DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE NATIVE LANDS BILL.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVII, Issue 1772, 27 September 1862, Page 3

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE NATIVE LANDS BILL.

[Concluded from " Independent," Sept. IG.] Mr. JOHN WILLIAMSON, felt deep concern about the measure. It would entirely stop colonisation in the Northern Island. Hia only hope was, that the Home Government would refuse its assent, on acconnt of its violating the treaty of Waitangi. It would produce wars, and entirely upset the financial arrangement of 185 G. It was simply an outlet for capital. Within the last thirty six hours, he had heard of proposals for forming companies in tho Middle Island, to purchase up the lands in the Northern Island — lands which though not able to peacefully occupy in their life time, their children may be able to turn to immense advantage.

Mr. WATT said the last speaker the Superintendent of Auckland, had quote! the Bishop of New Zealand as an authority on this subject, and he (Mr. Watt) could not lot pass the opportunity of expressing his opinion upon the part the Bishop had taken with regard to the Native lands, and particularly his conduct towards the Taranaki settlen, whom he had more than one© maligned, lie ( Mr. Watt) could not sit still and hear the opinions of the right reverend gentleman cited as a guide for the House. The Eishop waa no doubt, a man of commanding intellect, but he was also a man of unbounded ambition, bl ; nd to any other view of any subject than his own. In the matter of Mr. Parris's lettsr which was first private, then public again, just .ns suited his lordship's convenience, he had degraded his holy oilica in condescending to become a political partisan, a position which had been admitted to him (Mr. Watt) in Taranaki, He (Mr. Watt) attributed the present diuieulties with the Natives in a great part, to the former misguided conduct of the missionaries towards the settlers, and alco to the translation of the Old Testament without commentary or explanation, in which the Natives found convenient precedents for any misconduct. A great mistake had bean made in giving the Natives a language in which they would never find a litarature. The way to civilise them ia to , teach them English.

j Hon. Mr. WOOD, said, that he rose with very great reluctance to address the House on the question now before it. The debate had already extended to a most unusual length : nearly everything had been said both for and against the Bill that could bs said, and he did not think that he was at all likely to say anything that would have any influence on the result. He should not have troubled the House, had it not been for a taunt which the Superintendent of the province of Auckland threw out in the course -of his speech, that the members for the province of Auckland, who would vote to-night as he (Mr. Wood) intended to vote, were not representing the views and wishes of their constituents. Such a taunt as that was in his opinion, most unfair; as it could have no practical effect in this debate, it could only have been levelled for the purpose of lowering in tbe eyes of any eimple men of this House, if such there be, the position of those members who did not agree upon this question with his hon. friend. It was quite impossible for the Superintendent to | prove his assertion and it was equally impossible for him (Mr. Wood) to disprove it ; but he thought he could go a long way in the latter direction, and that he would be able to show, that such an insinuation was altogether groundless. He said that a prominent feature in the practice of the Government, of which his hon. friend the member for Rangitikei was at the head, was the recognition of tho fact, not only that there was no mystery in Native affairs, but that also there was no mystery in Colonial affairs. The course which the late Government intended to pursue in reference to the legislation to be submitted to the House during this session was tolerably well known, and a main feature of that plan was that the Natives should have secured to them the right of property in their own lands ; that in fact measures should be taken to enable them to settle the vexed question of their titles, and then to be allowed the disposal of their own property. N«w there could be no doubt, that that was tolerably well understood by the public at large, at Auckland. He himself, had conversed with many persons on the subject, and he had found no one objecting to the principle. He had the honor of living amongst his own constituents, and he was perfectly sure, that if there had been any general feeling, or he would see even the slightest feeling on the subject, there was little doubt he should have heard of it ; but be took this opportunity of stating that not only had no objections been made, but that on . the other hand a very strong and general desire had been expressed that the system of direct purchase, combined with a security ot title, should be introduced and the present Government monoply be at once