HOW WAS THE QUESTION ANSWERED?

New Zealander, Volume XVII, Issue 1587, 3 July 1861, Page 2

HOW WAS THE QUESTION ANSWERED?

To the Editor of the New-Zkalandek, S, k, —No doubt the out-settlers arc exceedingly thankful to the Government for the magnanimous, kind, considerate, statesman-like forethought exhibited in the cool, deliberate reply of the Colonial Secretary to the Life and Death question put by Mr. Williamson, but they did not at such a crisis—after many of them had sacrificed timoandmoney as Volunteers in the Cavalry and Infantry—expect the Colonial Secretary would threaten or insult them with a passage to Nelson or with a second edition of Taranaki; no, they did not expect that he would add insult to injury. The out-settlers have not only to be thankful to the Government, they have also to bo thankful to Mr. Firth for pointing out the “ Natural Fund” from which ht proposes they out to be compensated; but the settlers have no desire to be compensated from funds obtained in the way he indicates, and at the cost of a burden on the industry of England and the Colony more than the land is worth, Mr. Firth may think it a proper fund to draw upon if Auckland City is destroyed in the struggle. The country settler has no notion that a few acres of waste land, some sixty or seventy miles away from the centres of civilization, in a country where the probabilities arc that, the roving remnant a noble race may occasionally show their revenge in the midnight murder and the blazing homestead; no, they have no such notion that that is the only fund from which the ruined settler is to look for compensation. That may suit the views of the Land Speculator, but not the ruined settler; they feel that there wore two parties in the matter, and it was neither reasonable nor fair that the war should have commenced at the instance of one of the parties without the consent of the other. Lastly, when the anti-Maori orator donned the mantle of the demagogue, in his false inference relative to Charles James Fox, the frog did not reach to the size of the ox, but the glow-worm tried to outshine the sun. Yes, the out-settlers have read the Policy of the Noono’mian Government in the repeal of the Arms and Ammunition Ordinance—in the letter of Mr. Farris—in the Native Offenders’ and Militia Bills-in the cry of the exiles at Nelson—by the light of the burning homesteads of Taranaki —and in the Colonial Secretary’s late speech, and they take exception to being branded as “ cowards , slaves, and knaves,' Irecause they differ from the Government about cutting their own throats, destroying their own property, and burdenin'-their children and their children s children with an unjust and intolerable debt. They do not envy the members of the Government standing on the apex of a monument of human skulls. 1 hey will leave it to the impartial historian to pillory m the pages of New Zealand history those who arc the real “ cowards, slaves, and knaves.” ’ Yours, &c., AU’KEUOS.

To the Editor of the Nkw-Zkalanuek. Sir, —The Southern Cross having declined to in so it the following letter before the discussion on Mr. fox s motion, I have to request for it a place in your journal. A few trifling alterations have been made. M. 11. R.

To the Editor of the Southern Cross. Sir,—The present session of the Assembly is more than usually overlaid with mystification and imbroglio. It would almost seem that the main object was to “hoodwink the home government.” Allow me therefore, to offer my bumble aid in making ir.ti’llii/tblo some of the late ptuaaaliaeiL——

