justice of saying that he has never attempted to conceal his designs. He has repeatedly declared that the whole resources of the colony must, in case of necessity, be laid under contribution for wai purposes. The necessity has arisen, and, under the pretence of offering the Middle Island provinces a share in a general scheme of immigration, it is proposed to make their land fund a security for raising a new loan. We say their land fund because it is well known that the North Island has no security of this sort to offer. We presume Mr Fitzherbert has failed in his attempt to procure the Imperial guarantee for a tresh loan, and that the Immigration Bill printed in another column is the result. The plan has the merit of ingenuity, but the Middle Island representatives can hardly be so blind to the interests of their constituents, so culpably negligent of their clear duty, as to accept any proposal that is based on the diversion of an asset belonging exclusively to those provinces in whose name it now stands. Canterbury and Otago have managed their immigration hitherto without any interference whatever. It is absurd to expect that they will virtually surrender this privilege, or that they will allow their land fund to be tampered with for the benefit of the North.