abandoned. The existing system had been decried both in this House and out of it, and he was surprised to find his hon. friend the Superintendent of Auckland standing almost alone in his attachment to it. It was however not only in reference to his own constituents, that he could speak, but he was enabled to show what were tho views of the Provincial Council on the subject. In the session of 1860 a resolution was moved by Capt. Cooper bearing on that question. Capt. Cooper's resolution was not considered to bo strong enough on the subject and an amendment was moved by Mr. Buckland lie believed, an old settler, and an extensive farmer in Auckland, directly to the effect that the Saperintendent should ascertain from the Governor whether hia Excellency was prepared to carry into effect the 4th clause of the Land Regulations, so that private individuals would be allowed to purchase lands from the Natives. That amendment was carried unanimously, carried in fact without division, there was such an overwhelming force of opinion in the Council, in favor of it. The debate which followed shewed very clearly, that if colonization in the province of Auckland was to go on, if that settlement wa3 to be no langer confined within practically its present narrow limits, it could only be, by opening the very valuable lands to private enterprise, by permitting private individuals to buy from the Native owj^et-3 He thought then that he had shewn, as far as under the circumstances he could shew, that the measure now before the House was not one that would, bo generally uimsiilered oppose! to the best interests of the province, a constituency in which he had the honor to represent. Mr. Wood thei addressed himself to the Bill, and thought its effect would be able to do legally what before had been done illegally, and that the old Land Purchase Ordinance having completely failed, it was not likely that the Natives would ever resume the system of allowing the Gevernment to acquire land^at the rate of Od per acre, when in another way they might get 3.0s for it. Mr. WELLS thought the time had now arrived when the natives should be accorded the boon of the right and title to their lands and to sell to whom they pleased.

Dr. FEATHERSTON felt perfectly aware that it was of little use opposing any measure of the present Government, and although it was evident that the measure would be passed, still there was no question but that it would be detrimental to the colony, and it had even been admitted that the House had no right to- pass such a law in violation of the Constitution Act, endorsed by the Sovereign of the British realm. He had recognised the altered tone of gentlemen ou the Ministerial benches, since they had began to feel themselves secure in their seats, and able to carry any measures. They (the Ministry) but a brief space ago had refused to accept responsibility, and yet that night they were prepared to pass a law which would run counter to the recorded wishes of the Imperial Government, a law which would plunge tho county into grave difficulties, and yet at the save time they were attempting to shirk the question of expanses. He maintained that their obligations to the Crown should be observed with the greatst faith, and that if the Crown fulfilled it's share the Colony should do so to. He next referred to the Treaty of Waitangi, and contended that the natives perfectly undersood its conditions, and had recognised the Queen's right of pre-emption. He could conceive nothing more calculated to unsettle them in their allegiance than the constant changes of policy adopted in the views of the land question. The Native Minister had formerly said that the Crown had made a grievous mistake in recognising the native title, and it appeared strange that he should now be recanting all his opinions and proposiug to legislate with quite an opposite object, viz : that of recognising the absolute a.nd undisputed right of the natives over their titles. If they (the natives) were now allowed to alienate their title without let or hindrance, then those who had been previously induced to part with their lands for merely f rifling sums would have had a great wrong inflicted on them, and would be entitled ta compensation. If ministers thoroughly believed in the principles of their Bill and acted up to them they would be b >und to re -tore thooe large tracts of territory they had acqu'red on the Middle Island, and to disgorge thoi: ill-gotten booty. He then referred to the system of land sharking which would result, and after expressing' a conviction that purchasers of that class would not improve their property, but simply hold it for the highest bidder, next contended that another of the effects would be to render purchase by local governments virtually impossible; that the loss tho Northern Island would sustain would be immense ; a^.d concluded an eloquent speech by denouncing the measure not only as a scheme of gigantic corruption, but ona which instead of allaying disasters and suspicion, would scatter the seeds of disaffection broadcast through the land.

