Evening- Star Supplement, November 30, 1875.

Sir George Prey's Address.

[Continued from 3rd Page.] astonishment that night after night members could get up in the Assembly and say they ■were resolved and determined to carry out their own views and intentions, without reference to the will of the people, who alone could have authority in this matter. You all know the struggle that was made to prevent that. (Cheers.) Hook around me and see here some of the men who aided nobly in that struggle for the right. I see here my colleague. (Cheers.) I see also here the gentleman who proposed the chairman (Mr. Swanson) ; he also gave me valuable assistance. (Cheers.) I see here another gentleman (Mr. O'Rorke) who, casting office and emoluments to the winds, would not suffer himself to be bought by any offer to his self interest ; who, _ having separated himself from those that, in liis opinion, were resolved upon the ruin of the country, joined our party at the close of the previous session. That gentleman determined to lay down everything in the shape of emolument, and fight for those rights which he believed the people of the country are entitled to. (Cheers.) I can tell you that amoDgst those who fought your cause on this question were many good, eloquent, and noble-spirited men. What the result was you all kxiow. The proposed Abolition of Provinces Bill has been so far delayed, that until the close of the next session the Act which is to bring about that change cannot come into opera tion. It now r;:sts with yourselves what your future shall be. If you look at that question well and wisely, no greater or more noble object can be pre sented to the n.ind of any human being. You have it now in your power to determine what the future form of govern ment in this country shall be under which you and your children shall have to live. You are the persons who are to decide what shall be the future hopes and the future prospects of New Zealand. Within the next few weeks you will have to make up your minds on this subject. I wish, before you approach so momentous a question, to offer some few observation for your considera tion. Let me tell you liiii, that I have heard no single argument whatever in favour of the abolition of institutions tinder which a perfect power of self-government was placed in your hands. The main—argument I cannot call it—but the main reason that has been alleged in its favour wasone in which re ference was made to the past history of Great Britain. A kink of wild desire ap peared to possess certain minds to establish in this country what they call the '' same system that prevails in England." Now, let us quietly and carefully go to the root of that matter, and consider it. I ask you to bear this in mind, that undoubtedly the in stitutions of the human race are, and have been for centuries, it may be slowly but still certainly advancing in that direc tion which was mqst like to secure the greatest happiness to the greatest number. At one time we had the world covered with wars of petty tribes, and men devouring the prisoners that they took. Then we had a change, and the captives were made slaves of, and then the slaves were made serfs of, and at last, after development following de velopment, institutions of greater or less freedom became established, and throughout the whole course of that time there has been one continued progress in favour of the happiness -of mankind—and retrograde steps are rarely or never made. Now, how is it possible that we can put ourselves and our institutions in the position of those which prevail in England ? Reflect for one mo ment. In England there is an hereditary monarch, who rules us equally here. What analogy is there between an hereditary monarch and a Governor here for a few years, liable to be removed if he offends a clerk in the Colonial Office who happens to have sway there ? —(hear, and cheers) —liable to be removed, it may be, if he offends a powerful party in the colony, who may, after all, be but a small minority in it; —liable to be removed from hundreds of causes of which few of you have any cognisance ? What permanent interest can such a Governor have in a country such as an hereditary monarch has at home ? —an hereditary ' monarch having to look to the interests of his family, to the in terests of his nation, having power to dismiss Ins Ministers, being incapable of being re moved from his seat except by the almost united voice of the entire empire ? There is no analogy at all. The Governor is ne cessarily here the servant of the Ministry for the day and for the time. (Cheers.) Then what hereditary aristocracy have you here for your Upper House ? (Laughter and cheers.) Why, the Upper House in England were formerly the owners of the serfs that now constitute the populace of Great Britain, and successive generations and successive ages have raised them to their relative posi tion. But will anyone tell me that if there was no hereditary aristocracy in England, that at the present moment the people of Eng land would set up an Upper House to be chosen by the Ministry of the day, and having to agree that no law should be made, however the people of the empire might wish it, unless that Upper House, ap pointed for life, agreed