THE GOVERNOR’S DESPATCH.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4884, 16 November 1876, Page 6

THE GOVERNOR’S DESPATCH.

-The following is the Mansard report of the speech of Mr. George Hunter (M.H.R. for Wellington) on the debate in reference to hia Excellency’s despatch concerning Sir George Grey’s ridiculous application to Earl Carnar‘von on the foolish assumption that force would be used to bring the Abolition Act into operationi: — .. . ~ , Mr. Hunter.'—Sir, this discussion, which has lasted a long time, appears to me to be confined very much to two .points—first, to serious accusations against his Excellency the Governor ; and secondly, to the vindication of the Conduct of an ex-Governor of the colony, Sir George Grey, the member for the Thames. Now, it appears to me that the people of New Zealand require to he vindicated against the very strong and uncalled-for accusations which have been hurled against them. No hon. gentleman in this House knows better than the hon.i member for the Thames, as he has. lived so long in this colony, that there is nothing whatever to justify in the slightest degree that hon. gentleman having any reason to believe that the inhabitants of this colony would rise and rebel against her Majesty’s authority. The hon. gentleman is well acquainted with the past history of this colony, and he knows, and has himself borne testimony to, the good conduct, loyalty, and devotion of the people of New Zealand to, her Majesty the Queen. There is nothing whatever to justify the accusations which were brought against the people of this colory ; which accusations were the foundation and first origin of this correspondence which we have been discussing. It is all very well to talk about disturbances being imminent. I say that the hon. gentleman must have known—and I believe he did know, if he will do justice to the inhabitants of this colony—that such an idea never would have entered into their minds, and never would have been carried out by them in any shape or form. But, sir, I was rather surprised during this discussion to find that no reference whatever was made to a very recent expression of the same view on the part of the hon. gentleman. I find, on October 7 of this very year, Sir George Grey, as Superintendent of the province of Auckland, sends a telegram to the Secretary of State for ‘ the Colonies. I have not heard it contradicted. It appears in a newspaper published in this city, and I am entitled to assume that it is correct. In this telegram he says, “Disturbances imminent. Some threaten employment Queen's ships.” Now, where is the evidence to justify any reasonable man of common sense and : intelligence in using such words as “disturbances imminent ?” I say that there ia nothing to justify the most ordinary member of this House in using such an expression as that, much leas a gentleman possessed of the knowledge, intelligence, and experience of that honorable gentleman. There has been nothing brought forward ia the debates of this House, there was nothing that occurred throughout the country, there was nothing that appeared in the telegrams published in the different parts of the colony—nothing to justify such a declaration as this. We have heard much loud talking about this, that, and the other thing about to be done on the part of gentlemen holding her Majesty’s commission of Justices of the. Peace ; but we know, and that hon. gentleman knows, how entirely such stories are without foundation. The people of New Zealand have always been and will always be loyal and well disposed, and there is nothing that: will ever induce mo to form such a low opinion of them as to suppose that they would place themselves in such a position as to render it necessary to threaten to employ the Queen’s ships against them. Now, we are asked to believe that statement in the city of Wellington. His Excellency the Governor is resident here; the Ministry are here; the Parliament is in session; and I apprehend that if the honorable member for the Thames entertained.any such opinion at this, that the Ministry werethreatening to employ the Queen’s ships, it would have been easy for him to have put a question direct bn the subject. I apprehend that her Majesty’s ships can only be employed, as is pointed out in this despatch which has been so > severely commented upon, through the instrumentality of his Excellency the Governor, and his Excellency: would only act on and by the advice of hia Responsible Advisers. I have before pointed out in ' this House that the hon. member for the Thames has over and over again: endeavored' to sap the .very principle of responssble government, which was granted to this colony on clear, distinct, and specific grounds, " We undertook, the manage-; ment of our own affairs; the hon. member knows very well that this was determined at the time her Majesty’s troops were all withdrawn from this colony. Under these circumstances; so long as the gentlemen occupying those benches possess the confidence of a majority of the members of this House, they are responsible to hia Excellency, the Governor and to the Parliament of New Zealand now assembled. If the statements of the, hon. mombor for the Thames ' can' bo borne out by facts, it Was clearly his duty ds d representative in Parlia-; ment,|andas the Superintendent of the province of Auckland, to have brought the matter before the Assembly. I say this, with all