Mr. DOMETT folt some difficulty in speaking after the lion, member who had just sat down, because whilo he agreed in most points with the theories which the hon, member had so ably expounded he had in practice as was apparent to him adopted a course entirely opposed to the one dictated by those theories, with respect to the right of the Natives to the ownership of Ihe wa3te lands of the Colony. He did not differ in theory from the hon. member, he was quite contented with the opinions of Vattel and Dr* Arnold, quoted by the hon. member for Omata. He had often argued

■ ' in favour of those views in old days, and he was as ready to do so now, though he would not at this time follow out the course of action, which would be the logical consequence of those theories. For however correct our theories on this subject, it was of very little use now a day3 to assert and prove their correctness, by dint of argument unless we could get the Natives to take the same view as ourselves. But it was a fact, however unfortunate that the maories did not care for Vattel, nor Puffendorf, nor even Dr. Arnold (a laugh). The Natives held a different theory, and had been taught even by ourselves to hold it. It had bsen instilled into them by the very first whalers, or runaways who settled upon these shores, and by all that class of people to whom the nickname of " land sharks" has been applied ; for when these latter used to purchase after a fashion, all the country that they could see from one mountain range to another, did they not show the Natives that they recognised their absolute ownership in all the country so viewed. The missioneries had sedulously encouraged the same view, and even had the Natives not held it originally (as is often asserted), the English Government itself by its proceedings must have forced them to adopt it, for the Treaty of Waitangi (and he would say that for that Treaty he had no more respect than he had when he wrote those passages near 20 years ago, which the hon. member had raked up to quote against him). The Treaty of Waitangi, expressly declared the absolute ownership of the Natives, in the lands of the country, but there was something more insidious, and almost dishonest in the Treaty, for, while thus professing, and acknowledging their ownership, it gave a light of pre-emption to the Queen, which took away all the value of the ownership. Every old settler remembers how the Treaty was explained to the Natives. - There was a famous expression of a chief named Hopera, which stuck in his memory, "The shadow of the land goes to the Queen, the substance remains with us." But the Natives soon discovered that they could not get a tenth of the value of the lands from the Government which had declared them the owners, so that a very substantial shadow went to the Queen. Thus.while the Treaty had itself fixed in the minds of the Natives the idea of their absolute ownership in the land, it had deprived them at the same time of most of the substantial benefits of that ownership. The necessary consequence was a deep sense of wrong in the mind of the Natives, a feeling that they had been unjustly dealt with. This feeling had been growing up for a long time, and it was of no use for us to endeavour to impress upon them our theories of colonisation as a compensation for the loss of, the money value of their land. He (Mr. D.) riad been much struck with an observation made the other night by his hon. friend the member for Wallace (Mr. Mantell) who had had such experience in purchasing Native land?J That hon. member told, the House, that when the Natives complained of the fact, that the Goovernment sold the land at so much higher prices than they gave the Natives for it, he used to answer, that the additional price went to make roads and bridges and to people the country, and then the retort of the Natives used to be " But why make us pay for all this out of the value of our own lands." Now if the Native so many years ago had been acute enough (and no one could doubt the fact after the hon. member's statements) to take such a view of the transaction, was it to be wondered at that they considered it a burning injustice, one which they would not tolerate if they could help it any longer ? The hon. member for Wellington had done him the honor to quote a political maxim of his (Mr. D.) expressed in that House some years ago, with high approbation — and he would now venture to offer another, which he had got from experience, not from books (though for anything he knew, it migh be fouud in a thousand) for the honorable member's consideration* It was this that in governing masses of men, we must look upon a wrong really felt, as a real wrong. It mattered not that on an -absfcraeb principle of justice or theories of right, it ought ' not to be considered a wrong — if it was really felt by them as a wrong, then it must be treated as a real wrong-, and thi3 was the case with the maories and their feeling about the Crown's right of pre-emption. The principle argument in favour of the Bill was, that it would remove this burning sense of wrong — thii great practical grievance — and with it much or all of the Native distrust in the British Government, for all the papers before the House shewed that it was a principle cause of their distrust, to restore their confidence in the Government, this was on all hands acknowledged to be first great step towards getting rid of the Native