Sir George Grey's Address.

Sir Geo. Grey met the electors on March 22, in the Choral Hall, and addressed them upon the political position of the province and colony. The meeting was announced to commence at eight o'clock, but as early as seven o'clock there was a crowd collected in front of the building. At half-past seven o'clock the large Hall was filled, and at the time fixed for taking the chair the building was crowded in every part. Punctually at eight o'clock Sir George Grey entered the Hall, and was received with loud and prolonged cheering. He was attended by a large number of the leading gentlemen of the province.

Mr. Swanson was the first to address the meeting. He wished to remind those present that it was not merely an assemblage of the citizens of Auckland. It was a meeting of the electors of the province: a meeting of those who were settled in every part of the province. It was therefore considered by the committee appointed to secure the Election of Sir George Grey that the chairman of the meeting should be one not necessarily a city man, one who would represent the electors both town and country throughout the province. He proposed therefore that the chair should be taken by James Thomas Boylan, Esq., who resided at some distance in the country, and came in for the purpose. (Cheers.)

Sir George Grey, who, on coming forward, was received with enthusiastic and repeated cheers, said,—Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it would be very unbecoming of me to address you upon any one of the points to which I, this night, wish to call your attention until I have expressed the deep and sincere regret I feel at the cause which has brought me before you this evening—I mean the death of your late most estimable Superintendent. (Hear, hear.) You must all of you be aware that for many years I have known Mr. Williamson—that I entertained for him a very strong regard, and that it is impossible for me to see a man who had devoted so many years and so much energy to the service of this Province, pass away from us without deeply regretting such a melancholy event. (Hear, hear.) You must pardon me for relieving my mind upon this subject in the first instance, and, as I have done so, I would venture to allude to one circumstance which the other day, passing his old house in Short-land Crescent, His late place of business, recalled to my mind a scene, apparently trifling in itself, but really of the greatest possible significance in the present state of affairs. Most of you probably are aware that formerly the late Mr. Williamson kept a shop in Shortland Crescent; that he raised himself from that position to the one he afterwards occupied, is one of the circumstances which most strongly draws me towards the man and towards his memory now. (Cheers.) Well, one day, passing down Shortland Crescent, I saw looking into that shop-window a very intelligent boy. His dress was so neat, his appearance so intelligent, that I was altogether struck by the circumstance, and watched him as he intently gazed into the window. About a-quarter of an hour afterwards I returned, and the same boy was still there. I walked up to him, and asked him what he was looking at. He told me he saw two little cannons in the shop-window, and that he had just been building a boat, and that the thing that occupied his mind was what a treasure they would be to him, but that he had no money. (Laughter.) Well, I took the boy in and I bought the little cannons for him. (Cheers.) I asked him who his father was, and he said, "a mechanic." And the boy's whole aspect and demeanour convinced me that his father must have been a mechanic of no very common order. The boy passed out of the shop. Months—or rather years—passed on, and I went to Nelson in the performance of my duty. After the lapse of two or three years—possibly as many as page 4 four or five years—I was met in the street there by a lad, grown up almost to be a young man. He stopped me, and he produced from his waistcoat pocket two little cannons. He said—"Sir, I never parted with these, and never forgot what you did for me in giving them to me." (Cheers.) I said—"Is your father here?" He replied, "Yes, he is; he is Mr. Robinson, the Superintendent of Nelson."(Loud cheers.) Well, now, what did take place? The owner of the shop had become the Superintendent of this Province, the father of the boy who was looking into the window had from availing himself of the benefits of truly representative institutions, raised himself to the position of Superintendent of another Province. (Renewed cheers.) Well, I confess I felt proud of the institutions which I had introduced into this country, and I still think that any man who would prevent such events occurring within the limits of New Zealand, is not a friend of the happiness of the human race, or of his own happiness either. (Loud cheers.) I say that any man who attempts to destroy such openings to the people of this country, will find when old age creeps upon him that he regrets what he has done, and that when he is approaching that other world where all must be equal, whether they like it or not, he will be sorry that he has thrown any obstacles in the way of virtue and ability raising itself to eminence in this world. (Cheers.) Human intellect and human goodness are the greatest blessings perhaps, next to religion, that God has given to man, and he who shuts out intellect and goodness from their true position in the world, and prevents their being used, for the benefit of the human race, robs all mankind of an inestimable treasure, and is neither a friend to his fellows nor to his