The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, JAN. 14, 1880.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LIII, Issue 5892, 14 January 1880, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, JAN. 14, 1880.

We publish to-day, as having an important bearing on the Native question, a letter signed “ Agrioola ” which appeared a few days ago in the Evening Chronicle. The letter, which is evidently the work of a man conversant with his subject, is valuable more for the information that it gives, than for the expressions of opinion which it contains. The most striking feature of the present complication in the Waimate Plains, is the absence of complete information upon some vital points. The want is, to judge by their speeches, felt by all the public men who have spoken upon the Native difficulty, and has also been deplored by most leaders of public opinion. In this want lies, it is pretty certain, the gist of the whole difficulty. The testimony of a writer who makes specific statements is, therefore, at the present time specially valuable. Such statements are made by the writer of the letter we published this morning. The most important of them refer to promises made by the authorised Government agent, Mr Parris, in 1872, and by Wi Parata, a Native member, of the executive of which Sir Donald M'Lean was Native Minister. It will be new to most people to bear that, while there is a vague idea abroad that certain promises were made, there is a man who knows exactly what these promises are. A few days ago we published some documents in which authority was given in 1872 to Mr Parris to make certain concessions, and the intentions of Sir Donald M'Lean’s Government in 1876 were recorded. “ Agricola ” says that Mr Parris following out, we presume, these instructions promised the Natives some land —he thinks 5000 acres —south of the Waingongoro, that the promise was sanctioned by Sir Donald M'Lean, and that the lands have never yet been handed over. With regard to Wi Parata’s promise, this writer gives the words as follows: —“ That they (the Natives) would be allowed to keep the lands they were occupying, and that with regard to the rest, some arrangement would be made with them.” Referring to the action of Mr Parris, he characterises it as a negotiation with the Natives on the basis of an undisputed tribal title, and infers from this that the Government, through Mr Parris, virtually relinquished all claims to the confiscated lauds. Finally, referring to Mr Parris, he says that though the action of Mr Parris was disapproved by the Government, and Mr Parris was compelled to retire from the public service, the Colony is hound by the action of that officer. He farther maintains that at a trial in 1876 for forcible entry on confiscated lands, the evidence of the Government Commission disclosed the fact of their surrender by the Crown.

The allegations as of fact he re are those referring to the promises of Major Parris in 1872, and of Wi Parata in 1876. Those respecting the legal effect of the treatment of the question by Major Parris and the evidence of Major Brown, must be treated as the opinion in the former case of the writer who makes the allegation, in the latter as that of Mr Brown. Mr Parris was employed in a difficult negotiation, which had for its object the inducement of the Native owners—those who had been the owners —to abandon the confiscated lands by virtue of a compromise. As far as we can see in the darkness of the published records, the object in ail cases of confiscation seems to be to make clear to the Natives interested the great difference between the penalties of war inflicted upon the vanquished by European law and Maori custom. In the latter case the victors simply entered into possession of the conquered lands, and, whether they exterminated the defeated owners or whether they did not, became absolute owners of all. The Europeans on the other hand while determined to exact a penalty in land, were ready to make suitable provision for the support on a liberal scale of the defeated owners. In all such cases negotiations as to locality must necessarily be difficult. It would have been simpler always to have seized the confiscated lands marked off the parts reserved for the Natives, and declared an end of the matter. Negotiation with a view of ascertaining the feelings of the Natives was more merciful, but it does not follow that, because the wishes of the Natives are consulted as to what part of the land they are to occupy, therefore the European title to the whole or any part must he considered to have been abandoned. It follows that if this view is correct, the only things to be considered are the promises of Major Parris and Wi Parata. This refers to the allegations of Agricola only. There may be other promises of which nothing definite is known, which may have, on examination, to he admitted and performed. That the Government is thoroughly alive to this difficulty, and to the duty honorably required of them, is evident from the appointment of the Royal Commission of Enquiry. But the fact that the Government do not intend to take possession of the confiscated lands without doing justice in every particular, though well-estab-lished in European eyes, may not be so patent to the minds of the Natives. In this lies the danger of the road-making policy determined upon by the Government. The danger of attack from the Native side we believe not to be great, but it is real, requires prudence for its removal. The most prudent thing would, of course, he to countermand the apparently peaceful operations of Colonel Roberts, as “ Agricola ” seems to suggest in bis letter. But this is the very thing that cannot be done, because it would be an act of prudence so excessive as to delay hopelessly the settlement of the difficulty. Now, delay is too expensive, with a thousand soldiers eating their heads off, as they say in fh® stables.

Delay, moreover, is the game that the Natives would like to play above all other games. In the first place, the gloom in which the promises they rely on of concessions are hidden is not likely to be dispelled by the unaided efforts of time. In the second place, as the Native claim is apparently to the whole block, on the ground that it was absolutely abandoned, the longer that claim is delayed, the stronger it is sure to become. The objections to delay—its expense, and the strength which it adds to the claims of the other side—are insuperable. Government must adopt a course which will show the Natives that it is in earnest, and determined to have a settlement of the difficulty. Care must at the same time be taken to proveto them that the course adopted ought not in the eyes of the Natives to appear careless of the Native interest, and subversive of the Native rights created by the word of a European Government. If the Natives are made aware of the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry, and of the intentions of the Government to settle their just claims, the danger of attack to the road-making party, which is the evidence of determination to proceed to settlement of the difficulty, ought to be reduced to a minimum. That minimum of danger Government is decidedly justified in encountering, in order to bring the Native to terms.