difficulty. That it would help to do this was the principal agreement for the Bill, — and the principal one against it waa that it would prevent regular and systematic colonisation, but if this latter could only be secured at the cost of continuing a great practicable wrong — then wo had no course but to let it go. No one could deny that it was better to give up schemes of colonisation, than to keep up this constant irritation of the Native mind. But after all, what was it that we should give up ? It could nofbe any great sacrifice to abandon a system which had almost com* to'an end — to abandon the feeble attempts at colonisation being made at present — which the Natives refusal to sell their land on the present terms had virtually put a stop to. No one could pretend that the colonisation of the Northern Island was going on unsuccessfully under this system. The system was crippled, feeble, dying out — nor could he believe that there was so much prospect of the member for Wellington (Dr. Featherston) acquiring land as he seemed to believe. The alternative proposed was not the best mode of colonisation, certainly — but there would be colonisation still, and perhaps rapid , though irregular colonisation. Thu« better effects would be produced than under tho system going on, or rather not going on at present. For any colonisation was better than none. His hon. friend, the member for Otmata (Mr. Richmond), had said, we have been colonising on a re» gular system hitherto (though no doubt he allow* editafailuie,)and that was he supposed the colonisation to be carried on "as it pleased Ged." The hon. member for Oraato trusted that the results would be successful. But the hou. member for the Hutt, Mr Fitzherbert, seemed to repudiate this idea. He would not leave colonisation to go on in that way, without a good struggle, which s"eems as much as to say he would not trust in God without a struggle for it, (a laugh). He (Mr. D.) thought that colonisation had always gone on in that way, at least the hon. member would not deny that " there's a divinity that shapes our ends, though hew them how we will." we had rough-hewed out very fine schemes of colonisation, by taking a small pieco of the water land ; but our schemes had been shaped to quiet other ends, and so we had now to abandon them and adopt the. ends forced upon us, to allow the native title to the laud and get on with colonisation by that method. To that conclusion we had come, even though the member for Wellington might charge him, (Mr. D.) in doing so without recanting his former opinions on this subject. He had however said enough, he hoped, to shew he recanted none of his opinions in acknowledging that the force of circumstances required a source of action contrary to that which those opinions seemed to point out. He had precedents enough to warrant him if necessary iv thus giving way to circumstances and throwing overboard impractical theories, however cherished. We better even might shelter ourselves under the towering and widespreading reputation of the great ones of the earth, and he would point the House to the conduct of two of the greatest public men of this century for examples of acting in contradiction of their avowed theoretical principles. One of these was that great Duke of whom the poet had most truly said 11 He never sold the truth- to serve the hour, « Nor paltered with eternal God for power. Well, that great man passed the famous measure for Satholic emancipation, which all his life ho had been opposed to, and why ? because to maintain it any longer, ho declared, would have pro.

duced civil war, the greatest possible evil that could affect a country. Now the maintenance of the Queen's right of pre-emption had produced or been one of the main causes of producing, actual "civil war in this countiy. If the Duke of Wellington could give up acting on principle and convictions based on the deepest feelings of the human heart, because to maintain them threatened civil war, might we ■ not in a comparatively superficial subject give up acting on our theories when civil war had been produced, or at least peace was prevented by them? Everybody ;knew too how Sir Robert Peel had denounced inevitable ruin to tho countiy if the Corn Laws were abolished, yet, when he found a necessity to doit, he bowed to the necessity and did the best he could for the country. I But the question was all a trifle, whether he (Mr. D.) had_ " recanted " his opinions or not. The real question was, is what we are now doing the best thing for the country (Cheers), He said it was. And if hon. members opposite thought he recanted his opinions in saying so, they were quite welcome to think so, he was glad to let them have that little satisfaction, if it were such, and_ hoped it would tend to allay their irritation against the Bill. But to go to another objection, if by this single act of justice, the "Treaty of Waitangi was, as the hon. member for" the Hutt had said, " torn in shreds," then the Treaty must have been what he (Mr. D.) had always considered it, " a sham." For it declared the Natives should have full ownership of their lands, and this Bill gave nothing more ; and our right of pre-emption might fairly, after all, be construed as simply a right to have the first offer, and if the offer was refused , any one might else come in and take it. Pre-emption was one thing, sole-emption was quite another. Then the hon. member