THE WEST COAST COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6413, 7 June 1882, Page 6

THE WEST COAST COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.

[BY CORRESPONDENT.] i Wellington, Tuesday. The chief. Parliamentary interest to-day centred in the Legislative Council, where the Hon. Robert Hart delivered a very interesting speech of an hour and on this West Coast native question. Speaking to the motion that a Select Committee be appointed to report upon certain allegations in the report of the West Coast Royal Commission, there was an unusually large muster in the galleries, including several members of the other House, and also Mr. Stout, ;who took copious notes of Mr.-I Hart's speech. Mr. Hart analysed the statement of the Commission that "in September, 1565, the whole coast, from Wanganui to the White Cliffs, was confiscated under the powers of the New Zealand Settlement Act." - He showed that t&e alleged confiscation.was not made in the terms of the Act under which it professed to be made, which was essential to .the validity of such a proceeding, and' when in the following year a Bill was- introduced to amend the Settlement Act, the clause which validated all proclamations of confiscation made, "or had been made," was altered in committee by the words quoted being struck out on the motion of-Mr. J. C. Richmond. Therefore, he; contended there had been no valid confiscation at all. He warmly defended Sir Donaid McLean and his policy, maintaining that had he lived to complete it he would have pacified and settled the West Coast atan enormously less expense than tliat incurred under Mr, Bryce's measures. He'also quoted evidence to show that instead of Sir G. Whitmore. being prevented by Sir I Donald McLean and his colleagues from prosecuting a career of-military conquest, such- as would : have settled . the native difficulty for ever, Sir G. Whitmore had already done, all that was practicable, and could ;, have ■ achieved no good' result by going'on. ••-' He also urged that unfavourable consequences would ; have ensued to the colony had the native war been allowed,to continue, as it would have damaged the prospects of the Public Works and Immigration policy of the Fox-Vogel Government,; . "which was then in course, pf inception. In illustration vof this, he adduced the fact that at the time New Zealand ' floated the • last loan, when her debentures only ' brought' 81, the Queensland debentures, at the samerate, of interest, readily fetched 101. The ; difference,, he asserted, was due to the operations against the natives on the West Coast then, proceeding, and the loss of outside confidence thus caused. ,:lu'; this way alone he said. the..' . native difficulty cost the colony at .least a hundred thousand pounds in addition to the expenditure on the constabulary and the -volunteers. It would have been muchi cheaper and better to bave.made friendly terms with the natives than to enforce the confiscation which was of doubtful legality, and would assuredly have been challenged had Tβ W'hiti been brought to trial. .: He severely condemned the conduct of Sir W. Fox and I Sir F. D. Bell in reporting as they had .' when the materials were available to enable them to arrive at an accurate conclusion. He quoted.fro-n Sir W. Fox's speeches, as Premier,.and as the leader of the Opposition in 1872, and compared them with passages in the report signed by him in 1880, as showing the extreme inconsistency. He characterised the laudation of Mr. J. Hall's Ministry in the Commissioners' report as absolutely indecent. In short, the speech was a remarkably vigorous balancing of.the defence of the Sir Donald McLean policy and his own incisive' criticism of the policy alike of the Grey and Hall Ministries. , : Sir George Whitmore was evidently preparing'a warm reply, for he had an enormous ! pile of papers, old Hansards, and newspaper -files .-■before him in readiness, but the time was up just as , Mr. Hart concluded, so his reply is deferred till tomorrow. A strong speech is also expected from Mr. Whitaker; The debate may materially influence the fate of the Peace Preservation Bill, which evidently will meet with considerable opposition in the Council, but will almost certainly pass.