GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume IV, Issue 204, 9 December 1864, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28. MINI STEM A I, STATEMENT. The Speakeb said the first order of the day on the paper was.the adjourned debate on the address in reply to his Excellency’s speech. The debate nad been adjourned on the motion of the hon. member for Cheviot, who was thus at liberty to address the house. Mr. Weld rose and said: Sir, I rise to exercise that right which you have just alluded to—to speak just after the adjournment of the debate; because I have felt that it would be for the convenience of hon. members that I should take the earliest opportunity of giving, as far as possible, a statement of the views and intentions of the Ministry. It is, I believe, a custom peculiar toNew Zealand, or rather to the house, to expect what we call statements of ministers; but, so far as I know, in England it is hardly necessary for a minister to get up and make a general statement comprising a kind of programme of all that is going to be done during the session. At the same time, there was certain advanages in our system ; and, so far as possible, I intend to comply with it. There are some questions, however, that I think would be more fittingly treated as they rise up ; and I hope at a very early period of the session—within a very few days—to be able to speak, with my colleagues, also upon special points of policy which now I do not intend to touch upon, or if touched upon only in a cursory and general way, because I am sure the House will feel with me that nothing would be more disastrous than for a Ministry, hurriedly and upon the spell of the moment, to attempt to speak upon facts and duties before its mind is made up. I, therefore, think it will be probably best for me to go over certain items of his Excellency’s speech, or more properly the reply to that speech, and to take that as the order in which I shall lay my views before the House. When I come to any paragraph of which I believe the consideration might be more properly defined, I shall point that out. The first subject to which his Excellency refers in his speech is the reason which led him to call the Assembly. With regard to the resignation of the late Ministry, L do not intend to enter into that question, as I think it would be no part of my duty to enter into subjects upon which necessarily one must be very imperfectly informed. With regard to the state of the country, I think it must be very obvious to all the members of the House. You know that the country is in that state in which if at any time the Assembly of the represemutives ol the country might be fairly called upon to aid the Executive, then this is the time. I shall make no further comment upon that paragraph. The next paragraph stated, " With the least possible delay I have appointed gentlemen of both houses of the Legislature as my constitutional advisers.” Now upon this point I wish to place before the House, somewhat plainly, my own views of the duties of constitutional advisers, as well as their position or present peculiar state, or relation between his Excellency and Ministers. It appears to me, sir, that the proper constitutional course —and that is the one I shall endeavor to adopt is for the Ministry to treat the constitutional sovereign as a person with whom I consider it would bo their duty to consult—to give his views the same weight that a constitutional sovereign might be expected to exercisein his relations to the Ministry at home ; and after consultation and consideration of the arguments adduced—supposing any difference to occur—then, in the case of a difference, and on this I take my stand, it will be my duty, and I believe it is the root or origin of constitutional (3fovenimeut, upon the first dilferenco, whether upon native matters or other subjects—l believe it will be our duty to resign. (Hear, hear.) I think that is the root of all constitutional governments. You have, doubtless, seen, gentlemen, in a paper presented’ to the House certain stipulations, which I felt it my duty to lay before his Excellency before I would take upon myself the task of endeavoring to form a Ministry. Well, sir, I will direct the attention of the House to the proposal waich really to my mind appears to convey the whole gist, the whole value, of the memoranda: It is No. 8 in ray memoran.lum, and upon that it appears to mo the whole thing rests“ Mr. Weld thinks it right to state frankly that if the Governor should feel it his duty to differ on any material point from his constitutional advisers, Mr. Weld would without hesitation, place his resignation in his Excellency s hands. He, therefore, considers it essential that in such a case the Assembly should at once bo called, or other Advisers summoned.” That appears to mi to meet the whole case. The English Government is assisting us with lame moneys, with large supplies of men, and so long as they are in that position, of aiding the colony by very large assistance, so long they would demand —and m my opinion they have a right to demand —that they should have some voice iu the management of the affairs of the country. (Hear hear.) I do not say, sir, we have not other rights’ and so long as I hold the position I do at tho°present moment, shall not fail to exercise them should occasion require. We have a right to offer our emphatic protest in native or other matters, and if tl>e difference continued, to resign. But I think sir, that no Governor—that no constitutional sovereign can—if men are to be found in the colony who take the first opportunity of asserting that right of the representatives of the people of New Zealand—l believe that no Government can ultimately resist the feeling of the people of this country. (Hear, hear.) I believe there is a constitutional end to be gained, and a great public good gained by the check that may be given by the.formation of another ministry. But I will say that although it may be well that the constitutional sovereign should have a check—it gives time for further consideration or delay—and would be able to delay, perhaps to the very great displeasure of the country, the smooth working of the wheels of Government—still, I believe in the end the sustained public opinion must prevail, and if Ministry after Ministry resigns, it is impossible ' that the people of this country should not gain their ends. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I have said I wished

