NEW ZEALAND AFFAIRS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1398, 11 May 1865, Page 3

NEW ZEALAND AFFAIRS.

The following letter appeared in the Times of Feb. G ®!>~ l Educed to request that you will insert the following reply to certain points contained in the letter of Mr. FitzGerald, not touched upon by your correspondent «C. M. 1t.," because I am satisueu that his letter and the document called "The uisefor New Zealand" have been prepared and forwarded home for publication, just on the eve of the meeting of Parliament, in the liope that by creating a prejudice against Sir George Grey and the present policy of the Colonial office, the House of Commons may be induced to reconsider its determination not to guarantee any further loans for New Zealand, and possiblj (but I trust this may not prove to be the case) to prepare the way for something like repudiation of the heavy debt now owing to Great Britain for the expenses of the war, &c., unless the colonists are allowed to have the uncontrolled employment of her Majesty's forces (10,000 men) now engaged in the colony. The plea "that the Queen's representative has been the sole cause of the war," and therefore that this country ought to bear the burden of it, is made rather late in the day—if it had been urged in Governor Browne's time there might have been some truth in it; but, even admitting that Sir George l*rey, urged on by the New Zealand ministry, was wrong in treating the firing on the troops at Oakura (iaranaki) as a fresh casus belli, it is easy to show from the speeches of Mr. FitzGerald himself that neither he nor anybody else, until just recently, treated that event as a fresh starting point, or sought to tlx the whole responsibility on the British Government, because Sir George Grey the Governor, and not the ministry of New Zealand, was the sole

author of the new war. If ever such a plea was to be urged, the fitting time would certainly have been m November, 1863, when the New Zealand Legislature was engaged in passing three measures for the suppression of the rebellion, and the providing means out of their own resources for defraying the cost. These measures consisted of— 1. "The bupression of Rebellion Act"—a copy of the Irish Act of 1779. 2. " The New Zealand Settlement Act"—a measure for confiscating native lands to provide for 20,000 military settlers, and leave a balance to defray ultimately the £3,000,000 loan and interest. 3. " The Loan Act," by which £3,000,000 were authorized to be raised in this country to pay off old debts and to provide the sinews of war. On the motion for the second reading of " The New Zealand Settlements Act" in the House of Representatives, Mr. iitzGerald spoke immediately after the seconder, and as he now truly says, alluded to the different topics he has now grouped together in his letter—viz., " the digging round the Maori king, ' the redoubt in the guise of a school-house," " the military occupation of Tataraimaka," " the delay in settling the Waitara question," and " the invasion of Waikato but in what way did he allude to them ? Did he urge them as the sole acts of the Governor, and denounce him to the House (only too thankful for the suggestion, "if true") as the sole responsible author of their difficulties ? On the contrary, he alluded to them as the acts of the Government, and as showing that "they themselves by their policy had brought about that state of things which had rendered coercive measures necessary." These are his exact words ; I quote them from the Daily Southern Cross newspaper (Auckland, November 7, 1863), and also the following words with which he prefaced his remarks :— "He knew it was very little use addressing the House on this subject, as he knew the mind of the House was made up as to what it would do. All he could do was to enter a solitary protest That Waitara question (1860) was at the root of the present war, and that Waitara question was the policy of the late Government. By that he did not mean to say his lion, friend the native Minister, or the late Colonial Secretary, because he] refused to enter in this House into a discussion as to who held one opinion or who held another in the "government of the colony. . . . He thought that splitting up of the Government into individual minds was a /y/v. * "'O- — — created a division .between the Ministers and the person of the Governor. He now expected any such difference from his consideration, and in the remarks which he would make he did not mean to apply them personally to Sir George Grey, for he did not know whether Sir George Grey wrote those dispatches to the Duke of Newcastle himself, or whether his native Minister or any one else wrote them. Nor did he want to know; but he would speak of the Government as a whole, that being, as he conceived, the constitutional attitude which the Government ought to hold with reference to the House;" and towards the close of his speech, Mr. FitzGerald made the admission, notwithstanding his protest, that " he did not then say that the war was not then necessary and justifiable." I pass on now to the second point made in Mr. FitzGerald's letter, which he says is of main importance—namely, the alleged breach of the compact entered into between the home Government and the colony, under which the latter undertook the responsibility of managing native affairs, and upon the faith of which they immediately voted three millions to carry out their own policy towards the natives, including the uncontrolled employment of