Maker, in my belief. (Hear and cheers.) Trifling as that incident was, I think you will all feel with me the significance of it. And I for one in my heart earnestly desire that one of the distinguishing characteristics of New Zealand through all time should be that every mother, looking at a clever son, may believe that the time will come when all his fellow-citizens will recognise his worth, and he may be a blessing to the country in which he was born. (Cheers.) And I hope that many mothers may still sec such aspirations realised, and enjoy the happiness that Hows from them. And, I say more, that I hope that this may ever be a country in which the young wife, when she looks at the studious husband, and sees him still cultivating his intellect and doing his best to perform his duty to his fellow-men in every respect, may believe that the time will conic when his worth and merit will be acknowledged, and that others will recognise those virtues and that goodness which she sees in him, and at last the ineffable pleasure may burst upon her of seeing that her predictions have been fulfilled, and that he has been dragged out by his fellow-countrymen and chosen to hold positions of which he has shewn that he is worthy. (Cheers.) Entertaining these views, what I would propose to night to do is this : I would propose not to dwell upon mere provincial matters—to explain those, and to explain their relations to the form of Government that you have, you have the most excellent speech of Mr. Swanson to refer to; you have Mr. Rees' pamphlet, and hundreds of writings on the subject, and several most able letters which I have seen in your newspapers treating of those great constitutional questions upon which your whole welfare and your whole prosperity depends, and which I have seen sufficiently dwelt upon. But what I would ask you to do to-night is really to consider these questions, and when they have been considered, and have been debated, let us all determine upon some common line of policy which the great majority may feel is for the benefit and for the good of all. (Hear and cheers.) Now, in the remarks I make, I wish to assail no one; what I attack is institutions. Many men arc in office or in positions in this country who may not approve of the very institutions which have placed them there, and might to the best of their ability be discharging the duties imposed upon them. With such men we can find no fault. I wish in no way to blame them for what is wrong in the Government of the country at the present time—what interferes with the prosperity of its inhabitants—what must interfere with their future happiness—what must entail misery upon millions—wealth, perhaps, upon a very few. Such institutions we have a right to criticise—such institutions we have a right to consider—and such institutions, if we dislike them, we have a right to sweep away. (Loud and continued cheers.) Now, first, to begin at the very head of all in this country, let me point out to you with regard to the office of Governor, that the rule throughout the British Empire for many years upon the whole has been this,—I think there have been few departures from it: When Great Britain paid the expenses of a colony, was responsible for its debt, provided it was a military post, Great Britain nominated the Governor, and that Governor was virtually to a certain extent nominated by the British Parliament—that is, it was impossible for the Ministry at home to place a mere follower or dependent in any important office where real duties were to be performed, because every such appointment was discussed in the most deliberate manner in the British Parliament, and the Government, if they were doing what was found questionable, had an enormous amount of opposition to meet. I would instance my page 5 own case. Thirty-five or thirty-six years ago, when I was first appointed Governor, there was a keen debate upon the subject in the British Parliament. Thirty years ago, when I first came to this colony, there was a debate which lasted for three days before the question was determined. When Great Britain ceased to pay any expenses for a colony, the usual rule, not only in ancient times, but in modern days, has been that the Governor was elected by those persons who paid the expenditure. (Cheers.) For example, until I went to South Australia the whole expense of the colony of South Australia was borne by a Board of Commissioners in England as a Board of shareholders in a Company. They nominated the Governor, and presented him to the Queen; and the Queen, as a matter of course, issued her commission to him. Even in the case of New Zealand, when the Auckland Islands were constituted a separate colony, and were paid for only by a Whaling Company, the Whaling Company nominated the Governor, presented him to the Queen in the same way, they being responsible for the expenditure, and the Queen appointed the Governor. The East India Company when responsible for the Civil and Military expenditure of our Great Indian Empire, nominated ten Governors of that country, or exercised a control over their appointment. When your own Constitution Act was drawn, the Act was so drawn that the General Assembly can make what law they please for the appointment of a Governor, and send it home to the Queen. That is the existing law of New Zealand to the present day. Now, whether that system is to be adopted or not is of course a question for consideration. What I would ask you to do is to consider the effect of the present system—the existing state of things,—where there is a hereditary monarchy, the Crown for the time being has a strong personal