PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5136, 8 September 1877, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, September 7. The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past two o’clock. PETITIONS. Petitions were presented by Messrs. Williams, Stout, Wason, W. Wood, and the Hon. Major Atkinson. NOTICES OP MOTION. Several notices of motion were given. MRS. MCMANUS’S CASE. On the motion of Mr. Kelly, chairman of the Public Petitions Committee, it was agreed that the letter forwarded by the Government to the justices of the peace who dealt with the case, be printed and attached to the published evidence and report brought up by the committee. QUESTIONS. Before proceeding to the business of the day, Captain Morris asked if anything could be done to remove the offensive odours that existed about the precincts of the House. The SPEAKER stated that active measures were being adopted to remove the nuisance complained of. Mr. O’RORKE asked the Colonial Treagurer Why the money received by the Government two months ago for publicans’ licenses has not yet been handed over to the boroughs entitled-to receive-the same ? The Hon. Major ATKINSON replied that it was owing to inadvertence that such had not been done before. The money would be handed over without delay. BILLS INTRODUCED. Leave was granted to introduce the following Bills :—The Provincial Laws Evidence Bill (Hon. Mr. Whitaker) ; a Bill to amend the Nelson Rifle Prize Act, 1860 (Mr. Curtis); the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill (Mr. Wason). INTERRUPTED DEBATE ON THE MOTION RELATIVE to the hawke’s bay lands. The Hon. Mr. WHITAKER explained that he had the assent of Mr. Cox and Mr. Locke to laying the letters referred to last night upon the table ; but it was for the House to decide the course to be taken. Mr. Cox had been telegraphed to on the subject. He (Mr. Whitaker) had the copy of his telegram to Mr. Cox, also that gentleman’s reply thereto. The SPEAKER stated that the letters in question should be laid upon the table. That was the only satisfactory course. Until that was done the House would not be satisfied, and the debate could not proceed. The Hon. Mr. WHITAKER read the telegrams that had passed between himself and Mr. Cox. Mr. Cox in his telegram stated that personally he had no objection to the letters being laid before the House if Mr. Locke acquiesced. He (Mr. Whitaker) produced Mr. Locke’s written assent to the letters being placed in the hands of the House, providing Mr. Russell would concur therein. Mi - . PYKE wished to know by what means the letters came into the hands of the Government. He protested against any private letters being read without the consent of the 'writer. He would ask the House if Mr. Russell’s assent had been obtained to the production of those letters.

The Hon. Mr. WHITAKER said that question had already been answered twice. Mr. STOUT understood that Mr. Locke was not far from the House. He (Mr. Stout) considered the best way was to obtain from Mr. Locke his written statement as to who were his principals in the negotiations referred to in the letters, and the House could then ask the consent of the principal or principals to the letters being laid upon the table. The SPEAKER explained that the letters were already laid upon the table by the Government, but the order of the House was necessary before they could be read. The Hon. Major ATKINSON said that he understood his honorable friend the AttorneyGeneral laid the letters upon the table by an order from the Speaker. He would like to know if that was the case.

The SPEAKER said it was an exceedingly difficult question to decide. He would state distinctly that there had been no refusal or remonstrance on the part of the Government when asked to lay the letters on the table. The Hon. Mr. WHITAKER entirely objected to the letters laid on the table becoming public property. He laid them there in obedience to an order of the House. They were private letters entrusted to him, and they must be returned to him for the purpose of giving them back to their owner. Mr. MONTGOMERY thought that the letters should be returned. The Hon. DONALD REID said the contents of the letters ought to be made known to the House.

The SPEAKER read a letter just then received from the Hon. H. R. Russell, to the following effect: —“ I beg most respectfully and decidedly to object to my private letters, laid upon the table of the House, being read without my permission.” The Speaker, after reading this letter, said the letters in question had now no further business to be on the table. They were no longer in possession of the House.

Mi-. TRAVERS supported the adjournment of the debate. It was, he said, a very difficult thing for the House to decide upon the recriminatory charges that had been made on all sides. With respect to the imputations thrown upon the characters of certain gentlemen who had purchased land in Hawke’s Bay, he thought those charges had been scattered far too broadcast. Sir GEORGE GREY said that the hon. gentleman who made the accusation should have produced the letters at the time. With regard to the letters on the table, it was immaterial to him whether or not they were read. He held, he said, a letter in his hand, stating that he was in no way concerned in the land transactions referred to in the letters causing the discussion.

