HOUSE OF REPRESENTATINES.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5138, 11 September 1877, Page 3

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATINES.

Monday, September 10. The House resumed at half-past 2 o’clock. PETITIONS AND NOTICES. A number of petitions Jwere presented and ’■notices of motion given. ; NATIVE LAND DEALINGS. Adjourned debate on the question,—That a committee, consisting of the Hon.-Mr.-Bowen, Hon. Mr. McLean, Hon. Mr. Fox, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bastings, Mr. Hislop, Mr. Ballance, Mr. Bunny, Mr. Macandrew, Mr. Curtis, Mr, 'Montgomery, Mr. Burns, Mr. Fitzroy, Mr, Be Lautour, Sir G. Grey, and the mover, be appointed to inquire into all dealings with ■ native lands by landed proprietors in Hawke’s Bay. Such committee to have power to call for papers and persons, and to report in a. . month. Five to be a quorum. Mr. COX rose to make a personal explanation. He referred to Sir George Grey’s trip to the South Island in 1867, and described the first interview he, accompanied by Mr. Bussell, had with Sir George Grey, then Governor of the 'colony, in reference to the acquirement of: the Taupo land, the first being held in Wellington. The whole matter was fully dis- ’ cussed, and the land proposed to be acquired was as far as possible fully reserved, and they came away under the confident belief that Sir George Grey was acquainted with their intentions. At a second interview Sir George Grey said something to this effect, “Would it in any way interfere with your operations if I were to ask you to allow me to join in your venture?” They (Mr, Bussell and Mr. Cox) Stated that there was no objection. The proposed operations were generally discussed, and he (Mr. Cox) was quite under the impression that Sir George Grey considered himself one of them: that is, one of the company ; because he made several suggestions, among them being one that if they settled in that part of the country the natives should be none the worse off. He (Mr. Cox) was not there to give, as a lawyer, a definition of the word partner; but he was under the impression that Sir George Grey considered himself a member Of that company, and he simply stated the whole circumstances of the connection between himself, Mr. Bussell, and Sir George Grey, who subsequently asked to be “ allowed to retire from this proposed partnership," for the reason that he could not afford to give his enemies a chance of saying that he had done anything which might, from the position he held, be represented as being irregular. No objection was raised to his retirement, and that briefly was the whole matter,, and he had never said in that House or at any time or place that there was anything in the nature of corrupt dealing on the part of Sir George Grey in connection with this subject, Mr. Locke was sent up to the country with full instructions how to act, and certain expenditure was incurred; but for different reasons, among others being the terror caused by the performances'of Te Kooti, the . project was abandoned and the negotiations brought to a close. He had frequently mentioned these things from 1867 up to the present time, and last session, when Sir George Grey was speaking as the self-constituted champion of the poor man, in relation to land purchases, saying that any man who had more than 50 acres had a great deal too much—when he heard Sir George Grey say that, he was very much disposed to get up and tell the House all about the transactions to which he had alluded, and that he was chiefly induced by Sir George Grey to come to the North Island, which in one respect showed that hon. member to be the reverse of a consistent man. With regard to the correspondence, referred, to, all that he had stated was more than confirmed by the letters which he had shown to Mr. Ormond at the latter’s request. He was unaware that this question was coming forward, and when it did transpire he was absent. Had he been there he should have advised Mr. Ormond to make the statements that he (Mr. Cox) had given on his authority, and he would be there to confirm them. As to the mode in which Mr. Ormond had brought the matter forward, he said he had never been placed in the position of some hon. gentlemen with large incomes, as to having charges of corruption levelled against them, and accusations made that their property had been acquired by them through questionable means. Possibly .if charges of the kind were levelled against him continually, and unsupported by proof, he might, too, act as Mr. Ormond, in the excitement caused by wounded feelings, had acted. Mr. MACFABLANE was of opinion that the only proper mode of settling these questions was to have recourse to the Supreme Court. He should be pleased to see ’ the natives encouraged to adopt this course, and would sanction the placing of a sum.on the Estimates to enable them to take their cases to the Supreme Court of the colony. He concluded by moving the previous question. Mr. J. C. BROWN asked if the company had proposed to lease the land in Taupo or acquire the freehold? Mr. COX said they had proposed to lease.