to call attention fo this paragraph in the memorandum,- as I have indicated that it would be my wish to call the General Assembly before T resigned. I do not in the least, in making this statement, wish to reflect in the smallest way upon the conduct of my predecessors in resigning before the General Assembly was called. It is very possible that under the same circumstances I might have taken exactly the same course; but T mean merely that as a matter of opinion, as a matter of practice, I do think it, to be very desirable that we should get out of the custom which is, perhaps, creeping up lately upon us of throwing down our cards. (Hear, hear.) I wish )o as I' have stated, to resign on the very first serious difference of opinion—not hurriedly, and not without endeavoring, by reasoning and by talking over matters, by giving full weight to any arguments that his "Excellency may think right to address to us, but after that, after having, in a temperate manner argued over and ascertained the mind of his Excellency—if, after that, there should be any question between us upon which we could not agree, then, sir, I and my colleagues—l may speak for them, as we are of one mind —our resignations 'should instantly follow ; and, so far as possible, if indeed at all possible, we should wish to resign after the Assembly had been called. (Hear, hear.) The next paragraph to which I wish to •draw the attention of the House is as follows : “Steps will be taken with the least possible delay to secure the future peace of the country by setting apart defined portions of the land of rebel natives for the purposojjof satisfying the engagements with military and other permanent settlers and indemnifying the colony to a reasonable extent by the sale of portions thereof for expenditure incurred in the present rebellion.” Now, sir, in entering upon this question I must, perhaps, be a little diffuse —I must go into what 1 imagine were the reasons for passing the New Zealand Settlements Act. It appears to me the view has been held—as it was the view of Mr. Charles Buller’s committee in the House of Commons in the year 1844, of which committee Lord Howiek, now Lord Grey, was chairman—that natives had no right to land, except such laud as they absolutely cultivated. Well, if that view were tenable now, there is no doubt that the only title of natives to land would be the title derived under the treaty of Waitangi. Therefore if they contravened the treaty of Waitangi their title would drop through. I think that view is believed by the House untenable; and I believe the whole course of the legislature of this House has shown that it entirely abandons this view. I have never known it to have many advocates in this House. By the Act passed in 18(52 upon the native lands—the Act passed at Wellington—upon that Act the House took a line entirely inconsistent with the view I have just propounded. Therefore, I take it as the unanimous feeling of this House that we could not rest upon that ground for any confiscation necessary. I therefore dismiss that. There is a second view—which is that a native forfeits his legal right—l believe it may be said to be legal as applied to a native in rebellion, and found guilty of treason. The latter view, I believe, may have many supporters in the colony, and therefore the lands of all such insurgent natives become confiscated. Now, with regard to that point of view, there is no very great objection—as there is no doubt, according to English law, a man loses his property if he is convicted of treason ; but that can only apply after conviction. But there is another point which I think has escaped the notice of hon. members who have given some attention to this subject; and it certainly did escape my notice unless until very lately. And that is, that the law of forfeiture for treason, if applying in England, did not apply to its possessions. As, for instance, the law, 1 think, is different in Ceylon, and other colonies ; as I think I should be able to show, by a little looking-up of authorities. The reason that a man’s descendants lose their property and lands, in consequence of treason in England, is because land is, in consequence of its descending under a feudal tenure. (Hear.) But in other countries that is not the law. In the British colonies I think it cannot be shown tl’.at is the law ; and the House, therefore, it appears to me, thought it would not rely on either of these pleas. And, therefore, feeling as I do that it is necessary future rebellion should be checked by inflicting such a punishment—which has the advantage of being humane as well as efficacious—a punishment which will cause the native to point with regret to such and such a piece of land which he has lost in rebellion—yet it will probably end in making him a richer, better, and more civilized man, by its operation—well the House having come to this view, or way of thinking it fair that the native whose conduct had led to this war should pay a share towards the cost of of the war ; and therefore it was considered that new legislation was necessary, consequently it placed upon the statute book the Settlements Act of last session. My own opinion with regard to the intention of the operations of that Settlements Act was, and I believe an hon. friend of mine will bear me out —that the same view had been taken by the Domett Government. The intention of the Government in proposing that policy, and the intention of the House in adopting it was to fortify their position, was to inflict punishment, and to recoup advances already made —or to meet expenditure made by the colony upon the war. But the primary object was to put the provinces of Auckland and Taranaki, and other threatened provinces, in as secure a position as possible. (Hear, hear.) I have made these remarks for the benefit of my bon. friend opposite ; but I have hardly had time, under the peculiar circumstances under which 1 am placed, carefully to sift the multifarious correspondence upon the subject. I am not quite sure if my experience may differ from what would be the line of conduct with, the hon. gentleman opposite, or whether I may entirely coincide with the hon.jgentlemen who preceded us in the Ministry. Still I think there may be a little difference in the mode in which we should wish to carry,out the Now Zealand Settlements Act. Should there be any such difference, I do not think it would be fair to the House for me to avoid calling attention to it. It is my attention now to recommend that for the purpose we have already mentioned blocks of land slmuld be confiscated, and that it should be confiscated specifically in such positions as may increase the strength