Mr. KARAIITANA TAKAMOANA addressed the House. He repeated the allegations he had often made before against the Hon. Mr. Ormond. Mr. SEYMOUR wished to move an amendment, which he hoped would be acceptable to the House, and so end a discussion extremely tiresome and unprofitable. The original motion of the hon. member for Auckland City East was to have a select committee. He would suggest that the motion should be so amended as to relate only to the allegations made against the Hon. Mr. Ormond and those against Sir George Grey. SirGEORGE GREYrose and began by stating that when Spain was mistress of the world there was an excellent and salutary rule in force. In her different colonies the Governor who was appointed possessed almost arbitrary power, which he exercised during the whole period of his office. When that term expired, the rule was that he should before leaving the colony remain twenty-one days in order to allow people who had grievances or complaints against him an opportunity for bringing them forward. After that time the Governor was supposed to be a free man. Now, in his (Sir George Grey's) case, he had not only remained for twenty-one days in the colony after the expiration of his Go T vernorship, but stayed for many years. There was therefore ample time allowed for charges to be brought against him. But no complaint had been made. The other night in that House a series of very violent attacks had been made upon him. He proposed to notice some of them very shortly. Before proceeding to do so, he would call the attention of the House to the painful position in which the Governors of the colonies wore placed in the early days, when there was no Constitution. He was at once Governor and Prime Minister. He had to depend solely upon himself. There were numerous disadvantages that he had to bear against quite unknown to the authorities at Home. Thus it was he might, through acting upon his own judgment, find find himself exposed to much obloquy. The extent to which that prevailed was perhaps hardly known to hon. members. He would, however, give an instance of of what he meant. Through a change in the Ministry at Home certain promises were broken. Ho was solicited to keep certain facts secret, and by doing so he had to bear the whole odium of the changes. Subsequently the facts became known, and ho was at length relieved from the obloquy which he had borne. In further illustration he pointed out that laws he had endeavored to enforce and have carried