to it by a majority also? (Cries of "No!") And that the Upper House were—What ? Why, to be paid to exercise the power of carrying out their own will. (Cheers.) It is absurd to suppose that such a system could be set up in England; it is difficult even to imagine that the much better system that prevails there would be established if the people of England had now, at this moment, to make free choice of their future institutions, as you have. Do you intend, all of you, that such an Upper House should be set up here? (Cries of "No, no!") Is that your wish? ("No, no!") Well, then, how in that respect again can there be any analogy between the institutions of this country and those of Great Britain ? And now let Die tell you another thing, and a difficulty ■which is well worthy of your consideration : In New Zealand at the present moment a sort of equality reigns amongst us all—(hear, tear) —an equality which I confess myself I rejoice to see. (Hear, and cheers.) If a man of wealth amongst yourselves wishes to

marry the daughter of some estimable person below him in point of money, what objection is there to it here ? Who looks down upon him for such a match, or looks down upon the wife so chosen? (Cheers.) Are there any such differences of rank amongst us as that ? No; I say we all approach more nearly to a position of equality. And re collect this, that if you at one bound raise up from amongst yourselves an aristoc racy, elevating some men from amongst yourselves, the residue must sink here. (Hear, and cheers.) It is not the raising of the few, but it is the sinking of the mass. (Renewed cheers.) The mass must sink to constitute those persons who are to be the servants of the aristocracy which you may create. (Loud cheers.) It is a totally different thing your position to that occupied by the people of Great Bri tain ; your position is preferable to theirs in every respect. Why are you to abandon it ? Why are you to agree that the mass of the people in New Zealand are to sink in their social sfate in order that suddenly some of their fellows may be raised and elevated above them ? Well, this is one point which every man should lay to his heart. Does he intend to say to his children—to look at them, and say, "I have decided to make a sacrifice ?" — I won't say that he should say, to offer them to Moloch, but it comes nearly to that, for he says to them, " I have decided that you should sink in the social scale, that you should not have the same hopes and aspirations that your father had, in order that we may create an aristo cracy in this country." And for what are they to be created ? What services have been rendered by any particular class of men to give them the right to be selected out from their felloAVS and raised up above them, and to have their fellows sunk down below the level that they now occupy? (Cheers.) Well, then, you will see what I mean with regard to the impossibility of setting lip in stitutions here similar to those which prevail in Great Britain. And there is another very special reason connected Avith that, which is quite worth your while to consider. Just let us reflect over this point. In Great Britain the Parliament sits in London, in a city of three million inhabitants, with that multitude of eyes directed upon all their actions. In addition to that, there is a large number of journals in Great Britain which report everything that passes in Parliament. The next morning every speech of every member is to be read in the journals. It does not signify whether the House is in position as a House, or whether the House is what is called " in Committee," every single word that passes is known throughout the whole British dominions ; it is criticised by the most able writers, reviewed by persons of every party; the whole nation is acquainted with the reasons for ail that the Government have done; whether the conduct of the Government is approved or dis approved, every circumstance connected with those transactions is made known to the whole people at large. Now, here you know not anything of the kind. The Assembly sits in a small town in a distant part of New Zealand ; there is no report of the proceedings. (Hear, and cheers.) The most momentous transactions take place without your being consulted or heard. For months after, you do not know that these things have taken place ; there are no news papers to report what passes. (Cheers.) The telegrams that are sent to you are actually filtered out by the Government. (Laughter, and continued cheers.) Utter ignorance prevails upon all those subjects. What analogy is there between such a Par liament and the Parliament of Great Britain ? Do the words of the speakers in that House strike, the next morning after they have been delivered, sympathetic chords throughout the whole of JS'ew Zea land ? If any disgraceful or* discredit able transaction is exposed, it is months before you know it, and many things that took place during the last session are actually unknown to you at the present : moment. "You are governed by a power that you do not see—that you know no thing of—that you can in no way in fluence. What analogy is there between that and what takes place in Great Britain ? Now, in proof of what I mean by that, just