GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1998, 20 July 1880, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[PBE PRESS ASSOCIATION SPECIAL WISE.] HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, July 19. The House met at 2.30 p.m. PETITIONS. Mr Fyke presented a petition from residents in the Vincent County, praying for the retention of the bottle license system. The Hon. T. Dick presented a petition praying that the Education Act be amended so as to permit of the Bible being read in schools. NOTICES OP MOTION. Mr Stewart gave notice that ho would ask if an Inspector-General of Prisons had been appointed, and if not, if Government did not think that in the present financial position of the colony such appointment is not desirable. Mr Reid cave notice that he would ask if it is intended to amend the law dealing with actions against newspapers for libel. questions. Replying to Mr J. B. Fisher, The Hon. Major Atkinson said that Government had under consideration the propriety of remitting the duty on chaff. Replying to Mr Shrimski, The Hon. J. Hall said that Government had not given any permission to have the member for Cheviot’s speech re the Civil Service Commission printed in pampblet form and circulated post free. Mr Hutchison said that the Reporting and Printing Committee allowed any member to have his speech printed separately on his paying the cost. PERSONAL. Sir G. Grey, speaking to a question of privilege, referred to the remarks made by the member for Rangitikei in his speech on the Maori Prisoners Bill, to the effect that Mr Tawhai had attempted to get money paid in advance on his expenses as a West Coast Commissioner, and that, on being refused, he declined to act on the Commission, alleging that he was dissatisfied with his 00-Com-miasionera. The Hon. J. Bryce, with the permission of Mr Tawhai, said that that gentleman asked for an advance to pay the expenses of a survey he had left going on. Ho (Mr Bryce) replied that he was not auditor of the accounts, but he did not think the Audit office would consent to such an item. At all events, he was most averse to the advance of any money, in case it might be said that Government attempted to influence the Commissioners. Mr Tawhai also asked for an advance to purchase a watch, which was likewise declined on the same grounds. When he made these applications ho was perfectly acquainted with the gentlemen who were to act with him on the Commission. Mr Tawhai said that at the interview with the Native Minister that gentleman told him that certain moneys were set aside for ex penses, and that he could draw on that fund if he liked for travelling expenses. The reply he made was that ho did not require money for travelling expenses, but that he required payment for a survey. The Native Minister replied that that would not be right. He then asked for something on account of his travelling expenses. Mr Bryce gave him an order for some money, and on presenting that order the person desired him to furnish an account of what he required. He could not do that, and declined to take any money. He then desired to have the expense he had been put to in coming to Wellington, £9, refunded, but it had never been paid. Sir W. Fox said ho had never made the imputation attributed to him. What he wished to contradict was the assertion that Mr Tawhai refused to have anything to do

with tho Commission immediately ho know who wore to be his colleagues. MAORI PRISONERS BILL. Mr Montgomery resumed tho debate on the second reading of the Maori Prisoners Bill. Ho spoke against the measure as impru- ' dent and unjust; as depriving the prisoners of all right of trial. Mr Bowen said that these prisoners had been arrested, not for a simple act of trespass, but because the country was in a state of war. The Government then in power had a perfect right to arrest the prisoners, and the present Government were equally right in carrying out the real purposes of the arrest. What tho Bill meant to say to the Natives was this—Wo arrest you, not for any crime you have actually been guilty of, but because you were really at war with us. Tho whole thing was perfectly well understood by tho Natives. He thought that all technicalities should be dispensed with, and that tho question should bo faced as one of detention in consequence of war or threatened outbreak. He looked on the measure as a most important one, which ought not to be dealt with in a party spirit, but which should be treated as a peace preservation matter. Mr Ballance scouted the idea that a disturbance would ho created if the men wore liberated. He contended that war was more likely to result from their unjust detention than from their liberation. It was Te Whiti who was responsible for the ploughing outrages, and it was him who ought to be punished. The prisoners had been detained for over twelve months, and he wanted to know how long that detention was to continue. For all they could see these men might be kept in prison till doomsday. He criticised the Native Commissioners’ report, and considered that its recommendations were not at all commensurate with tho promises made by successive Governments to tho Natives. It was the Government of tho Member for Raugitikei , that was in office in!B69-70 that was * responsible for tho present state of affairs on the West Coast. He had no sympathy with 1 the Native prisoners, but would like to know how long they were to be imprisoned. If 1 they accepted this measure what assurance ' had they of any finality in it. Ho was not satisfied with the conduct of the Government, still he was not prepared to accept the responsibility of refusing to pass the measure, seeing that tho Government had assured ' them that it was necessary for the peace of ' the country. Te Whiti had said that these ' prisoners would never bo tried, and this Bill ' practically carried out that so-called prophecy. < That was a most improper thing to do, and ’ he advised tho Government to insert a clause providing for the trial of the