MR. HALL'S SPEECH.

Otago Witness, Issue 890, 19 December 1868, Page 1

MR. HALL'S SPEECH.

In a recent address to his constituents, Mr Hall entered into a lengthy exposition of the Ministerial policy during the late session. The result was not gratifying, either to him or to hia colleagues. The electors unanimously condemned the conduct of the Government in a resolution worded as follows : ' That the thanks of this meeting be accorded to the hon. tfoHir Hail for his attendance here this evening, but that this meeting disapproves of the conduct of the Stafford Government.' Mr Halt, has lost hie popularity, for the present at any rate. His anxious labours during the session have produced a very barren result. He cannot point out any Ministerial measure of which the Ministry can be proud. He cannot even frame a defence for Ministerial failures which his own constituency can accept. His speech was listened to with patience from beginning to end, but the only effect it produced upon his audience was that of disappointment. The speech in itself was a good one; it went over a great deal of ground ; if it was not exhaustive it was at least comprehensive. It amounts however to little more than a repetition of statements with which the readers of Hansard are familiar. By far the most important part of it relates to Native affairs and the present disturbances in particular. His remarks on this subject are of great interest, and we will therefore give the gist of them.

We quite agree with Mr Hall in saying that the present outbreak is not attributable, in the first instance, to any action on the part of the Government. We must go deeper than that. Antagonism between the two races, stimulated by the Bpread of fanaticism, has given rise to many outbreaks during the past, and ■will probably do so in the future. What the Government is responsible for, is the utter want of preparation on our part to meet the outbreak at the proper moment. ' Here also we must admit that the Government is entitled to urge an excuse ; but no excuse can wholly exonerate them. 'If the Government is to blame at all, it is that in ils excessive anxiety to economise the expenditure of the country, it has reduced the Defence Force to smaller proportions than were sufficient for the safety and protection of the country. We did that when the opinions -we gathered from those best qualified to give an opinion induced us to believe that we were justified in doing so. The remarkable change that has come over a portion of the Native mind within the last few months, proves that it would have been more prudent to keep up the Force at its former strength. But if that had been proposed six months ago, I do not believe there would have been the ghost of a chance of getting itcarried by the representatives of the people.' There can be no doubt that the urgent necessity for reduf ing the public expenditure blinded the eyes of the colonists and -their representatives to the danger they incurred in exposing their frontiers to attack. The responsibility for such a course of action, a3 we have «aid on a previous occasion, must fall directly on the present administration: but aa our representatives thought fit to aanction this ruinous economy, they are also responsible in their degree. If the Government were not wise, it cannot be shown that any others were wiser. Had they forced upon the country this policy of cutting down the Defence Force, the case would have been vastly different. Another disastrous plan of economy was adopted with regard to the military settlements. In order to save the expenditure involved in supplying the military settlors with rations until they were located on confiscated land, the Government hastened the location, and thus gave rise to irritating discussions with the natives. Passing on to the commencement of hostilities on the East Coast, Mr Hall alluded to the escape from the' Chatham Islands. Admitting that the Government were ' ministerially respon- j Bible ' for it, he denied that they were ! guilty of negligence in adopting proper precautions. They relied upon their local officers, and also on the repoits of officers specially despatched for tho purpose of making inquiries. _ ' The whole of ihe papers on the subject were laid before Parliament, and the Opposition have not been able to bring forward any proposition, with any change of success, that the Government was to tyarae in the course it took.' The next question refers to the pursuit of the escaped Hauhaus. Here we are told thatthe menyrere purs yed

before the Government heard of the intention to pursue : but the Government were satisfied, saidMrHALL,that 'itwouldnever do to let them go.' The removal of Major Frazer's force from Napier was a matter of little consequence, and did not endanger the safety of that plac?. ' Napier contains 600 or 700 militia, besides two companies of Imperial [troops, and if they could not protect it, surely 47 men could not ? Wairoa was also well defended. The settlement at Poverty Bay was not authorised by Government. ' The settlers had gone there at their own instance, and had not therefore any special claims on the Government for protection. But we sent protection there at a cost of £100 a week. The Government did not leave these men without warning. Only ten days before, Mr Richmond told Major Biggs tbat in his opinion it was not safe to remain where they were.'

It appears that the Government are not at all convinced of the absurdity of the self-reliant policy. That policy, they tell us, is now upon its test, and we must abide by the result. They are confident that the colony is equal to the emergency, and they are determined to prove it. In this view of the case, they are supported by a large section of the New Zealand press. The Wellington journals' are especially clear as to the impolicy seeking Imperial aid. Mr Hall says : — * It has been suggested that we should ask for Imperial troops. Now, in my opinion, that is useless; in the first place, we should have to pay £40 a head for them, and then the Government would only allow them to garrison the towns, not to take the field. Therefore I say |they would be useless : they have proved the most costly force in New Zealand, and the most unadapted for bush warfare/ On what ground does Mr Hall assume that the troops would not be allowed to take the field ? And on what ground does he assume that their presence would be useless, if they only did duty as garrisons ? Both these assumptions are unfounded. If the threatened settlements in the North were garrisoned by the red-coats, we might then go to war with a good heart. It is probably true enough that better bush soldiers can be found in the colony than we are likely to get from England ; but we have not a sufficient number of recruits to take the field and to act as garrisons as well. Besides, it is monstrous to overlook the moral element of the case. The presence of two or three regiments on shore and two or three frigates off the coast — even if they did nothing in the shape of actual service — would convince the rebels that they must be beaten in the end. Their confidence would be shaken, while ours would be increased a hundredfold. Mr Hall very properly asked : *If it is the duty of the Government to strain every nerve, is it not the duty of the people to rally round and strengthen the hands of the Government ? The thing is, to strengthen the hands of the Government in dealing with the affairs of the colony ; that has been done already in Nelson, Wellington, and Otago. His comments on the injudicious publication of disheartening news and unfavourable criticisms in papers published in the disturbed districts, are not without force. There is certainly no wisdom in carrying on the war in newspapers — still less in c harassing commanders, laying bare every ■weak point we have got, publishing that in a certain district there are no arms, that the enemy can descend on this settlement- and on that.' Facts of this kind, •which are very well known to ourselves and to the authorities, do not require to be published ; the enemy alone are likely to profit by their publication.