let me refer to one single circumstance. Close upon the end of last session the most marvellous Act that ever was passed by an expiring Parliament was passed by the General Assembly of New Zealand—an Act which future historians will hardly credit to have been passed, and which, I . believe, is unknown to the greater portion of you. Well, now, the wonderful thing about that Act is this, that I looked in the Hansard to-day, and what none of you are aware of, probably, is this: That in the Hansard only the . reports of the speeches are printed which take place whilst the House is sitting as a House, and when the House sits as a committee, which is at the time that all the most important business is transacted, no report whatever of the proceedings of such committee appears in the Hansard. (Laughter, and cheers.) Now, at the end of the last session, the Government, knowing that Parliament was about to be put an end to, and, I suppose, having some doubts as to what the future Parliament might be—how it might be com posed, or what might take place, determined ' to pass an Act to indemnify members of the Legislative Council and members of the House of Representatives who had had dealings with the Government, and who were subject to punishment by the law. They determined to p"ass an Act indemnify ing those members, and to prevent them being proceeded against for breaking the law. (Hear, and cheers.) The whole proceedings upon that measure of the least importance took place in committee, and I have had the papers searched, and there is no allusion to those proceedings, and the Hansard con tains not a word about it; and Hansard contains some three or four short paragraphs detailing what passed when the bill was read a second time. Those of us who lay by for the committee, our views are absolutely un known ; and even the title of the bill would nave given no idea of what the Go vernment was about to do. The Govern ment said they were about to indemnify cer tain members of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives from disabilities

they may have incurred under the Act—the Disqualification Act, —but they did not in demnify certain members, they indemnified the whole Assembly. (Laughter, and cheers.) Was such a thing ever heard of before, that Parliament, at its last sitting, should pass a law to save themselves from penalties which they fairly incurred ? That is ab solutely the case. Now, we objected, some of us, to this, and objected, 1 think, with justice. We said, " Indemnify those mem bers who require to be indemnified ; state in the law that this Act is to indemnify Mr. So-and-so, Mr. So-and-so, and Mr. So and-so." (Laughter.) And they said, " There are too many of them —(laughter and cheers) —and we don't choose to hold them up to obloquy." (Renewed cheers.) Why, if they had done no harm there was no obloquy at all in the thing. (Hear, hear.) Our view of the matter was this : Let the question be fairly tried; if any member was sued for penalties incurred under the Dis qualification Act, let the thing be fairly tried ; if it didn't touch his honor, let him be indemnified, let the truth be known; let the whole thing be heard; but why stamp a brand upon the whole Assembly, and say that any member of the As sembly should be able to plead this law if he was proceeded against in a Court of justice for having disqualified him self. They refused to insert the names of those members in the law. Well, then, I got my friend Mr. Sheehan to get up and propose a resolution in committee to this effect: —-"That all those of us who chose should be able to give public notice that we did not intend to avail ourselves of the law"—(laughter and cheers), —and that to prove the sincerity of our act, if we did not issue that notice we could not have availed ourselves of the law afterwards. (Cheers.) But they were more angry than ever at a proposition of that kind—they threw it out with the greatest scorn. Now, I put it to yourselves—because I look upon you as the culpable people—l say this, that if the in habitants of New Zealand give the power to the General 'Assembly to do any transactions of this kind, it is the inhabitants of New Zealand who are to blame. (Cheers.) Because, in truth, the General Assembly is only legislating in accordance with the public sentiment; the public senti ment should declare itself against such things, if there is any righteous public senti ment in the country. (Hear, hear, and cheers ) Well, now, the whole of this, I be lieve, is unknown to the people of New Zea land ; there is no report that I can find upon the subject, and except to those few persons present in the gallery, who may have heard it in c Wellington, the facts are unknown, I believe, to the people of New Zealand at large. And will anyone tell me, that when such things can take place, and the whole people of New Zealand can be left in ignorance, that you are to say that you are going to set up the kind of institutions that they have in Eng land^? (Cheers.) Why every check that prevails in England upon their institutions is gone here. It does not exist at the pre sent time. I say that you are not ripe for such a state of things, and that jobbery and corruption of every kind must prevail if you