of the country, and not give us a large floating undefined confiscation, extending over distant portions of the country, and which it would tax this country iar above its resources to sustain. (Hear, hear.) My idea is to strengthen the colony by settlements of colonists in self-supporting, selfdependent positions—(hear, hear) —and not to weaken it by prolonging unnecessary hostilities and confiscation of vague floating blocks throughout the country. I hope that in that the hon. gentlemen who preceded me will coincide in my views ; but I may mention the mere possibility of difference, because I was not quite clear whether the late Ministry agreed with the present Ministry upon that point. With reference to this remark, I may say, sir, that should we remain on these benches, wa shall at once recommend to his Excellency that no delay should take place before putting the proposition into effect. I have already told the House that if his Excellency thinks fit to differ from us, there is but one course open to us. (Hear, hear.) I would also at this period of my statement make some reference to the emigration scheme which has been carried out under the auspices of the late Government. I wish to say tha t the papers upon this subject have not been printed, and I have not so far been able to master them. At the same time, I may state my idea is that the feeling in the House was that they should have military settlers, and not settlers incapable of defending themselves. (Hear.) That certainly has been my feeling; but I do not wish the Council to prejudge that question, as I am not thoroughly iaformed“upon it until papers are laid upon the table. But I see the last Ministry has already stopped this emigration ; and certainly if they had not done so we should have felt it our duty to interfere. Now, sir, there is another question which I introduce really heartily, knowing that the House will agree with me ; yet I do not consider that that is a question entirely I agree to ; but that is perhaps rather a reason why I ought to take the first opportunity of stating my views upon the matter. That is, the queation of disarming the natives, and it is one upon which I have always expressed a strong opinion. I remember when I was a member of a former ministry, of which the hon. member for Nelson was the head, and which was called the War Ministry, it was thought to be useless and not advisable to atte c pt a general disarmament of natives. I do not know whether our predecessors differ from us upon that, or how far, and it is possible (hey may accord with us upon that also. But I will state my view that that is a question of peace. That the defeated natives may be called upon to give up their arms in token of submission I quite agree with, bni, further, if hon. gentlemen mean that we are to say that we will disarm the whole of the natives in New Zealand (No, no) ; then I must say such a think is absolutely preposterous. It is like the old story—one could attempt to do it ; but in the first place it was impossible. But I will ask you do you believe that you could succeed simply in disarming the friendly natives, and leaving them at the mercy of their enemies ? I say, moreover, if you take a few rusty muskets from a few rebels, such is the desire of the natives for arms that the muskets would be replaced by new rifles. That certainly was not the object in disarming the natives. But there is still a higher ground, as I think wo have no right to drive any set of people into warfare. There is no doubt that the Maoris, with their many faults, have many virtues ; and the Auckland people have not been ashamed to confess they are a noble foe. (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, it would bo a crime to drive these people to despair, as we should do if we drove them into a corner, in which they must feel, as wo should surely feel if in their place, that we desired to disarm them first, and fall upon them afterwards. Therefore, as 1 have said, the arms taken should not be by an indiscriminate disarmament. (Hear, hear.) The next paragraph in the Governor’s speech is with regard to the province of Tarannki and the Ngatirnanui district, which still remains in a state of disturbance ; and it is my intention as soon as possible to place the settlement of Taranaki on a firm and secure footing. To forward this a bill will bo laid before }-ou to enable the Government to acquire land for the formation of roads, &c. Well, sir, I think it is not necessary for me to address the House upon this subject at any length ; but I will simply express my feeling in union with hon. gentlemen opposite, with lion, gentlemen in this House of whatever shade of politics, or whatever may have been the cause of difference of parties in the House—l think we are alt united, as well as every person in the country, in saying that the state of Taranaki is intolerable—is a disgrace not only to this colony (hear, hear), but to the British Empire. It is desirable that the earliest and most enegetic steps should be made to put an end to what, I think, the hon. member for Christchurch stated, was a menace to every colonial settlement similarly situated in the British dominions. Well, sir, we propose to advise h:s Excellency, and in so doing wo wish not to take to ourselves one title of applause which is due to our friends opposite, as it is probable tiiey have previously requested his Excellency to take prompt and energetic steps to settle this Taranaki question once and for ever. Our view in this respect is, that our policy mainly bases itself upon the question of roadmaking. I consider that the history of the great colonizing nations of antiquity, made up of barbarous races, points out to us that lesson which iu recent days, up to the India of yesterday and and to-day, has always been a lesson of experience, that to tame the savage country is to drive your roads through the country. (Hear.) For my own part, if I may be adviser to his Excellency in this question, I should make my first cry—- “ Roads, roads, roads.” I should say to the natives, “ We will carry roads through the whole of this country, from the north to the south.” I would let them know that we will not say that it shall be done to-day or to-morrow. I would not say any time we would take, but that we had a right to proceed through any part of Jthe country to make our lines of communication complete. (Hear.) In doing this I would not necessarily say to the natives that wo shall do it by compulsion. I would say, if you choose to fight we shall be ready to fight j if you choose to work we shall be ready to pay. I would invite those natives not actually hostile, to work on the roads, as I believe that would be the most civilising element; and if