interest in the conduct of public affairs. There a large number of subjects are from tradition, from the habit of years, strongly attached by personal ties to the reigning Sovereign. The reigning Sovereign takes the greatest possible care to commit no mistake that may injure its subjects, or alienate their affections, for the sake of their descendants. But in our circumstances, situated as we are here, the Governor who may be nominated from time to time has, in point of fact, no interest of that kind in the country, and the one object that necessarily he must pursue—I say this without the least reflection upon the person who does it of necessity, for it is a necessity,—is, if possible, to stand well with the Ministry of the day in the colony, to meet all their views, and, if possible, to avoid coming in any way into collision with the inhabitants of the country in which he governs—to escape, in point of fact, without having any disturbance or any difference with the people and the Government managing affairs at the time. Therefore, it is almost impossible for him to make a stand against what he may think wrong, and appeal to the country regarding what he may disapprove, as the Crown may do at home, and certainly would do at home, and he becomes in these respects a mere machine. (Hear, and loud cheers.) Then, further, consider this other view of the case. The Governor is absolutely dependent upon the persons in power at home. The Governor is not appointed now by the Queen,—the Governor is appointed by the Government of the day, for their own peculiar purposes, whatever they may be. If you attempt here to reduce the salary of your Governor, as was done some few years ago—if an Act is passed for that purpose by the Assembly, and it is sent home, the Act is disallowed—the answer is—" The Governor holds his office for six years; our consciences are so tender that we could not commit a breach of contract with him. We cannot assent to it. Pardon us, therefore, for advising the Queen to disallow it." (Laughter and cheers.) That is the language used to the people of the colony who would seek to have power over their Governor in that direction. What is the language that Mould be used by the Ministry of the day to the Governor? His commission appointing him to be Governor states that it is during the Queen's pleasure—not for six years—and he may be removed at a moment's notice. Within the time that I have lived one Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was removed at a moment's notice for refusing to give a pension of £400 a year from the civil list to a lady. (Laughter.) He was removed at once. I have known other Governors removed for simply differing in opinion from the Queen's advisers. I have known a Governor instantly removed for refusing to appoint to an office a relative of a Minister of the Crown who happened to be Premier of England at the time, because he believed that it would not be right to make such an appointment. There was no "six years" given to him there, and the Ministers at home had taken from him his whole income and all that he had laid out on his outfit: his whole income is taken from him, his outfit he must sell for what he can get, and go in a moment. That is the view which is taken of the matter when the Government view it in their own case at home; when they view it in the case of the colonies, the appointment is "for six years," and can be in no way interfered with. (Cheers.) Well, in 1867, another very curious circumstance took place. I intended to have a copy of the actual words, but I have forgotten the paper. I will tell them to you exactly as they stand. At the time the page 6 troops were all being withdrawn from the colonies, the whole expenditure of the colonists was being thrown upon themselves, the view taken up at home was almost precisely in these words : That no man was fit to represent his Sovereign in the colonies who had not been born in the purple. (Laughter.) That was the language used, that no person be appointed to the colonics as Governor, except in extreme instances, who was not the son of a Peer, which was called "being born in the purple." The rule was frequently relaxed afterwards; and if a man had married the daughter of a Peer it was thought that that entitled him to be appointed. (Renewed laughter.) Then conies an extraordinary statement upon this subject. What was maintained was also this : That the colonists earnestly desired to be governed by people who had been "born in the purple, and that it was more easy to govern them in that way. Now that may be the case; I do not know. Some men may worship rank in that kind of way. That undoubtedly was the statement made, and that undoubtedly is the plea that existed, and it is the course which has, in as far as possible, been pursued. Well, now, I think that in that way the colonists stand in a very bad position, and the Governor himself stands in a very bad position. But I really take another and very serious objection to the system. It is this—that it places in the hands of the governing class at home a very large sum of money indeed, to be annually expended in rewarding persons who have given them political support, or in keeping opponents who have given adverse votes in the House of Peers out of the way in distant parts of the world. (Hear and cheers.) In truth, it places at the disposal of the Government a large sum of secret service money which in some instances is actually expended for electioneering purposes, and the whole of which sum of money is withdrawn from the cognizance of the British Parliament and of the British nation. And I do not think, in