prisoners, j That would deprive Te Whiti of an i opportunity of sajing that his prophecies had i turned out correct. He denounced the j member for Rangitikei for the strictures he i had passed on the Opposition! press for their i remarks on tho West Coast business. What < had been written by those adverse to the i action and policy of the Government had, he i believed, been written in perfect honesty, and after due consideration, by gentlemen i thoroughly acquainted with the facts. He ; need not debate the remarks made by the 1 member for Rangitikei on this subject. It - was a well known fact that there were gentle- ( men in the pay of the Commission who were industriously engaged telegraphing reports \ against tho administration of the late Govern- , mont. He need not point out that there ( could be no better safeguard against malad- i ministration than tho criticism of the press, i and it one section of the press abused its j privileges in that respect, the other section i would take good care to correct it 1 The Hon. W. Gisborne said that the prin- ] ciple of the Bill was not the postponement of < the trial, but the abolition of the trial alto- 1 gether. That was his objection to it. The I nominal offence of which the prisoners were * guilty was riot, which was punishable by fine 1 and imprisonment, but he thought the offence I was something more, and believed it amounted < to treason. In support of that contention he ] reviewed the surrounding circumstances con- - nected with the ploughing operations. He i said that it was not true that the offence in | itself was a trivial one, and that any trial i would simply have subjected them at the very | most to a few days’ detention. He objected 1 to the power asked for of allowing the ’ Government to be the judges of the proposed release, which would allow the prisoners, when , liberated, to be committed again to prison. That was an innovation of the law, and one which ought not to bo tolerated. The Courts of venu, and those Courts alone, should be , constituted fudge in the matter. He also contended that provision should be made for the trial. Without it Te Whiti would take upon himself the credit of doing what he prophecied, viz., secure the liberation of the prisoners by his own individual influence. He would not be prepared to take the responsibility of voting against the Bill. Still he desired it to be understood that he did not concur in many of its provisions, and hoped to see these modified and amended. The Hon, J. Hall said that Government were anxious to allow these prisoners to go free at the very first moment they could do so with any degree of safety. He quoted from the Irish Peace Protection Bill of 1871 to show that the power asked on the present occasion was not excessive or unprecedented, but that on the contrary the Bill now before the House was less arbitrary than that measure. They had been told to put these prisoners on trial, but he would ask what was the use of such a proceeding. It would only be the means of detaining them longer than they were likely to bo detained. Referring to the member for tho Thames, he could assure that gentleman and “the House that any advice Government might give in the matter would be consistent with the dignity of tho Crown, and perfectly constitutional. Sir G. Grey desired us to believe that the Maoris were an oppressed people. They had been a misgoverned people, but not oppressed. A largo Native expenditure had gone on for their benefit; their properties were freed from rating and taxation, and yet they were called an oppressed people. The statement was absurd. If they were oppressed by anything it was by their false friends, and want of industry and application. It was that that kept them down in the social scale. Tho position of things at present was altogether exceptional, so much so that no law as it stood could be brought to apply. That was the reason that they claimed exceptional legislation. For years back these Natives had prevented roads and telegraphs being made, and in open defiance of the law attempted to assort their right at the dictation of their fanatical chief. These were tho men they were asked to liberate and allow to return to all the mischievous influence to which they had been exposed. The circumstances were altogether exceptional, and he hoped that the House would not refuse them the legislation so urgently demanded. He hoped that the time was not distant when it would he safe to allow these men to return to their homes, but that time had not yet arrived. The action of the Opposition in the matter was unfair, but the late Native Minister —Mr Sheehan —and he should always gratefully remember his conduct on this occasion—had risen above party feelings, and had acted in a truly patriotic manner. Ho was indeed the only patriot on that side of the House, and deserved the highest credit for his action in the matter. Mr Brown spoke in Opposition to the|Bill. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment. EVENING SITTING, The House resumed at 7.30. MAORI PRISONERS BILL. Mr Pykk resumed tho debate. He said that the Government, like Bassanio, said, “ I beseech you wrest once the law to your i authority; to do a great right, do a little wrong.” But what was the reply of Portia, i “ It must not bo; ’twill bo recorded as a prei cedent. Many an error by the same example i will rush into the State. It cannot be.” He - thought that Native affairs would never be i properly administered until they had a South Island Native Minister who knew nothing of l Native mysteries. Ho paid little attention to l the old cry of “wolf.” They would always be threatened with war whenever they hesitated 1 to give the Native Minister his own way. _ It , was done to force members against r their will and against their consciences. I Major Atkinson’s threat of resignation was • intended to frighten those who regarded Sir 3 G. Grey as a frightful bogie, and who would s rather see Beelzebub himself on the Governi ment benches. Ho did not believe that Major t Atkinson meant his threat, but threats of this i kind were becoming rather common. He ret viewed the bearings of the Bill at considera able length, and strongly condemned the i measure, contending that it was a violation , of the treaty of Waitangi, which assured to Natives all the rights of British subjects, b amongst others the rights conferred by the i groat charter of English liberty. The Got vernment would no doubt gain a majority □ and it would bo fixed i connection with