10,000 British troops just as they pleased. Now, sir, I will show from official documents, and from Mr. FitzGerald's own speeches—first, that no such compact as represented ever existed, and consequently there has been no breach of it; and secondly, that the three millions were not voteil (as they could not be) upon the faith of it, or the supposed existence of any such compact. First, if any such compact existed, it would be found in the Duke of Newcastle's dispatch of the 26th of February, 1863, requiring the colonists to undertake the responsibility of native affairs (see House of Commons Papers, No. 467 of 1863, p. 134), and the resolution of the New Zealand House of Representatives, dated 6th of November, 1863, accepting the responsibility on the terras proposed. (See New Zealand Papers, presented March 3, 1864, p. 97.) But if we turn to the Duke's dispatch we shall find that he expressly reserves to the Governor the power of doing what Mr. Cardwell has now directed to be done, and wkich Mr. FitzGerald objects to—namely, the right of the Governor to act on his own responsibility in the employment of the troops, without, or even contrary to, the advice of his Ministers. Indeed, the dispatch goes much further. These are the words (p. 141) " Your constitutional position with regard to your advisers will (as desired by your late Ministry) be the same in regard to native as to ordinary colonial affairs—that is to say, you will be generally bound to give effect to the policy which they recommend for your adoption, and for which, therefore, they will be responsible. I say, generally, because there remain several contingencies in winch it would be your duty to act upon your own judgment in opposition to theirs. You would be bound to exercise the negative powers which you possess, by preventing any step which invaded imperial rights or was at varience with the pledges, on the faith of which Her Majesty's Government acquired the sovereignty of New Zealand, or in any other way marked by evident injustice towards Her Majesty's subjects of the native race. . . You would be bound to judge for you!self as to the justice and propriety of employing, and the best mode of employing Her Majesty's forces. In this'matter you might, of course, fortify yourself by taking the opinions of your Ministers, but the responsibility would rest with yourself and the officer in command." After reading this extract, must not evry impartial person admit that this dispatch, solemnly assented to, as it was by the New Zealand Legislature, formed of itself standing instructions to the then and all future Governors of New Zealand to do exactly what Sir George Grey has done, and that Mr. Cardwell'a later dispatches or instructions now complained of, were, in fact, simple reminders of what was his duty under the real compact or engagement thus entered into. Secondly, tho New Zealand Assembly did not, in November, 186.1, vote tho £3,000,000, and pass the other measures, above-mentioned, on the faith of perfectly uncontrolled responsibility in native affairs thrust upon them, as alleged by Mr. FitzGerald. In tho faco of tho above dispatch it is impossible for any sane man to say that they did so. But what are the facts ? Why, sir, the policy of the military settlements was decided on long before responsible government was accepted by tho Legislature. At tho date of the receipt of the Duke's dispatch (about July, 1863) tho Domett Ministry were engaged in devising measures essential, as they considered, for the safety of the colony. Their plan of introducing military settlers from Australia, &c., is dated the 31st of July (see papers presented the 3rd of March, 1864, p. 54), and before the Assembly met on the 19 th of October 2000 men or more had arrived in Auckland. On the 27th of that month, Mr. Domett, the Premier, an another retired from the Ministry, and were ! succeeded by Mr. W hi taker and Mr. Pox. Th« new 1

S l '. 1 ,7„'" lopt f i p 2 licy ,helr PredecMwr., and after passing the first two of the above three , Who ™ P"«t .ly.T. spirit of " panic legislation, with very slight informadon as to facts, and without time for inquiry or thought," they brought In the Loan Bill. On the second reading of this Bill (17th November, 1863), Mr. FitzGerald denounced the whole of the three measures, and the proceedings they were intended to sanction, as opposed to the Constitution conferring responsible government. lie complained that he was tongue-tied, compelled to sanction the unconstitutional acts of the Government, and to vote money as a matter of form. He said " The late Government levied forces, as I think, in a state of panic, and we are here now to vote money and to sanction things that they have done. I accept the position ; nay, I will go furtl.tr than that, iiSi j flay, if there was any obstacle in the way of the House of Assembly being called together, it would have been the duty of the Governor in any case to accept the responHibility of holding the country safe. But it is because I see that there was no obstacle to calling the Assembly together for two whole months that I say we are met here to-night, as a mere form—as a mere snarn, to vote money which the Executive Government has deprived us of the opportunity of expressing an opinion about at all." And then, at the close of his speech, he further dissociates the then legislation from any real or leintimate connexion with responsibility in native affkira by asking the following question " Shall it go home that we who have accepted the responsibility of native affairs have made it one of our first acts to deprive the natives of one-half of their broad lands in the northern bland? Sir, it ro.jr be ,J3 and pamful necessity that we should do so, but they will not believe it in England, but will, I am afraid consider, it an exceedingly questionable transaction. . . . Ido hope that the House will consider this point so that it may not be turned to our injury which it will be when the men of the home coun'ry see that we are spending the hard-earned tax pennies of the English taxpayers for the purpose of enabling J the colonists of New Zealand to aggrandize themselves with the lands of the natives. That would be a degradation which we should not submit to." —(See Southern Cross, Nov. 19, 1863.) Surely nothing is wanted to prove the unfounded character of Mr. FitzGerald's charges. But a still stronger fact remains. On the second reading of the New Zealand Settlements Bill, Mr. FitzGerald, in addition to recording his solitary protest beforementioned, declared " that his reliance was in the fact that the Act would not come into operation until it had received the assent of her Majesty; and he felt sure that her Majesty would never give her assent to an Act which professed to give arbitraiy power to the Government of the colony to enter upon all native lands." Now, here we have a distinct suggestion to the Home Government to nullify the whole native policy and legislation of the Government of New Zealand, made by the very man who now sets up a solemn engagement existing at that very moment to secure that Government from all such interference. If Mr, Cardwell had adopted that course, what would Mr. FitzGerald have said ? But the truth is that the bills were not, in fact, expressly reserved for the

Queen's assent, and Mr. Cardwell did not object to their invalidity on that ground. As the Acts had been already brought into operation in New Zealand, the Government adopted the very mild course of agreeing to guarantee one-third of the loan, on condition that the New Zealand Legislature itself revised and corrected these obnoxious measures, and at the same time merely reminded the Governor of his stipulated powers and responsibilities in the interests of humanity, economy, and peace. In thus replying to Mr. FitzGerald's charges I have not indulged in mere assertion, but I have given authority for all my statements, so as, in this matter at least, to supply an answer to your very befitting question—" VVhom and what are we to believe ?" I have the honour to be yours, &c., An Old New Zealand Settles.