It is unnecessary to go so far back as to the government war resolutions, and Mr. Firth s amendment, characterized as “the amendment which nobody understood.” The mystification is cleared away by a letter which appeared in the Aucklander ol -lie 27ih ultimo. It suffices to take up the matter where that 1C It appears that the governor did not “understand,” any more that the house or the public. Ills desire a very proper one-was to make all clear it he could. But, unfortunately, he adopted indefensible means. He sent down a message to the house, demanding explanation, in very stringent terms But, in so doing, he took his own ministers by surprise ; not having given them the slightest intimation of his intention to address the house without previously advising with the cabinet, or with his executive council. Many thought that, they would immediately resign their offices to mark their sense of the slight thus put upon them ; I thought differently, although, some three or four years ago, I should have thought the same. It is quite clear, on consideration of the “ memorandum” which is the basis oi responsible government in New Zealand, of the explanatory clause, and of the Governor’s instructions, that his excellency made a mistake; that he broke the compact, not only in spirit, but even in the letter. He was probably not aware that he was technically wrong, otherwise he would not have acted as he did; but must have known that he was departing from the intention of the compact. II he believed that he had a right to communicate directly with the house, he should at. least have informed his ministers that he claimed that right, and was about to exercise it; so as to give them an opportunity of remonstrating if they placed a different interpretation on the terms of the memorandum. Secrecy and surprise are fatal errors in the governing of English men. The sending home of grave charges against a high functionary in this colony, without previously informing the accused, so as to give him tlie opportunity of defence, not gotten. The expression, “secretly transmitted, is not too strong. It was moved by the Colonial Secretary, that the Governor’s message he considered on the following day. Meanwhile, a meeting of opposition and of neutral members was held. It was there unanimously resolved, not to treat this manor as a party question, but to give the heartiest support to the ministry, on the question of the compact, i! they would only be true to themselves. When the time arrived, Mr. Stafford moved that the house do resolve into committee of the whole for the purpose ot considering the Governor’s message. It must here he observed that there were two matters for consideration ; the sending down the message direct, without advice; and the substance of the message itself As much excitatation was apprehended, Mr. lox endeavoured to treat them separately, by taking the debate in the first on the motion for going into committee, i.e., with the Speaker in the chair; and the second, which was likely to be calmly treated, in committee of the whole. The Government were at the same time informed, that it had been determined not to treat this matter as a party question. Tlu> risk of an outbreak of feeling, on dangerous questions,in committee, is well known. In the house, none but the mover can speak more than once. He who has no opportunity of rising again is careful of what he says. In committee, a member can rise as often as he will; he can excite himself and others too ; thrust and parry goes on as rapidly as in a fencing match. Yet the Government insisted upon sending both questions together into committee, thereby throwing all into nearly irretrievable confusion. And then, Mr. Stafford proceeded to add fuel to the fire. He made a speech, which, for bad taste, and for mischievous intention, I have not seen paralleled in the course of my political experience. 11l timed, ill judged, and in ‘ill feeling. Moreover, the ground had been cut from beneath his feet by the positive and repeated declaration, that it had been resolved not to treat that question as a party question. But the speech had to he delivered, and to gain a pretext for it, he imputed falsehood to the opposition. That honourable member is much too find of this, the most offensive imputation. Surely he ought to he chary of trespassing too far upon forbearance,—of provokin r a retort that would give him hitter annoyance. Had it not been for the admirable temper displayed by Wellington, the chairman might have found himself powerless to control the excitement. To the great surprise of the uninitiated, the ministry backed up the Governor’s proceedings, placing an interpretation on the memorandum exactly contrary to that which they gave to the house r <n the 7th of August, 1858. An extract from the Colonial Secretary’s speech of that date, on the Native Offenders’ Bill, is given in the Aucklander of this day’s date. Moreover, if the modern interpretation be the right one, what becomes of the argument which the Ministry have so often repeated, when reproached with interference with the war—an imperial, and not a settler's question,—namely that they were sworn te advise the Governor in till matters whatever, and therefore had no option. Mr. Fox, avoiding declamation, proved the case against them and evidently had the ear ol the house. So ended the first aet of the drama. The second concerned the substance of the Governor’s message, which was to the effect that unless he were assured of cordial co-operation from the colony, both in men and money, the troops would he sent home again. Mr. Stafford read and moved an address >n reply, by which it was understood the ministiy were to stand or fall. Mr. Fox moved that the chairman do report progress, in order that an amendment might be prepared. Some irregular discussion took place, by leave of the committee; but the motion for reporting progress hindered the formal reading of the address by the chair. On the following day, a meeting of members was held, (not “ a convivial mecling in a tavern,” as most improperly stated by the Government, who arc far too careless oi’ assertion when hard pressed, but in a committee room of the House), where amendments were framed which were agreed to hy a majority of the House. These were entrusted to Mr. Saunders to move; they were made no secret of, but printed and distributed. When the debate was resumed, the chairman called upon the Colonial Secretary to bring up the address in reply, which had not yet been placed in his hands. It was then read from the chair, when, to the astonishment of many members, who at first supposed that the chairman had made a mistake, and was reading the wrong address, it appeared that the Colonia 1 Secretary (it would be unfair to say the Ministry —for I feel sure that the member for Cheviot, at least, had neither art nor part in the transaction) —had appropriated the amendments, incorporating them with the address originally read. The effect of this was to hinder the alterations from being moved as amendments by the framers of thorn. A point of order was raised, whether the Colonial Secretary, having previously read and moved his address, could alter it without leave. A debate ensued on the point of order, during which the Ministry were very roughly handled, being downrightly charged with “stealing” the amendments. The Colonial Treasurer, in defending his colleague, raised a roar of laughter, hy declaring that his conduct was quite natural. Ido not myself go quite so far in expression as some honourable members did, but rather incline to the excuse made hy ancient Pistol, in the Merry Wives of Windsor; “Steal! a fico for the phrase : the wise convey it call.” I do not hesitate to record my opinion that it was the shabbiest piece of work I ever witnessed. I can forgive a crime more readily than a trick. And the worst of it is that the Ministry arc unable to see any harm in it. They seem to be quite unconscious of having done wrong. If they were heartily ashamed, there might be hope of them still, lint the Colonial Treasurer, although he said repeatedly, “Let them enjoy their small triumph over us, if they will.” never offered to restore the goods, lie was careful to the last that the alterations should not be moved by way of amendment. The debate, was put an end to hy the chairman’s ruling, on a technical point, that the committee were not fully in possession of amotion until it had been formally*read hy himself, and, therefore, that (he Colonial Secretary was not out of order in altering his motion. I am, sir, Yours, &e., A Mkmukk ok tub Housk. July 1,1801.

To the Editor of the Nkw-Zealandkk.

Sik,—Perhaps some of your correspondents will kindly enlighten me, u “new chum,” on the ascertained relative values of the different imported Grasses, as grown in this Province. 1 have a small bush clearing of some three to three and a half acres, sow a in different Grasses: —Perennial Rye, Italian Rye, and Timothy, with Red, White, ami Alsikc Clovers, mgethcr with a patch (one and a half acres) sown in what the seedsmen, (Thos. Gibbs & Co., seedsmen to the Royal Agricultural Society of England), call “Mixed natural Grasses for permanent Pastures.” Of all these, the Italian Rye. at present, appears by far the best, being the most rapid in its growth ; but, how is it found to stand in this country? Some say it dies off in the course of a year or two, is this so: or is it only parties who have unstaken the Annual for the Italian Rye who say so? I am, &e., ;A. Buchan Biukik.