for V7ellington had read certain remarks of his (Mr. D.) about the financial arrangement of 1856. The upshot of those remarks was, he believed, that the Northern Island had had. the best of the bargain on several grounds. One of these was, that all the money give to them for the purchase of lands was spent in the Island, and came back to them, while the 4200,000 paid by the Middle Island went absolutely away from them for ever to the New Zealand Company in England. He was of the same opinion still, and if allowing the Natives to sell did not restore the balance, it must be remembered that the presence of Natives had caused far more expenditure of public money (for troops alone), in the Northern Island since the commencement of the Colony, than had as yet been received as Land Fund in the Middle Island, if that of all the Provinces were put together. Therejwas no doubt about this, and that great amounts on the same account would soon have to be spent in the Northern Island. The hon: member for Auckland west (Mr. Williamson) had prognoiticated disastrous results from the operation of this Bill. He (Mr. D.) had, he confessed, formerly thought that would be the result: But the fact annouueed by his hon. friend the Native Minister, that, moro than halfa-million acres of land acquired by direct purchase lrom the Natives, had gone through his court without any material dispute, though the land had been purchased so many years ago, had more than anything else staggered him in this opinion. If land could be. so well bought, withont any dangerous results in former days, why could it not be done now 2 The hon. member for Wellington had read quotations from Sir. G. Grey's despatches in old days, he condemning the system of direct purchase, in doing which, he was only expressing what was no doubt the general feeling of almost every one who then took part in the direction of affairs. But the chief objection made by Sir G. Grey in the passage read, was that the Natives would make improvident sales. There was no fear of that now-a-deys, nor would the Europeans get the lands of the Natives much under its real Talue — so that the objection made by Sir G, Grey, would now be removed. He would only remark further upon the papers, Some hon. members eemed-to entertain, the idea that the Duke of Newcastle would not consent to any measure admitting direct purchase from the Natives. To disabuse their minds of this idea, he would read one short extract from a despatch of the noble Duke's dated sth June, 1861. The extract was to the effect 41 that her Majesty's Ministers will be prepared to the;extent which you (Sir. G. Grey) may think wise, to waive the serious objections to such changes as those proposed by the Native Territorial Right Act of 1858, which led to the nonconfirmation of that measure, They w?U accordingly be willing to assent to any prudent plan for the individual ization of Native title, and for direct purchase under proper safeguards of Native lands by individual settlers, which the New Zealand parliament may wish to adopt." Then it was undeniable that his Grace would consent to the_ system under proper conditions and safeguards, which might be ' added in committee, and to which the Government would not object, if the present Bill did not contain enough. They were now only contending for the adoption of the general principles. He would trouble the House no further but leave these and all other objections to his hon. friend the Native Minister, who would no doubt give a good account of them. The Biil was a practical remedy for a great practical grievance, as such he trusted the House would not refuse its assent to its being read a second time. Mr. CARGILL in referring to the argument about tha injustice done to Native sellers under the still existing system, could not perceive that any special injustice had been done them, or that what was thought just fifteen years ago was unjust now. Mr. J. C. WILSON would vote for the measure on the ground of its expediency under preBent circumstances, Mr. CURTIS, spoke briefly, in support of the Bill. Mr. JAMES WILLIAMSON believed in the practicability of tho measure, and would record his vote for its second reading. Mr. FOX felt it his duty not to let the present occasion pass with .silence on his part, seeing that he had prepared a similar Bill while forming part of the late Ministry. He believed the plans adopted by Sir George Grey had been successful, and denied the right of their opponents to allege they had failed after a trial of.six months. The present measure, he contended, afforded no safeguard against speculators with cheque books in their pockets buying up the whole Native territory, while the Bill of the late Ministry would have produced a steady and systematic system of colonisation, and the Natives would have received 10a. to 20s. per acre, instead of the paltry 3d. per acre that had been spoken of. Ho briefly referred to the hasty and imperfect manner in which the measure had been prepared, and said that while still holding to the principle that tho Natives should have justice done them, yet he did not think that the Bill!would accomplish that object. The Hon. the NATIVE MINISTER having briefly replied to the arguments of previous speakers, the question was then put, that this Bill be now read a second time, and the House divided with tho following result : For the second reading . Against Majority for second reading