The Lyttelton Times. Wednesday, April 6.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 669, 6 April 1859, Page 6

The Lyttelton Times. Wednesday, April 6.

We publish-to-day; a-letter addressed by. Mr... Sewell to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in answer to the attack made upon him lately by five of the Wellington Members of the House of Representatives, Messrs. Featherston, Fox, Fitzherbert, Dudley Ward, and Sir Charles Clifford. At the time the Wellington letter was published, we refrained from no-

ticing it, knowing that Mr. A be in New Zealand to answer &r ;J>j£*eft Jhe point at issue has in the letter *hich we publish to-day been very fairly; stated -and very well answered, without aiiy reference to the personalities introduced into the (luwawito But while publishing Mr. Sewell's reply v conveyed in his letter to Sir E. B. Lytton, we are bound to give expression to the generai feeling of disgust entertained at the manner m which the attack was made upon him. At a time when it was known that he had lett England, and when he was daily expected in New Zealand, the letter of the Wellington members to the Colonial Secretary, was for. warded to England by Sir Charles Clifford, who was going home, instead of through the Goyernor; so that no opportunity was given for His Excellency's comments or for Mr Sewell's i-eply. This really cowardly attempt to prejudice a man's character by accusation behind his back lVmost unworthy of political warfare in any country. Under English rule it will probably defeat itself, as the letter will most likely be referred back to His Excellency as riot having reached "the Colonial Office through the proper channel. It is somewhat remarkable that the very men who were so loud against Downing Street interference on all occasions should be the only men who are ready to go off whining to Downing Street, when they are in a minority m the colony. Popular Government with them seems their own Government—they cannot tolerate the decision of a majority opposed to their wishes. In this affair we regret above all that Sir Charles Clifford should have weakly allowed him self to forget his position as Speaker so far as to lend himself to a discreditable partizan measure. It is to some purpose that an easygoing good natured man has been worked upon, when he could be induced to take such a step as he has done. As Speaker of the House of Representatives he has always been treated with great forbearance and respect on account of the almost judicial character of his office j but he has chosen himself to step down into the arena as a partizan, and it wiß be very difficult for him to command the respect due to the Speaker of the House any longer. It is still possible, however, that when Sir Charles has been a little out of Wellington, arid is free from the influences— the genius loci —that he will be himself again, and will see in its true light the position he has been led into. We nope it sincerely for his own sake.

We received the Auckland papers so lately that there is but little time to comment upon Mr. Sewell's letter. The broad question at issue is whether the intention of the General Legislature was to raise £500,000 on Imperial guarantee, and if the whole amount could not be obtained to decline a partial settlement of the finance question. We agree with Mr. Sewell in considering the whole action of both Houses of the Legislature as conclusive on that point. Mr. Fitzherbert's resolution was a step taken to embarrass the Government, who had carried their financial scheme, but it never went further than theone House of Assembly j and the fact that all mention of it is omitted in the protest forwarded by Mr. Fitzherbert and his friends to the Colonial office is satisfactory proof that they did not then conceive that they had car* ried their point. The history of Mr. Fitzherbert's resolution would explain the form of Mr. Sewell's amendment. -The. object of. the General \ Government was to provide for the exoneration of" the land fund from both its liabilities simultaneously. Mr. Fitzherbertte object was'to; upset that plan and to get the colony to'acceptthe £200,000 by itself. But there were some of the members, who, though, not .voting with Mr. Fitzherbert to upset the Government plan, were yet fayou* able to the notion of taking the £200,006, if we could get no more, anil making "np-the full sum required by borrowing.on the'independent security of the colony. Mit Fitzherbert's resolution was so framed as "to catch the vote of these gentlemen. Mr. Sewell's amendment was framed to negative the proposal of Mr. Fitzherbert to.take the £200,0 JO by itself 'by making it an imperative condition of acceptance of that sum that means should be simultaneously provided for exonerating the land fund from? its liability, for native land purchases. Without this proviso the whole scheme would have been upset. The. Loan Act, the proceedings. of both Houses, the official minutfi of .the Government, and the silence of the Wellington protest, all are evidence that the amendment was considered virtually to have negatived- the resolution of Mr. Fitzherbwt. It is not to be wondered.at that Mr. Sewell,' who carried the Finance Scheme through the House; and who moved the amendment to the hostile- .resolution, so understood it. ' v j However private opinioHS may differ as to the force of Mr. Fitzherbert's restitution, it is manifest that there are, no grounds for the grossly personal ' attack's made, jipon Mr. Sewell. We "think he has rightly treated those offensive portions of the Wellington letter by dismissing them in. contemptuous silence. : *