my own mind, that it is right that we should by our taxation continue to rivet the fetters more firmly upon our countrymen at home. (Loud and prolonged cheers.) If I am told it is not really used for electioneering purposes, I answer that, within my own knowledge, in two recent instances, members of the House of Commons who had damaged themselves by engaging in contested elections in which they were returned, and in which they obtained their return to support the Government in Parliament, were ultimately enabled to recoup their losses by being appointed to the position of Governors in distant possessions of the Crown. And I go a degree further than that, and state that there was an instance in which an Under Secretary of State who, having done, in conjunction with the Secretary of State at the head of his department, what was considered so injurious to the interests of his fellow-countrymen that they were both obliged to leave office at home, was rewarded by being sent out to one of the colonies as Governor, with a very large salary indeed. Such was the state of public feeling at that time in England that it would have been impossible to have given him any office under the Crown within the limits of Great Britain. (Cheers.) Well, for all these reasons, I think that this is a point which is very well worthy of the consideration of the people of this country. We have the power entirely in our hands. I recommend no particular system to you, but we have the power in our own hands to decide, conjointly with the Queen, what is to be done. Parliament and Her Majesty gave us that power, and we can exercise it in such a way as to offend nobody, but do that which we may deem, after consideration, to be the best for the interests of the whole of the entire community. (Enthusiastic cheers.) Such, indeed, is the magnitude of what I call this abuse, that to give you an instance of what I mean, I may state that very little disposal is given to us over our own revenue. Supposing the salary of a Governor here was £10,000 a-year, the Minister at home may give the Governor leave of absence for two years, any time he likes, and we should be required, during the whole time he was absent, to pay him £5,000 a year—a larger salary than the Premier of England, or as large a salary as the Premier obtains all the time he is performing most laborious duties. And we arc not allowed to say whether he is to go or not; that is settled by the Government at home. Now, I think this is another reason why this state of things should be closely and carefully enquired into, and that the salary of the Governor should be fixed upon such a reasonable basis as not to give excuse for other exorbitant salaries in this country. (Loud cheers.) In all these respects we should carry with us the feelings and approbation of our fellow countrymen in Britain, they most unwillingly see such large sums placed at the sole control of the ministry, and they will no longer be taxed for the pensions they pay retired Governors. Well, then, the next thing that I would call your attention to is the constitution of the Legislative Council. Now, I have shewn you that in one instance—that of the Governor—you positively have no control whatever, and that you can exercise no influence upon him except such as his good nature may lead him to recognise, without your having a right to exercise upon him. But in the next—the Legislative Council—in point of fact you are still worse off. Now, I do not say a word against anybody, or that anyone is abusing the power they have page 7 in that Council. I have many friends there, and believe they have done their duty; but such a thing was never seen in the world before as that a Minister, as it is here, should have power to call men into the Upper House, and give them salaries to last for life. I only ask those who recollect the old rotten-borough system. Is it right that the Ministry should be able to take a man chosen by no constituency, representing no one but the Minister who put him into the Council, and then make him Governor of this great country, which is done now ?—because the Governor is in truth nobody here, he is under the advice of his Ministers. And, I say, it is not respectful to the community that an individual, representing, as I say, only the Minister who appointed him should be chosen and at once made Governor of this great community with absolute power over us all. With all my heart and soul I object to that, and think the whole of that institution is in point of fact a gigantic and most expensive sham. (Cheers.) In illustration of what I have said before, and of what I mean, it is in point of fact not created for our good or for our interest or for the interest of the people of great Britain, for their interest is the same as ours, but in the interest of a class at home, the governing class ! I will give you one instance which will shew this. A Minister in England agreed with me that there should be an elective Upper House. I was promised this should be so, and the whole constitution was drawn with that view; but the question arose, "If they have an elective Upper House in New Zealand, all the rest of the other colonies of the empire would want them, and, if the rest of the empire was governed under elective Upper Houses,—often governed, perhaps better than by the hereditary Upper House of Great Britain,—how can an hereditary Upper House stand in Great Britain? It won't do." I say, if you entertain that view in favour of an hereditary Upper House, do not give us such an institution as we have here, and do not clog it with conditions hurtful to my mind. Now, their