MR CROSBIE WARD ON CONFISCATION.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 6, Issue 309, 25 September 1865, Page 3

MR CROSBIE WARD ON CONFISCATION.

BEING EXTRACT OF A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE 7TH INSTANT. We have not got from the Colonial Treasurer any estimate of the sums to be received for the colony for confiscated lands between this and Taranaki. We have not heard one single word from the Colonial Treasurer about confiscated lands that are to be. Are we to be told by the same Ministry who have reflected on their predecessors that they have initiated the war and have made no provision for meeting the expense of that war P I expected it from them, and ara surprised not to hear it from them. I am sorry they have led ns into a new doubt. I am surprised at it because it seems to me to have been an oversight on the part of the Colonial Treasurer, because he might have brought a large amount to balance his expenditure out of this fund. I have listened to to the native policy from the Minister for Native Affairs; to the Defence Minister; and I have listened to the finance policy, and I do think that the Government has not freed this confiscation policy at all, that they have been shy of committing themselves to what is their first duty. It is owing probably to the expression of public opinion on the Act of 1863, that they have departed from the plan accepted by the House of 1863 of making the war pay largely for itself. I don’t think it at all follows, that because the plan of confiscation has only succeeded in making the lands taken exceedingly expensive—l don’t think that confiscation is not a wise and profitable plan. I have no sympathy with rebel natives. I don’t understand that we are to be left to encounter the enormous burden of the war, and then to treat the natives as if they were better than they were before the war began. Before the war began, we forbade them to sell their lands to Europeans; we used to buy their lands at Is an acre—(a voice, 2d,) —or some very low figure; but when the natives have been so plaguing us, as to give us cause of war, and to put themselves in the wrong, it appears to me to be a wonderful thing that we should end in giving them all their hands, and allowing them to make twenty times the original market price. Is it not astonishing, that we should not only have carried on a war at our own expense, but have given them territory more valuable than it was before ? We should have made these natives feel the consequence in their persons, or we should have made those who brought about a war pay a large portion of the cost of it. I do say, with all respect for English opinion thot it is not English opinion we are to bow to. I should be ashamed of the House and the colony, if, after in 1863 asserting that it was right that the expenses of war should fall on rebel Maoris, that we should now throw up that that, and say we are ashamed of ourselves, and that we will treat them as if they had never been rebels. Let us have some consistency. I believe, in theory, the Settlements Act of 1863 was perfectly right. I was not a party to it, but as far as the theory of making the lands of rebels pay for the war they brought on, it was perfectly correct. If it is not to be so, if we are going on with a new policy, let ug have a plan of it. W e know there is to be confiscation, and let us have something to the credit of the war. Let the Finance Minister back his colleague by saying that this land is to produce something. Confiscation accompanied by compensation is a manifestly difficult and abortive plan. What prevents the Government of the colony, who have said, one after another, that the Ngatiruanni and Taranaki tribes have misbehaved themselves, —what prevents them saying that the whole of their land belongs to the Crown ? what prevents them from taking possession of that land as soon as they can touch it ? Are we to be prevented by the feelings on the part of tlfe Maoris ? I trust the Government will not think of going through such a routine as has attended the cases of Maoris in Taranaki and Waikato, It costs more to survey this land by force of arms it costs more to set about occupying this land than it is worth; but it does not follow, because we do not take proper measures, that the land is not valuable. There is a magnificent fmn.nr.i~q] prospect before the Government if they will declare the policy which was correct in 1863 to be correct in 1865. Let us not forget our own opinions, merely because people across the water have told us that our opinions are open to suspicion. I believe, if the territory which lies between this and Taranaki, if the territory which lies north of Taranaki, which lies anywhere where it is described as belonging to rebels, if all these lands, where the tribes themselves, as a tribe, had participated in the rebellion, were declared no longer the property of the tribes, they could easily be populated, and it does not follow that we must expend money on them to get them and keep them. I believe that capitalists would give handsome sums of money for these lands, and give Government no further trouble about it. It is false delicacy, when we have spent money on subduing rebellion, to hesitate about doing this. I may be told that this is inconsistent with justice. I do not think it is. The truest justice can be done to them by doing it to ourselves. If we make reserves for the native population, give them the benefits of real tenure of lands, admit them to a participation of representation, and surround them with Europeans, so that the law can get at them, we are doing them a greater benefit than the value of the land represents. I should as well give to ail the Maoris of this colony enough land for their purposes, and I should deliberately say, the remainder of the land now belongs to the Queen to satisfy the cost of rebellion. (Hear.) That is the policy which, in those gentlemen’s places, with due regard to justice and humanity and to the opinion of England, I should be content to gel up and argue. If we do not hear that this confiscated land is to produce money, I shall not believe that they intend to do anything. If it be so that we are not prevented from reimbursing ourselves, if it be that we have a territory to turn to account, it opens a vista for New Zealand, which the financial statement does not open. If we have this debt hanging over us without the means of paying it, I do not see a very hopeful state of things; but by the process I have indicated, the bui-den of the debt must be a small burden after all. I hope I shall not be told that

this is a bloodthirsty and sanguinary policy. I do not wish to hurt a single man, but to be pottering about single claims which cost more than they are worth is folly, when we might do them justice by a much easier method. I recall the statement of an bon. gentlemen in this House who said that the friendly natives never had {iny arms, and the rebel natives never had any land. There is a prospect of justice to the natives, and financial and political advantage to us if a bold policy be adopted. We are told that the next year’s native estimates are £59,000. I want to know why that is not an expenditure locally charged. I want to kijow why anybody is to pay for governing the natives, but the natives themselves, or the people amongst whom they are to reside. Why are those natives not dealt with as Europeans in this matter? If we charge locally for governing in the South, why generally for governing the natives in the Iforth ? I shall take the opportunity in the proper place to move that they be locally charged. I heard with great surprise and anxiety of mind the proposition which arises from the despatch of his Excellency the Governor, which was read last evening, for getting the Imperial guarantee to the existing loan, and then taking advantage of that guarantee to get another million for expenditure on native matters. We were asked to get the three-million loan at five percent., and when we found that was not enough we were asked last session to increase the charges from five to six per cent., the total amount being the same. It did not matter what we had to pay for it. We consented to pay £20,000 a year for it. Are we to have the principal also increased ? That appears to be the same as the tale of the school-boy’s knife. The knife was the same although the blade was changed, and then it was the same knife although the handle was changed. If the Imperial guarantee is given, so much the better for the elony. Let us increase our means, but do not let us increase our debt. This question will come on in due time, but I hope the House will be prepared to entertain the question of how the expense of governing the natives should be charged. (Cheers.) Mr Sewell said the Government could not agree with the hon. member in making a sweeping confiscation ; and thus doing great wrong and injury to local and innocent natives who might possess land in the district confiscated. If the Government took land belonging to the loyal natives it was their intention to afford compensation “ in meal or in malt ” —in one way or other. Immediately the Government came into office they found, owing to the unfortunate differences which had existed between his Excellency the Governor and his late Ministry, that no land had been confiscated; but they had at once met the difficulty, and had caused large blocks of land to be confiscated in the Waikato. It was true a very large amount of that land—the best portion of the land—had been made over to the Waikato settlers ; but the Government had in this respect considered it their duty to fulfil their engagement to the military settlers in the first instance. With respect to Wanganui he believed the lion, member would have his inquiry answered as regarded the confiscation of that district, as a proclamation was already being drawn up.

Mr OaosßiE Ward explained that ho never suggested that (he rights of loyal natives should be disregarded in any confiscation. He was in favor of doing justice to all natives, whether loyal or disloyal.