attempt to establish institutions of that sort in this country at present. (Hear, and cheers.) What I mean is this : that hither to you have had under your own eyes, to a great part, legislation upon certain subjects, —well, it is only to a great part, I say,—and the Assembly have continually gone on taking away the power from your Provincial Councils, so that at last almost everything has been re moved from your view. And in that way I must say that your representatives—those who have struggled for you—have been sub jected, I think, to very great disadvantages — very great disadvantages indeed. I would think of some instances now, for example, of where I think we have been subjected to very great disadvantages. I have seen it, for instance, stated that my intention is to ruin the prospects of the people of the Waikato —(laughter),—and that I am one of the greatest enemies that they have—that I am determined to stop everything which is de vised for their benefit, and the particular in stance given of me is this : It is a question of a grant of 80,000 acres of land in what is caSed the Waikato-Piako swamp. (Laugh ter.) Well, just let us reason that out together, and think what I have done, and let the electors of Auckland City West decide whether I have done that which they would wish or would not wish me to have done. The law said this : The public lands in the Wai kato should be disposed of by sale by auc tion, and in no other way. The law said the whole of those lands are the property of the Queen's subjects at large, and. they shall not be dealt with —they shall not be taken from Her Majesty's subjects except by open auction —public auction. Well, the Govern ment decided otherwise; they decided to break the law —(cheers) —as they have done, I can tell you, in a great many instances. (Laughter, and cheers.) They decided to break the law, and they said that they would give it to one gentleman, who cer tainly was a great ally and advocate of theirs —there can be no doubt about that. (Laughter.) Mind, 1 don't say that that was the motive, but it is impossible almost —(laughter) —l am quite serious in that. But what I feel is this : that. it would be impossible for me to go dealing privately in a private room with a friend without getting under influences that I ought not to get under when I deal with public property. I believe human nature to be such that no man could help getting under influences of that sort. Well, they determined then to give the 80,000 acres—now that is an im mense quantity of land—to one gentleman, upon condition that he was to . pay half -a - crown an acre- for it, and an other half - crown was to be spent in making a road through it, and draining it; and they say that that was a very good bar gain for the public. (Laughter.) Well, that point I don't go into ; but what I say is this : I have been told over and over again that in objecting to that, in fact putting a stop to the repetition of such things, certainly, I believe, for the future, and rendering it very doubtful how that particular matter will go, I have been told that I have been a great enemy to the people on the Waikato.- Now, just think for

one moment. The 80,000 acres — that immense extent of really valuable land—was the property, as I say, of the people of New- Zealand. There was nothing whatever to prevent them, if the Government wished to drain it, to make a road through it—which is a common thing to do before land is sold— to have spent a portion of those millions that they had in draining that land, if they recovered it from the sale of the land afterwards. (Hear, hear.) When that had been done, they might have thrown it open to the public. Four hundred families might have had 200 acres of land each of first-rate soil given to them. (Hear, hear.) Will anyone say that if I by doing that had sent 400 settlers to the Waikato to equalise the population there—4oo settlers to raise produce to enrich Auckland and the Thames —400 settlers to confer benefits on the people of the Waikato which that 80,000 acres cannot confer on them now for years,' for it is in the hands of one man —in what way should I have injured the people of the Waikato by doing that ? (Hear and cheers.) In what way should I have injured Her Majesty's subjects by providing comfortable and happy homes for 400 families ? In what way should I have In jured anybody by observing the law instead of breaking it ? Now these facts, and the reasons which induced your represen tatives to act are rarely known ; it is only when they appear before their constituents that they can speak upon such subjects ; but I can assure you that in many other things in which I have been equally blamed during the last session, for taking views adverse to the public interest, I am perfectly certain that a fall enquiry would prove that I have done that which was right in every single instance. (Hear, hear, and prolonged cheers.) Let me just refer to one other case. I was accused by the Ministry in terms of scorn, and almost contumely, of having contem plated confiscation. What was the con fiscation that I contemplated? You en trusted £750,000 of your money to certain gentlemen to buy native lands for you. To these same gentlemen you entrusted the power