Maori affairs that the course pursued was invariably one of policy and expediency, but the policy was wrong, and the expediency was begotten of dishonesty. Mr Tamoana asked why it was that the member for Egmont, who had been in the previous Government, had neglected to return the lands to the Natives as promised. It was that neglect that had caused all the disturbance. It was the Government that was to blame, and not the Natives, who had waited for the fulfilment of the promises made to them. The Natives had ploughed up European lands for the purpose of getting their claims looked into. If the Natives wore released and sent back to their districts, he thought there would bo no disturbance. The Maoris imprisoned in Otago in 1872 had been released, and on being sent home had remained peaceable ever since. The Bill was meant to intimidate the Natives, for it provided that they should remain in prison and not be allowed to return to Taranaki. Unless the Government dealt fairly with the Native lands the soldiers would have to remain a long time on tho West Coast. Mr Macandrew had great difficulty in deciding as to what should be done with the Bill. He regretted that so much party spirit had been imported into tho debate. He looked on their action towards the Natives from first to last as a blunder, and this Bill appeared to be no exception. If guilty, tho prisoners should have been tried and convicted, if innocent, they should have been acquitted. The West Coast Commission report tended to convince him that they and not the Maoris were greatly in the wrong. A Maori member ought to have bean in tho Cabinet to advise Ministers. He would like to see Native affairs administered by one of their own race. Had that been the case he believed that these Maoris might have been at liberty before this. He would be prepared to let these men go. He thought that they should try them, and if innocent liberate them at once. They had no further 1 difficulty with the prisoners liberated in 1872, i and ha believed that the same would be tho case now. He would oppose the Bill. Mr Kelly said that the gravity of the • offence committed by the prisoners was this — they endangered the peace of the country. It was plain that the law as it stood did not provide the remedy. The member for Waitemata had argued to tho effect that it would not pay the colony to maintain tho peace of the colony. That was an extraordinary line of argument, and one which he could not understand. He would support the Bill, believing that the best means for the settlement of the difficulty was tho opening up of the district with roads. Mr Reeves considered that this was a most iniquitous measure, and he would vote against j it. To pass a Bill like this would bo a disgrace to the colony. He was surprised to hear any member stand up and say that he S intended supporting it. Rather than see the 1 measure go through ho would use every form of tho House to oppose it, and he called upon members of his mind to stonewall the measure. Captain Russell said that they had heard a good deal about constitutional law. They appeared, however, to have overlooked the fact that the great aim and object of all law was to protect the many against the few, and that was exactly what this measure aimed at. He believed that they were bound to keep these men in close custody until the country, and more especially the rebel Maoris, had had time to digest the Commissioners’ report, and r see for themselves that the Government aimed at doing them substantial justice. On reading over the Bill he could not find that there was anything which absolutely forbade i these men being brought to trial. He was a prepared to support the Ministry. He fully acknowledged the generosity displayed by the a late Native Minister in this debate, stating r j that it contrasted favorably with the conduct of t some of the other members of that Govern- t ment. They could not forget that when that c gentlemen took office he pronounced an f eulogy over his predecessor, and he now pro- j nounced one on the conduct of his successor. g He reprobated tho proposal of the member i for Port Chalmers about the appointment of f a Maori member to the Cabinet, adding that it would do no real good unless he were \ granted the sole control of Maori matters, and , that in the present state of affairs was not to j be thought of. 1 Mr Hutchison strongly opposed the Bill 1 and said that a Government which brought ( forward a measure of this kind to deal with a < few'Maoris, would not hesitate if it had tho power to deal similarly with its opponents 1 even in that House. The Natives, he con- i tended, wore entitled to the rights of British subjects, and the protection of British ; law, but this Bill professed to deprive them • of both. He wondered how the Governor i gave hio sanction to the measure of last session, and still more how ho could reconcile it with his duty and the terms of his Com- i mission to sanction this measure. The Governor ; was bound by his Commission to protect the ; Natives from injustice, and this was a proposal of gross injustice. He had promised to a deputation of Natives that the trial of the i prisoners would take place in January or February last. That had not been done, and by this Bill it was proposed not to bring them to trial at all. Ha failed to see how he could possibly give his sanction to such a proposal. He could do very little in tho circumstances, still he would record his protest against tho measure. They would take good care that the wrongs