Mr. HURSTHOUSB endorsed a remark by the member for Waipa, as to his having mentioned to him last year that Sir George Grey’s conduct in reference to the land question was inconsistent with his action in former years; but Mr. Cox did not, so far as he remembered, impute any corrupt motives to Sir George Grey. He (Mr.. Hursthonse) was extremely grieved at the tone which the debate had taken,- and felt that no good would result from the appointment of a committee to inquire into these land transactions. He should vote against the motion. Mr. STOUT submitted that the Hon. Mr. Ormond ought to apologise, and withdraw the charges he had made against Sir George Grey, which were unsupported by the explanation of the hon. member for Waipa. . The Hon. Mr. ORMOND said the hon. member for Dunedin, Mr. Stout, asked why he did not withdraw the imputations he had made in the House with respect to Sir George Grey. Well, he would tell the hon. gentleman his reason for not withdrawing those imputations. It was this: that he considered the imputations he made were fully sustained by what had fallen from the hon. member for Waipa in the personal explanation he had made during the afternoon. What he stated was that when the bon. member for the Thames was Governor of the colony he was, with others, a party .to the acquirement of a large estate which was obtained largely through his influence as a Governor. That was what he stated the other night. The case brought forward by him the other night was brought forward to show that a statement which had been made by the hon. member for the Thames on a previous occasion was inaccurate. The reason that induced him to enter upon the subject of the Taupe land was this : Last session the late Sir Donald McLean, then Native Minister, made a similar charge against-Sir George, saying that he had concurred in acquiring land at Taupo and inducing settlers to go there. The hon. member then gave the statement an absolute denial; but he (Mr. Ormond) had frequently heard it stated that Sir George had with others endeavored to acquire large estates in the Taupo District. He might mention here that he never stated that there had been an attempt to '‘purchase” laud : the word he used was “ acquire.” With regard to those letters, it was true that he had perused them, but ho gathered nothing from them which he had not previously heard of from the hon, member for Waipa. ' He had never considered those communications in any way confidential, or that he was not at perfect liberty to make use of them ; in fact he told the hon. member more than once that he was going to allude to the matter in the House. Well, considerable comment had been made upon his speech on this question. It bad been stated that it was unnecessarily bitter. But he 1 had to say to the House that ho had been laboring under gross provocation. Since making that speech he had looked over it more than once, and compared it with the speeches of the hon. members for - the Thames and Auckland City East, in which comments were made upon himself, and he contended that anybody reading the speeches together would say that his reply was as nothing compared with the provocation he had received. Men were only mortal, and could "not be expected to stand more than a certain amount of abuse without resenting it. It was well known that-he had sat: silently under, the most grossly abusive attacks, and

the Press of the colony remarked, on that silence, and insinuated that, it was, an admission of his fault. Therefore he was forced to defend himself and retort upon his detractors. It was absurd to say that; Ministers of the Crown 'should sit calmly with .their hands behind their backs listening to continual abusive attacks affecting them. What, he asked, was the effect of the gross charges made against the late Sir Donald McLean. Why they literally murdered him.: He be-, lieved that Sir Donald McLean would have been here now but .for that liberal abuse which was bestowed upon him by certain hoa. gentlemen in the House. There; was not a shadow of foundation for the charges made against him, and they hurried the man to his. grave. He sincerely hoped that tho House, would in future set its face against tnati class of conduct, so that members might: be protected against cowardly and un-, warrantable attacks. Deferring to the speech of the hon. member for Waipa, he said 11 Q had, been mistaken in one respect regarding whatt he had said about Sir George Grey’s share m the Taupo land transaction. _ He had until * that afternoon been under the impression that Sir George was for a longer time a partner in the company than he appeared to have been from what had just fallen from the member for Waipa. Further than this he could not withdraw anything he had said. With reference to the motion itself, it' would be doing a gross wrong to the people of Hawke s Bay, as a great number of the cases to which this committee would have to refer were pending before the Supreme Court. With regard to the whole question of native land tranactions, he thought the only proper course would be to appoint a general commission of enquiry. Mr. BUNNY was of opinion that the position now assumed by the question under discussion demanded that those letters, about which so much had been said, should be produced and laid before the House, in fairness to all parties. He supported the motion for a committee. Mr. COX supplied an omission he had made in his personal explanation, by stating that the term for which the company had proposed to lease the land in the Taupo country was from 25 to 30 years. Mr. CABBINGTON was understood to say that he should take a certain course with regard to this subject, and what that course was the House would eventually see. Mr. BAKFF addressed himself to the question at considerable length. Mr. LUSK, apart from other grounds than for the general instruction of the House and the enlightenment of the public, would support the motion for a committee to enquire into these land transactions.