the natives attempted to stop the progress of the works, I should repel all attacks which would prevent me in pushing this line through the country. And, sir, when once we can get to a speedy realisation of this view, I shall at once commence the road-making at all events between Taranaki and Wanganui, it would bo but fair to the policy of Government that in those provinces the roads made should be at the cost of the provinces. That would undoubtedly be a part of the policy of the Government. I feel quite sure that the expense would not fall so heavily on the provinces because in the case of insurgent natives who could not offer an armed opposition—as in some cases they would do so—the land which would be taken for the completion of these lines of roads, where we had military possession of the country, would no doubt prevent this expense falling so heavily upon the provinces. Whilst I am upon this point, I may say a few words upon the future native policy. Ido not think the time is propitious when, after being only a day or two in possession of office, without having consulted, he could not be expected to say what he would wish ; but at some future time, when native affairs shall be in a more settled state—l will only say this, that in my opinion attempts to force institutions upon natives have been, and will be, a failure. (Hear, hear.) T think in the most benevolent nature we shall fail in driving natives to accept institutions. I think if occasion arises, as, happily, I hope it will arise, if we can lead the natives to desire institutions, then, I think, it will be our duty to try to meet their views—to co-operate with them. But I entirely go against any system which may be called bribery, to induce them to accept those institutions. I believe myself that the main hope of the country lies in the Native Land Act, passed at Wellington. I believe that our desire must be to give the natives an interest in this, thus enabling them to sell or let their land immediately. I believe that if we can induce the natives to realise their land with Europeans —I think if we can do that we shall have a more powerful guarantee than if possessed of twenty thousand Acts. I believe in appealing to what we all understand is the primary and main instinct of the uncultivated human mind—the instinct of self-interest —we shall have the surest guarantee for the peace of the country. (Hear.) His Excellency is pleased to say that “ her Majesty having seen lit to entrust to me large and discretionary powers so long as the colony accepts the aid of British troops for the suppression of internal disturbances, it will be your duty to consider whether the time has arrived when the colony may depend upon its own resources for its internal defence, and the Governor be thereby enabled to be guided entirely by the recommendations of his Constitutional advisers in native as well as in ordinary matters, excepting only in such as may directly concern Imperial interests and the prerogative of the Crown. Now, sir, this a very important passage in his Excellency’s speech Purposely the reply has been so worded as not to commit you in this debate, to an expression of opinion on this subject. I recommend (hat a subject of sucli great importance ought to be treated by itself; and in the resolutions, of which I have given notice to move on Wednesday next, we shall have a littl" more on this subject.* We thought it only fair to the House, upon such an important subject, and which well demands your serious and calm deliberation, to consider it separately. Therefore, I will not allude to that subject further, but reserve what I have to say until Wednesday next, when I intend to bring the subject before the House. You observe that it says, “We will consider the question,” so that it does not bind the House to accept that proposition. We are only to consider it. The next paragraph is to move the seat of Government to Wellington. “In accordance with the decision of Commissioners acting under resolutions of both Houses of Legislature, I propose immediately to remove the seat of Government to Wellington.” Now, sir, that is a question which has been very fully debated last session. My own opinion is that we are acting in this matter —that we are simply carrying out the already expressed views of the House—views certainly which it will be competent for hon. members to contradict. But as the matter stands we are carrying out the views of both Houses of Legislature. Therefore, I shall not enter upon any proposal or argument in the matter. I will only just allude to one remark which fell from my hon. friend who sits next to me (Mr. J. O’Neill), when criticising the composition of the Ministry in his happiest manner, that we had no Auckland member amongst us. Well, sir, I stand here to plead guilty to that impeachment; but I will ask you, sir, could I have gone to any hon. friend in Auckland, in the present state of public opinion in Auckland, and ask him to take office in any Ministry which made the scat of Government a Ministerial question ? (“Yes.”) An hon. member says, “ Yes.” Well, I might have gone, but I fear after after what has passed I might have been refused. I can call spirits from the vasty deep, but when I call will they come! [Mr. Weld then alluded to the financial position of the colony and to the Panama contract, and resumed his scat amid applause.]