respect for the hon. gentleman ; that his assertion as to threats having been used by the people is altogether without foundation—that it ought to be scattered to the winds as a thing not deserving of one moment’s consideration. It is difficult, in speaking of this matter, to characterise it in language which would be considered parliamentary. Then this statement in the hon. member’s telegram is followed up by these words : “ I earnestly pray telegraph to prevent disturbances. Abolition Act should be disallowed provincial Legislatures not consulted.” What does, that mean ? What is the practical meaning of those words ? It is that the Government of England, or rather the Secretary of State for the Colonies, is to exercise his power of interfering—that he is to interfere with the representatives of the people governing this colony. It means neither more nor less than this, let-us disguise it in whatever language we may. We may attempt to mystify words, but the common sense meaning of that is this : that practically a foreign Power is to exercise control in governing this colony. Some gentleman says “ No.” He will have an opportunity of following me ; but I fancy he will find it a very difficult matter to disprove the assertion which I have made, that it is a direct attempt to interfere with that which has been decided on by the majority of the representatives of the people. The words used in the hon. gentleman’s telegram are, “ I “ I earnestly pray telegraph ■ to prevent disturbances.” The position of the matter I apprehend to be this : It is a topic which I have not touched upon once during this session, but many members are aware of the position X took up last session. I was one of those who voted and did all I could at that time to prevent abolition of the provinces. I did not take the view that abolition would be for the interest of the colony. X took up that position, and voted against the passing of the Abolition of Provinces' Act. I stated most distinctly and positively that I regarded it as a matter which should be referred to the arbitration of the people of New Zealand, that the next general election would determine the question, and that I should feel myself bound loyally to carry out that'which was proved tobe theopinionof the large majority of thepeople of this colony. The point was fairly raised. It was put to the people of this colony, and they returned a direct verdict, and that was that these institutions should be abolished and some other form of government substituted in their stead. I have endeavored to do my small share faithfully and loyally. Whatis the position taken up by the hon. member for the Thames? His desire is that a foreign Power shall come and interpose to prevent effect being given to that which was the express wish of the people of this colony. The hon. member for the Thames has had an opportunity of over and over again expressing his opinions on this subject in this House, and if he believed that he possessed the confidence of the majority of the representatives of the people, he should, as leader of the Opposition, on- the first or second day of the session, have come down with a distinct want of confidence motion. If he had done that the question would have been settled at once. If, as he says, the majority of the people are ia ; favor of his view of the question, then the state of things would have been reversed, and the Opposition would have occupied the position of the Government. He knows that the opinion of the country and of this House is against the view taken by tbe Opposition. That would have been a direct and : fair issue to put, and It would have brought the matter fairly before the country. I hold that full power is conferred upon the inhabitants of this colony to govern themselves. We have the right, under the laws existing here, to amend our own Constitution. It is a perfectly fair inference to assume that the matter has been considered by the ablest legal authorities in -England, and that it has been held that we had the power to pass this Act, otherwise it would have been disallowed. Sir George Grey then says, in his telegram; “ Abolition Act should be disallowed if provincial Legislatures not consulted.", The hon. member knows as well as I do that it was impossible to consult the provincial Legislatures. This Parliament passed an Act prohibiting them from meeting again. It, was impossible they could meet as members of a. Provincial Council to give their opinion in their! small Parliament. It would have been a direct violation of the law. Something has been said about the delay in sending the letter by tbe hon. member for the Thames to the 'Governor—that Sir George Grey’s letter reached the Secretary of State by one mail, and that of his Excellency by the next mail. It was unfortunate that accusations against the people of New Zealand and the letter of the Governor referring to them had not gone together, and it would have been better if Sir George Grey had delayed sending for a month his letter abusing the Governor and people of this colony, so that it should not have gone without