reasoning in England upon such a subject, when they are not personally interested, is absolutely beautiful. They say, if the Upper House is necessary, then the members must always be present in the Upper Chamber to do their duty, and they therefore make this law, "That any member of the Upper House in New Zealand, absent for two years, forfeits his seat." But what do they say of their own Upper House? If there they meant to reward a man who has voted for them, or to secure the absence of one who may vote against them, they send him out here for seven or fourteen years. I give that as one instance of the way in which the most beautiful reasoning in regard to other persons is so often applied and practised by the indivudals with regard to themselves. You all know what has been done in New Zealand lately. I think that altogether a most objectionable system has been pursued, and I think it is terrible that bill after bill may be passed in the Lower House of this country, and then sent to be refused by the Upper House, who represent nobody. Many of the members of that house, I think, do not even represent Ministers now in the country. They were put in by Ministers, who have made fortunes and gone home, and they represent absentees in England, I could produce argument after argument to shew how fallacious this system is, and how adverse to the happiness of the whole community, but will not detain you longer upon that point. I will now go to the House of Representatives. Very well. Now, I tell you again with regard to the House of Representatives, that there is interference taking place with them which is most adverse to our interest. I will put the proposition in this broad way. First of all, I say that it is essential for any people who are to be well governed, and who return members to Houses of Representatives, that they should be able themselves to reward their representatives, if they are to be rewarded at all, and that there should not be an exterior body (not representing the interest of Great Britain, because its interest is with us, but representing a small wealthy governing class in England, whose interests are adverse to those of the millions at home, and of ours also), who can manage that House of Representatives by giving them rewards with which we have nothing to do. What I mean is this. Lately, two systems of rewards have been created in this country. The one is, they have tried to set up a Peerage here, and a Peerage of a most contemptible and unknown kind. The Peerage is this, the man has rank and dignity as the son of a Baron given to him for life within the limits of New Zealand, but if he travels out of New Zealand he is nobody at all. Now, I object to that altogether. First, it is a breach of the law—a gross breach of a solemn compact entered into with us. In England they tried to set up a similar kind of Peerage. They gave one man a title and a seat in the House of Lords for life. They tried only one, and the whole country rose as one man. They said, "The Queen cannot do this. We do not want to say anything against the Queen; she, probably, does not know anything about it." The reply was, "But the Queen is the fountain of honour." They answered, "She is the fountain of honours known to the constitution; she can make as many Peers as she pleases, Irish or English, but not Scotch, they took care of themselves at the union." This was thus page 8 replied to : "The Queen can make a new order of knighthood, and can create knights." "Yes, but not make a new order of peerage." They said, "Yes, the Stuarts created baronets." The reply was, "But the Stuarts did an immense number of illegal things, and the result was they lost the Crown." "Well," said the Ministers, "when the present family was put upon the throne they did not promise the people that they would not create a new order in the peerage whenever it was advisable." "No, certainly; it was replied, but they promised to govern according to the law, and these conditions were those upon which they got the throne?" It was then admitted that the act was illegal, and it was said, "But you would not put the Queen to the indignity of revoking 'letters patent" but they said, "Yes, we do;" and the "letters patent" were revoked. In New Zealand was now followed up this foolish attempt to create a new order of honour. Well, I am told it is very silly of me to notice this; there have only been four made; but the principle is a great one, and one of the reasons why I early tried to discover new countries where people might retire and find none of those differences which arc experienced at home; and I find it now declared that an aristocracy is to be set up here; that a few are to be endowed with great wealth, and bastard titles, and worthless ranks, and that probably millions are to be left in misery and want. I say, therefore, stop the system at once. And I say that the Minister who advised the Queen to create these life Peers in New Zealand and took the Peerage himself, did that which was a crime against our liberties. Well, probably it was done in ignorance. I admit the oxcuse; but I say, retrace the step as was done at home, make the English Ministers rescind the order of the Queen. Let them learn that we respect our rights here as much as people do in England. If our statesmen and soldiers are to have honours at all, let them be Imperial honours. Let them be made Right Honorables, a constitutional title respected throughout the world. Many here have done great things, give them great rewards. The next point I have is this new order of knighthood. When there are great Imperial orders of knighthood, any man who