The Hon. Mr. BO WEN said that the Government had been subjected to the most violent attacks of a personal nature for the last three years. They had been continually charged with legislating for their private gain, and in order that they might assist their friends. Only the other day the House was shocked by bearing an imputation cast against a Judge of the Supreme Court, it being said that the Premier advocated an appeal to the Supreme Court because he was related to one of the Judges sitting on the bench. The Government had been day after day subjected to the most gross and abusive attacks, conduct being imputed to them which affected their honor ; and Mr. Ormond had sat quietly under abuse levelled directly at him, until goaded to reply by the persistency with which these attacks were maintained. In reference to the question itself, he contended that it would be impolitic to have an inquiry made as proposed, as several of : the Hawke’s Bay land transactions were at the present moment the subject of litigation in the Supreme Court. Dr. HODGKINSON said the public would look upon the opposition by the Government to the appointment of a committee as an admission of their guilt. Mr. WOOLOOCK supported the Government in their action. They were taking the part of the weak against the strong, and he protested against the attempt which was being made to drag a number of unoffending settlers from Hawke’s Bay to inquire into a matter in which they were in no way directly concerned. . Mr. MONTGOMERY spoke, at some length in allusion to the address delivered by’ the hon. member for Clive, and protested against the languagehehadused respecting Mr. Sheehan and Sir George Grey. He hoped that Mr. Ormond would even at the eleventh hour retract what he had said. Sir GEORGE GREY said he wished to make, a few remarks before the debate qlosed, in consequence of what had transpired in the House during the afternoon. He submitted that there would have been no impropriety in his purchasing the land had he chosen to do so. There could be no restriction of that kind in a country;with a responsible Government. If there were any persons upon ■ whom such restrictions should be placed it was upon the Ministry of the day. Therefore he wished it to be understood that he had no intention of. excusing himself for impropriety. He also wished to;relieve the mind of his hon. friend Mr. Cox from any idea that ho desired to deny that he was the first European to suggest that Europeans should take up land in the interior of the North Island. His object was that runs should be taken up on a system of rental. Referring to. the explanation of Mr. Cox, he said there must have been some misunderstanding in the minfc'of Mr. Russell and Mr. Cox as to his having been a partner in that transaction; But even from the remarks of Mr. Cox it appeared that if anything of the kind occurred at alb the simple fact was that he had never held the position of partner in that transaction, but that during the five days spoken of as the interval between his becoming a partner and his retirement there was actually' a doubt in his mind on the subject. As to the letters which were spoken of by Mr. Cox as confirming all he had stated, he considered that they should be laid before the House; and notwithstanding the disadvantage under which he labored as being ignorant of the contents of those letters, he .submitted that they should be laid on the table. It was said that the object of referring to those letters was to show that he (Sir George. Grey) was an inconsistent man, He pointed out, however, that the very object he had in view when he was Governor was to prevent the Maoris selling their land, and to lease it. He understood now that the whole of the land was likely to fall into the hands of private speculators.. Such would never have been the - case had his plan been carried out. He submitted that a strict record of the accusations made against him should be carefully preserved ; and the House owed it not only to him; but to themselves, the country, and posterity, to have the matter thoroughly investigated. He hoped sincerely that the House would concede to him this much as an aet of simple justice. ' • , , • Mr. REES next addressed the House at considerable length, and after replying to the statements made regarding himself by Mr. Ormond, proceeded in defence of the hon. member for the Thames, who he submitted was cleared by the explanation of Mr, Cox of the imputations levelled at him. A division was then taken on the previous question, which was carried by 41 to 34. Following is the division list:— Ayes. 34: Baigent, Barff, Bastings, J. C. Brown, (Tuapeka), J. 34. Brown (Ashley), Do Lautour, Dignan, Fisher, Gisborne, Grey, Hamlin, Hislop, Hodgklnson, Larnach, Lusk, Macantlrow (teller), Montgomery, Nahe, O'ilorko, fyke, Rees, Seaton, Sheehan (teller), Stout, Swanson, Talaroa, Takamoana, Thomson, Tole, Travers, Wakefield, Wallis; Williams, W. -Wood, Noes, 41: Atkinson, Ballanco, Beotham, Bowen, Brandon, Bryce, Burns, Curtis, Douglas (toller). Fox, Fiizfoy, Gibbs, Harper, Henry, Hutsthouse, Johnston, Kelly, Kenny, Lumsden, Macfarlane (teller),' Manders, McLean, : Moorhouse, Morris, MurrayAynaloy, Ormond, Held, Reynolds, Richardson, Richmond, Russell, Seymour, Sharp, Stafford, Stevens, Sutton, Tawiti, Teschemaker, Wason, Whltakqr, Woolcock. Pairs Ayes: Shrlmski, Bunny, Rolloston, E, Wood. Noes; Kennedy, Button, Hunter, Cox. Mr. STOUT asked the Speaker if he would be in order in now moving the same motion again? . The SPEAKER ruled that the motion could not bo accepted. EDUCATION BILL. The House then went into committee for the further consideration of the Education Bill. A discussion followed on clause . 38,’ when Mr. Stout moved for progress to be reported. This motion was rejected. Clause 39 then’ passed without amendment. The House rose at 12.30.