out, strictly for the benefit of the country, had been - directly overridden before his back was hardly turned. He referred to the selling of liquor and arms and ammunition to the natives. The moment he had left the country no attempt had been made to put those laws in force. A strong feeling was raised against him in consequence of the action he had taken with respect to this matter.: Such was the position of the Governor at that tjme that it was impossible to be impartial without being charged with partiality. Sir George Grey then went on to remark upon the religious clauses of the Education Bill brought forwardduring the present session, and pointed out the great injustice that would be done a certain section of the community by the enforcement of such a law as was proposed in that Bill. He showed that from the action he had taken in opposing those clauses of the Bill an outcry had. been created against him even among his own friends. He had received many communications —some .anonymous—urging upon him to change his course.' It was such difficulties .as those he had to. encounter during his early government of this colony—when no man could call his- life his own, when natives and Europeans were in arms; even within a few miles of the House for many years life was by no means secure. Thus it was between European opposition on the one hand and the difficulties with the natives on the other he had to act. A man who could swim through such a current as that must of necessity be a strong swimmer, and have great reliance Upon his own powers. The difficulty in enforcing the views he held was sufficient to excite people against him. With regard to the remarks made the other night, the hon. member for Clive had said that within a very short distance of that House resolutions were on record which he (Mr. Ormond) could place his hand upon, passed by the Cliffords, the Welds, and the Foxes, to the effect that it was impossible for the Governor to speak a word of trath. His first remark with regard to that'was that until the hon. member for Clive had mentioned those resolutions he (Sir George Grey) had never heard of their existence. Nor had he ever an opportunity of replying. He went on to say that during many years no harm had come to him from those resolutions, and he did not anticipate harm from them now. He would say this of the Welds, the Foxes, and the Cliffords < that if they put down such resolutions as those stated, they were to be pitied, and not he. For years acts of friendship had passed between himself and those gentlemen. Had they known such resolutions were on record they would have felt ashamed, and not himself. He pitied them, for upon them rested the blame, and not on him. When he passed away, no secret resolutions would be left to be brought up against any person in years to come. Nothing that he would leave behind would give a pang to those who remained. With regard to the hon. member for Wanganui, he (Sir George Grey) had kept his mind free of anything that might be said of him by that hon. member. He had been told that that hon. member was the author of two books, in one of which he was severely handled; but he had no evil thought within him for anything that might have been written. He declined to read those books, and he would still meet him from day to day with the belief that he (Mr. Fox) would do him no harm. He would tell the House that he had made it a rule while Governor not to read colonial papers, except some humorous passages. What he wanted to know was told to him. He established this rule because when he was a young man the anonymous letters he saw against himself annoyed him. He would secretly attribute the, authorship of these letters to some one, and when he met that person, by suppressing his belief he would be playing the part of a hypocrite. Hence it was that he entirely refrained from reading local journals. For the short period of his life now left, he cared not, and it mattered not, if those resolutions were in existence. But he would say' this, that if they were in existence Sir Charles Clifford and Mr. Weld would gladly wipe them out, and would look with horror and contempt upon the manner in which the hon. member for Clive had drawn those resolutions before the House. He (Sir George Grey) felt humbled when he considered the men of New Zealand, greater than himself, who had obloquy cast upon them. He could not compare himself to that Chief Justice of the colony, who was a noble man, talented, earnest, and attached to his fellow-men in every respect. That gentleman fearlessly did his duty to the native race; but what had been his reward? How fortunate was his own lot compared with that of the first Chief Justice of the colony. That gentleman is allowed a pension of £333 a year. Sir Julius Vogel who, with all his failings, had largeness of heart, proposed that that pension should be made secure for life. But there was one man—the Premier of this colony—who said he would resist to the utmost thegranting of that pension. He (Sir Geogre Grey) felt debased and humbled at his foolishness in complaining of the wrongs that were slight. He would therefore pass by the personal attacks that had been made upon him by the hon. member for Clive. He was assured that the feeling of the House and the colony at large would be with him. He could look fearlessly into the face of the country, and disregard all the attacks made upon him. He would now refer to the attack made upon him with respect to a block of land in Taupo called Oruanui. Allusion had been made before in the House to that land. He would tell hon. members that the House had nothing to do with the matter. He was anxious to secure this run for a friend of his. The land was leased for twenty-one years. Some portion of that time had expired. He was satisfied that if inquiry were made, it would be found that the young man getting the lease of the land had been wronged. No deed had ever been signed. He (Sir George Grey) knew nothing of the position in which the title was. He had, like any other man, a perfect right to refuse to complete the transaction, if acting upon good advice. Had he (Sir George Grey) done any wrong, the Courts of Law were open to give redress. That House should never entertain the question at all. To repeat the statements contained in the letter was a breach of the privileges of the House. It was impugning the honor and dignity of the House to permit such a document to be produced. Why should one statement jionly of the case be brought out? He repeated that hon. members had nothing to do with the questions relating to the Oruanui Block. He. had lived many years, and had avoided disputes with his, fellow-man. His nature was to give way. He would not go down to his grave with the thought upon his mind that he had done a wrong. But the House had done him a gross injustice by meddling with tlje matter of the Oruanuißlock. He brought no accusation against any one except Ministers, and he did that because he believed they had done wrong in their offices. He denied that he had brought matters of a personal nature before the House. He did not wish hon. members to think that he desired to shrink from anything that, had been said on the subject. He had heard the hon, member who had moved for an inquiry with respect to the accusations brought against him (Sir George Grey). He would now pass on to another of the accusations that had been brought against him. They were told last night that “many years ago there was a Governor of New Zealand who visited the South at the time of large lauded proprietors—of spurious landed aristocracy. He expressed pleasure at seeing what was going on ; that was, the country going into the hands of largo capitalists and others. He invited them to come to the North Island ' and monopolise the country there. They did come, hold meetings, and he assisted them all he could. They acquired 300,000 acres, and the Governor, without any scruples, demanded a share.” And that Governor, it was implied, was Sir George Grey. To say that he was that Governor was absolutely, wholly, and entirely false. He then explained, with reference to the 300,000-acre block at Taupo, that a favorite plan of his had been to establish a large inland town at Taupo. By the aid of European population there civilisation would rapidly extend among the natives in the interior. He strove for several years to carry out that project, as he thought it was within his power to accomplish the desired end. Through a letter written secretly to Earl Carnarvon the scheme