of these Natives would be made known and fairly represented to the British Parliament and people. They had been told by the Treasurer that there were precedents for this passed in 1863 and 1869. He would ask, had they made no progress during all the intervening years ; had they not been brought to a fuller knowledge of what was right and what was wrong. Because they had done wrong fifteen years ago was that any reason why they should repeat the wrong. That was, to his mind, a very poor argument. He was not sure but that the recent events at Parihaka had something to do with the debate now going on. Before granting the powers asked some good valid arguments should have been forthcoming, but that had not been the case. The report of the Commision went to show that there was no danger of outbreak ; all that was required to be done was to be just to the Natives, Mr Lundon argued that the proper policy would be to bring the Natives back when they had the troops there, and not wait until the troops wore removed. He would vote against the Bill as being altogether unfair in its proposals. Mr Ireland announced his intention of voting against the Bill. He applied the case of these prisoners to themselves, stating that if the case was theirs, there would be an outcry from one end of the colony to the other. He would do to others as he would be done by. Mr Huebthousb thought that a good deal of false sentiment had been talked about those Natives asserting their rights. If they had rights they had a constitutional means of asserting them. He was told that they had not the money to do so, but he happened to know otherwise. The Government had told them that this measure was absolutely necessary for the peace of the colony. They were best able to judge what was for tho good of the colony, and he thought it would be well for the House to be guided by these counsels. Great interests were at stake, and even although a slight injustice might result, he was bound to acquiesce in the measure as being desirable for the good of the colony as a whole. He believed that the prisoners would not accept their liberty even though it wore offered to them. They would not accept their liberty unless they wore instructed to do so by To Whiti. Ho could testify from observation that the prisoners wore quite jolly. Mr Speight said that if tho proposal had been made to continue the detention of these men for State reasons no one would have objected to it. If they had provided for a fair trial there could have been no objection to it, but the omission of these provisions was its objectionable feature. This was not a continuation of the policy of tho late Government ; that policy expressly provided for a trial. They would make no distinction between Natives or Europeans in a matter of this sort, a question that involved the rights and : liberties of the whole community. Even ; although these men had been taken red handed, they had no right to adopt this course. The necessities were not so great as ■ they had represented. It would not have been denied that before the meeting of last Parliament these prisoners were about to be ■ tried; that showed the intention of the late i Government that they should be brought to . trial. That showed that they were not carrying out the policy of the late Government, j He protested against the whole as i being a reproach upon their civilisai tion and humanity. It was known , that there were men amongst tho prisoners j who had no right to be there. The present proceeding was not at all calculated to impress r tho Native mind with a sense of our justice i or humanity. Eo denied as had been assorted

that a similar case occurred in “Ireland, or that the history of Ireland afforded any precedent. Mr J. T. FiariEE argued that as compared with last session the circumstances were altogether different. Such being the case ho could now vote against this measure, although he had supported the former. He would move as an amendment—“ It is undesirable to proceed with the second reading of the Bill until the Native policy of the Government had been declared. Mr Torn seconded the amendment, arguing that no great harm would be caused by the proposed delay. He protested strongly against the Bill in its present shape, but if it was altered to provide for temporary detention, followed by a fair trial, there could be no objection to it. Major Habbis looked on the Bill in its present shape as a wanton piece of cruelty. He would oppose it to the utmost. Major Te Whboko said that if the lands improperly taken were restored there would bo no further trouble and no danger in releasing the prisoners. Mr Shkimski opposed the Bill, but thought it was no good prolonging the discussion. Mr Reeves said that, after consulting with his friends, he had determined not to carryout his original intention of using the forms of the House to intercept the Bill. He advised the Government, however, not to press the motion to an issue until they had the whole Maori policy before them. Mr Tawhaio thought that a wrong was committed in taking these men to the other island, and announced that he would vote against the Bill, urging that the prisoners ought to have been brought to trial. Mr Maoandebw said he would vote against the Bill. His reason was that they were not keeping faith with the Maoris. Mr Hamlin opposed the Bill. At one o’clock the House divided—Ayes, 14; Noes, 28, the amendment being negatived. Another division took place on the second reading, which was carried by 30 to 14. The following was the division list:— Ayes.

Messrs Allwright Messrs Kenny Atkinson McCanghan Bain (teller) McLean Ballance Murray Beetham Pitt Bowen Eolleston Bryce Bussell (teller) Dick Seymour Gisborne Shanks Hall Sheehan Hirst Stevens Hnrst. H. Sntton Hursthouee Swanson Johnston Trimble Kelly Whitaker Noes. Messrs Bo Lantour Messrs Montgomery Fisher, J. T. Seddon George Tawhai Sir G. Grey Te Wheoro Messrs Harris (teller) Tola Hntchison Tamoana (teller) Turnbull London The House adjourned at 1.15 a.tn.