a contrary statement. Under similar circumstances, it I had been unable to send a letter bringing such accusations, I should have thought I should have been wise to have delayed forwarding it until the comments bn it should have gone with it. That is the view I should have taken of the matter. Something was said about submitting the Governor’s despatches to Sir George Grey, but I do not think it has been the practice to do so. Reference was made by the hon. member for the Thames to the correspondent of the Times, and a charge was made against a gentleman who is not a member of this House. I take occasion to say that that journal is, of all others, careful in the selection of its correspondents, and as a rule it gives circulation to nothing which there is not fair reason to suppose was correct. During the discussion, a great deal has been said about the population of the different provinces, and the proportion in favor of and against the proposed constitutional changes ; and I have taken the trouble to make an estimate of this matter. According to the last census the population of the colony was 375,866 souls. My estimate will go, of course, for what it is worth, but the following is to my mind the proportion of those in favor of the continuance of the old state of thing and those opposed to it. I find that the province of Auckland contains 79,000 people, and from what I have seen in this House, and what X have learned, I deny that there is unanimous feeling in 'that province, as has been represented here. The return of members to this House shows that a very large portion of the inhabitants of that province were in favor of a change in the constitution, I estimate that in Auckland probably oue-half were in favor of abolition ; Taranaki, five-sixths ; in Wellington, three-fourths ; Hawke’s Bay and Marlborough were pretty unanimously in favor of abolition ; Nelson had five-sixths in favor of it; the same with Westland. As to Canterbury, I feel Some hesitation, but I assume that threefourths are in favor of a change ; and in Otago, where I know the feeling in favor of provincialism is very much stronger than in any other places; I take only one-fourth as in favor of abolition. That gives 160,000 out of 875,000 as in favor of the old state of things, or rather less than one-half of the population of the country. One very important point seems to me to have been lost sight of. It is this : Although the Auckland and Otago members may represent a very largo majority of the constituencies, an immense number of people, forming the. minority, are not represented. We have a very clear and convincing proof of that in the case of the late member for Dunedin city, Mr. Reynolds, ‘who was rejected by his old constituents and was elected for Port Chalmers ; therefore it was quite clear that there was a different feeling in two districts very close to each other. At the Thames election there was an instance of a double return ; Sir George Grey was returned both for the Thames and Auckland City West. We hare seen very clearly that the hon. member for the Thames, Mr. Rowe, ■ and the hon. member for, the Thames, Sir George Grey, differ in their views;, and I believe it was thought that if Sir George ; Grey did not elect to sit for the Thames, a member would have been returned for that district who entertained views similar to those of Mr; Rowe. ~, Mr. Swanson : A question of money. Mr.; Hunter : The hon member for Newtown says that it is a question of money. >, No doubt money is a very important element, and can do a great deal; but I do not think money would i buy two-thirds of the people of New Zealand. IRave not such a poor opinion of

them as that. They have no right whatever to be charged with such an accusation. If I understand the argument of the hon. member for Newton, it is this ; that the hon. member for the Thames, having the larger command -of money, was able to return himself for the Thames in opposition to poorer men. That is the inference I draw—-that the Thames constituency is to be bought just like the rotten boroughs at Home used to be. The hon. member for Newton says “No ;” but I can only draw Hiy own inference, for he stated it was a question of money. Sir, the hon. member for Newton is interrupting me. Mr. Speaker : The hon. member for Newton is out of order. M. Hunter : X am entitled to draw that inference. I hope I have not transgressed the rules of the House in any way, for I always try to keep in order. The remarks of the hon. member conveyed the impression that the Thames was a constituency that could be bought, and therefore Sir George had a better chance than any other man. If the hon. member for Newton objects to that conclusion, he will be able to reply to my remarks. I should not have said one word upon this subject, had I not thought that the people of New Zealand were not being • fairly treated throughout this discussion. They have been maligned; accusations have been hurled against them; and I, as an old resident of the country —one who has lived in it from its earliest days —say that neither directly nor indirectly is there any warrant for the assumption that they -will not readily obey the laws of this country, and render proper obedience to the representatives of the Queen.