failed. That letter told Earl Carnarvon that if he /Sir George Grey) were allowed to carry out his views the whole country would be plunged in war. That letter was the cause of his (Sir George Grey’s) removal from the country. Reverting to the Oruanui Block, Sir George Grey read a letter from Lieut.-Col. Whitmore, to the effect that he (Sir G. Grey) had for his object in dealing with the Oruanui Block the desire of locating the people on that land, and forming a European settlement ; but that, the prospect not being found satisfactory, the company that was organised to take up the land abandoned the subject. For himself, he had already informed hon. members that he did not own an acre of native land. Sir George Grey went on to point out the statements that had been made in the House by the hon. member for Clive with reference to his (Sir George Grey’s) unsuccessful attempt at obtaining a seat in the House of Commons. The statements so made were, he said, untrue. He complained, that that hon. member had maligned him in the House. So much would he say in his own defence of the charges made against him. But there were several other things which he wished to notice. He then proceeded to deny the assertion that had been made that the hon. member for Auckland City Bast had come to the House .to do his (Sir George Grey’s) “ dirty work.” In commenting upon the statement made by the Hon. Ormond with respect to the hon. member for Auckland City East being a bankrupt Sir George Grey spoke at considerable length. That hon. member (Mr. Ormond) he said must, in making the remarks he did, be ignorant alike of history, morality, and generosity. Pitt, he said, was a man who, notwithstanding the great good he had done his country, died £IO,OOO in debt, and his friends had tosubscribe the amount. The whole civilisation of the country was altered by the manner in which these transactions to which he had referred were allowed to take place. He did not speak of the large property-holders in the light which Mr. Ormond had endeavored to throw upon his words. He then went on to allude directly to the manner in which the land had been acquired from the natives. A large part of the money, he contended, went in liquor, by which process, too, the land was acquired for a lesser amount than it was actually worth. It was for these reasons that he objected to these transactions being dealt with by a commission, and advocated their being taken before the Law Courts of the colony. He could not give his acquiescence to the Judge’s report. The suggeston to again refer those cases to a commission, should not be for a moment entertained ; and the Government in attempting this were committing a decided wrong to the natives. It was unlawful; certainly wrong ; and he should oppose it to the utmost. Before concluding, ho asked the House to recollect the inquiry session after session which he had asked should be made into certain allegations he had made to the effect that extensive interests had been dealt with injuriously to the public at large. If he had not been thoroughly convinced of the fact that such inquiry was absolutely needed to meet the ends of justice, he would never have asked for it ; and he asked, the House not to be led astray by the attempt which the Government had made to prevent such inquiry being made by diverting attention from the real issue. Mr. SUTTON submitted that an entirely erroneous construction had been placed on the native land transactions in Hawke’s Bay.—Mr. Howe expressed his intention to vote against the motion and amendment.—Mr. Stout next spoke, and said the bitter personal attacks made by Mr. Ormond in hisspeeoh during the debate were noanswer to the chages made in reference to those land transactions, and went rather to convey the impression that they were well founded. Another aspect of the question was the position occupied •by the Press of the colony, which should deal impartially with both sides, and see fair play between then. What did they find, for instance, in Wellington? Why, not a single speech delivered which was not full of personal abuse of the member for .the Thames and members of the Opposition—not a single speech of that kind was delivered to the House but it was published in full, all the personal matter being given prominence. The speech of Mr. Russell in reference to land transactions in Napier was published in full, and the speech of the hon. member for Christchurch (chiefly, as it would appear, because it referred to a block of laud in the North Island) was also published in full in the New Zealand Times. Even that morning, they found in a journal supposed to be under the control of the Government the speech delivered by Mr. Ormond the night previously, containing cx parte statements, coming from a gentleman who, in his position, ought not to take part in politics—he referred to the gent'eman who was supposed to be agent for the Press telegrams in the colony. He (Mr. Stout) then went on to criticise the position taken up by the Minister of Public Works, who, he said, should not allow himself to be associated with the AttorneyGeneral if his statements in reference to Sir George Grey were true, forasmuch as they would show the Attorney-General to have been a conspirator, and to have bribed a Governor of the colony.—The amendment was then put, and negatived on the voices.—Mr. Seymour asked whether he should be in order in moving the amendment of which he had previously given notice, but the Speaker ruled that it could not be accepted.—The Hon. Mr. Whitaker then moved, as an addition to the original resolution, that the committee be directed to enquire into the charges against Mr. Ormond and Sir George Grey in reference to native land transactions in Hawke’s Bay and Taupo respectively, and also to inquire generally into allegations of impropriety in connection with Hawke’s Bay land transaction, and in doing so he combatted the arguments of hon. members, and Sir George Grey in particular, in charging him with improper con-duct.—-Mr. Wakefield (in a speech devoted to an attack on Mr. Whitaker) and Mr. Taiaroa having addressed the House, the amendment moved by Mr. Whitaker was put, and a division taken, the result being that it wa.3 negatived by 26 to 25.—Mr. Travers then addressed himself to the question, pointing out that much of the hardship experienced by the natives in reference to their laud was due to past legislation, which found an earnest supporter in Mr. Ormond.—At this stage Mr. Ormond moved the adjournment of the debate, which was carried. The House then adjourned at 1.20 a.m.