of spending millions of money for public works, so that they knew exactly what lands in New Zealand were to acquire prospective value. To these gentlemen you entrusted the power of imposing the Crown's right of pre-emption over any land they liked, to prevent any other persons but themselves from buying it. According to every rule of law and of good faith the nativo lands bought by these persons were your property. (Cheers.) Consider for one moment :to take and put the Crown's right.of pre-emption over a certain native's property, and say that the native shall sell it to the Crown, and to no other person,—that is, to prevent the native getting the fullest price for his land. And such action can be defended on the ground that it is done for the good of the public at large. But if the native, when he has sold, enters into the same right as any other person, so that he can go and buy part of that land back again, or any of his people can, at a fixed price, there would be some mode and reason for defending the course.* But if you put the Crown's right of pre emption on, to allow a friend to get the land —(laughter and cheers), —is that a fraud on the natives, or is it not ? Is it a wrongful use of the name of the Queen of Great Britain to oppress one subject for the benefit of an other, or is it not ? What right have those persons whom you send out into the country, paying the expenses for their travelling, pay ing them salaries for their time, providing them with the money to purchase land from the natives, —what right have they to buy land for themselves, using those advantages for their own good ? (Cheers.) And when I proposed that which I maintain was just in the extreme —that what is the common law between the purchaser and agent —what the law enforces between all the Queen's subjects—should be preserved in this in stance whether the purchasers were Minis ters or private people, I was attacked. I proposed that the land which was absolutely necessary for the people of this colony—for we have no good land hardly at present to put them on—should remain the property of the public, and that those land purchasers should be reimbursed the sums they might have paid out of their own pockets. (Cheers.) But I was met by an accusation of confisca tion. And when that was said to me, my mind turned to the Book of Job, and I thought that as loDg ago as that it was said that the truly good man, who desires to serve his fellow-men, will snatch the prey out of the very teeth of the spoiler. (Cheers.) I contend now that in asking that those lands, which are your right, should be kept for you, and that the sums of money that the other persons had paid should be reimbursed to them, I acted upon the side of extreme liberality; and if I am returned again by this consti tuency I shall conceive it my duty, and they must remember that, to do my utmost to get those lands for the people. (Loud cheers.) Now, those are the kind of points upon which, from want of proper means of report ing and circulating information throughout New Zealand, you are left wholly and entirely ignoraut. I have stated three things—this Disqualification Act, the case of the lands up the Waikato, and the case of the lands purchased in the manner that T have told you. The last case was better done and better managed, because through the kindness of friends here statements were published,—the whole of my speech, in fact, was printed in one news paper in Auckland. But the other points I have mentioned have been left absolutely un touched, and, I believe, remain unknown to the community at large. I have dealt with points of difference between this colony and England in the respects which I have re ferred to, which make me imagine that any attempt to set up the institutions of Great Britain here is an absurdity. I again posi tively affirm that I believe that if the people of Great Britain had the power, without a revolution, of remodelling their institutions, they would make an advance upon the insti tutions which they at present have, and would be quite capable of devising some thing better for the millions than the institutions which now exist. (Cheers.) And I cannot, therefore, imagine it possible

that the people of New Zealand are deter mined to take a step backwards in retrogres sion, instead of setting to mankind the example of putting one foot in front and stepping forward. (Cheers.) I cannot imagine that, now they have their destiny in their own hands, they will prove themselves so craven in spirit as to be afraid to make some new experiment which they think will be for their future advantage. (Cheers.) 1 believe that out of the many thoughts which will occupy men's minds, something will be evolved very different from purely British institutions, and much better suited to your own circumstances and to your own future welfare. Let me now point out some one or two things which have led people's minds astray here as to the proposed changes. For instance, one com mon cry has been that by the abolition of the provinces we shall get rid of the cost of Pro vincial Governments, and have only the General Assembly to pay and the general Legislature to provide for. Now let us think that point out for a few moments. 1 see that the Superintendent of Otago, Mr. Mac andrew, after making calculations, has arrived at the conclusion that the cost of all the Provincial Governments—the Provincial Councils and the Executive Governments at present in New Zealand —is under £32,000 a year. I believe that if you take the present cost of your Governor, and the houses built and maintained for him ; if you add to that the sums paid to Sir Julius Vogel on his mission to England, and take the Ministers and their travelling allowances, and some of the superior officers and their travelling allowances, you will make up more than the £32,000 at once. That, I think, would be a perfectly safe calculation to rely upon. Then consider further that the General Assembly and the Colonial Executive at the present moment cost more than £50,000 a-year, and that the departmental charges are £250,000 a-year. That is £300,000 a-year to pay for this great Government at Wellington, as against £32,000 for all the provinces in New Zealand. Now, why should you pay that enormous sum of £300,000 for this distant monster, which swallows up your earnings? (Laughter and cheers.) If any of you who hear me have seen the enormous buildings that are being erected in Welling ton and the character of these buildings, and if any of you have witnessed the enor mous expenditure which is being there in curred, I think you will say it is wrong indeed that such things should take place. Let us look—l speak now to the electors of Auckland City West—at this under another aspect. I have asked you to look at it as New Zealanders generally ; let us now con sider it from our own point of view. The general revenue of the country as it was settled by Great Britain was made up of the Customs duties and such taxes, and the entire land fund belonged to the General Government. When the land fund was taken and given to the different provinces in which the lands were situated, equally the whole revenue of those provinces was made up of the Cus toms duties there collected, and such duties, and all the proceeds of the sale of the Crown lands, because they did not belong to the provinces. That was what made up the total revenue of the Southern provinces. Now conceive, if this enormous establish ment —this General Assembly—had been paid for, as it ought to have been, by contri butions from each province proportioned to their actual revenue, how small your share would have been ! But it was determined that all these enormous charges should be paid from Customs duties and such duties alone ; hence you have nothing left to you ; ' hence Auckland has had no means whatever of promoting its own prosperity from its own revenues. (Cheers.) Ido not know whether I have rwede myself clear to you on that point, and whether you grasp the question or not— that if each province paid from its true revenues its share in proportion to those revenues of this enormous sum, the amount you would have to contribute from your Customs duties would be very small, and that is what, in point of law, and right, and justice, you ought to have paid. Therefore I think you will all feel that anything which will get back for us the expenditure of our own revenues, is a thing greatly to be desired. You are told that this province is impecunious. In what does its impecuniosity consist ? That you cannot find food enough, for that ravenous monster in the South ! You could find plenty, if your funds were fairly and justly administered, to do all you require yourselves if you were a separate colony—(cheers); —you would be a wealthy community; but as long as all your Cus toms duties are swept away from you —as long as you have to pay £5 a-head on every man, woman, and child.—and they take it all away from you, and send 15s a'-head back —as long as that is the case, how can you be anything but impecunious ? If you get more they will want more. Until justice is done to you you can know nothing but poverty and want. (Cheers.) Then with regard to forming a united colony,—there is another question. The Superintendent of Otago, who has also an accurate knowledge of the subject, and with whose opinion I entirely agree, says' that the abolition of the Provincial Legislatures—l use the term Provincial Legislatures, but the mean ing is the forming of one great Govern ment at Wellington to rule the whole colony —is supported by the squatting interest in the hope of getting a renewal of their leases, which are shortly to expire, on better terms under such a Colonial Government than under any Provincial administration. (Cheers.) Now, gentlemen, electors of Auckland City West, why should you give up any rights you have to wrong the people in the South ? As Mr. Macandrew has pointed out, when these leases expire the enormous tracts of land now held by single individuals will be divided into small sheep farms, where thousands of families can live in compe tence and comfort, and greatly increase the wealth of the country. Why should you give up any rights or liberties you possess to rob the people of the South of the prospects which the falling in of these leases holds out to them ? If you think such will not be the case, let any man conceive a dis tant Legislature sitting in Wellington, re moved, as I say, from the public eye, and