renders great and worthy services to the Empire can be enrolled, but you cannot enrol persons who have not deserved it; every name is scrutinised with the utmost care, and this is the true safeguard. But as to creating a new order of knighthood, which was formerly conferred only on the Greeks and Maltese and which the English despised, by so doing you have created means of holding influences before our statesmen, which ought not to be held before them, and that which interferes seriously with the General Assembly here. I do not mean to say that public men are not to be rewarded; not in the least, but I say that the man who has served his Queen faithfully in New Zealand, in peace or in war, is as worthy of great honors as the man who has served Her Majesty in any other part of her dominions, and ought to have them, and such honors should be judiciously and properly bestowed. I do not say the others have been improperly bestowed, but I say they are likely to be, and that it is an unsafe power. It is impossible to exercise such a power, and create a peerage such as has been created here—and an inferior order of knighthood of this kind, without drawing a broad distinction between us and our fellow subjects at home, making us an inferior people to the extent almost of a laughingstock. If we manfully say we want no honours such as will not be recognised in England, I think we shall do our duty to ourselves and to this country. Now, to my mind there is something fine and admirable in the one clase of honours, something contemptible in the other. Supposing a man to be in the great English order of knighthood; whilst he may be sitting almost in a cottage in New Zealand, his banner hangs in Westminster, and his stall in the abbey is kept for him; there his banner hangs, an evidence of his services, and the emblem of his reward. It appears to me absolutely desirable that our public men should be open to honours they may be glad to get, and which we may be proud to know have been conferred upon them. If such Imperial honours are not to be given, then, in accordance with the Constitution Act, let us by law regulate the honours which are to be given, if any, and let them emanate from 'ourselves, not from an exterior influence. These are the principal points connected with the constitution of the General Assembly which, I think, deserve our most serious attention. I think our object, as far as possible, should be honours of the best, greatest, and most enduring kind, but to take care that these honours cannot be conferred upon persons who have in no way earned them, and that they might be earned by blessing the country; by public services to this country, and through it to the Empire at large. While passing from these points, I would now go to other questions which most materially concern ourselves here. The first thing I propose to glance at is the question of the land fund, because that is much more mixed up in these matters than you would possibly conceive in the first instance. Why I mean it is so much mixed up in these matters is that, in truth, all that has been done in interference with the liberties which the inhabitants of this country oughts to enjoy has been done by Acts of Parliament passed without our knowledge, being specially the result of one of those exterior interferences which I referred to. The first instance I will tell you of is this. The first time any land fund was accumu- page 9 lated was in the province of Auckland. I think that, with great difficulty, I had accumulated about £25,000 from the sale of waste lands within this province. No sooner was this money accumulated than an Act of Parliament was passed for New Zealand, which ordered this money to be handed over to the New Zealand Company. If that, or anything like such an interference was contemplated, I was not aware of it. To my great astonishment I received a letter from the representative of the New Zealand Company, inclosing the Act of Parliament and a demand for the £25,000. I really did not know what to think of this; but I was in this fortunate position, that the lands in Auckland had been purchased under certain stipulations, which amounted to a contract on the part of the Queen. So, upon consideration, I replied: "Well, I will not pay the £25,000 to you." I have no right to do it. But they said, "You don't mean to say you won't obey an Act of Parliament." Now, I tell you, gentlemen, this is an important point for us to consider. It is a most important subject altogether. Parliament was deceived. I never was warned of what was going to be done, or they would have had information, and probably would never have passed a law which ordered me to commit a positive breach of faith and contract. I would not pay the money, and I went home some few months afterwards. When I got to London I called on the Secretary of State, who was a friend of mine. I was told that he was very much puzzled, and I was also told that "he was not in." (Laughter.) I did not exactly know what to do. However, I went away. In the evening I got a letter from the Law Adviser of the Crown, asking me to call on him the next day about eleven o'clock. I went and found him sitting on one side of the fire, for it was very early in the spring, and therefore cold. He asked me to take a chair. I sat down, and after talking for some time upon other matters, he asked me whether I had seen "the despatches," which must have passed me on the way. (Laughter.) I said I had not seen them, and he handed me a paper, and said, "Will you read that despatch?" The gentleman was Mr. Merivale, a great writer, and a most excellent person. I read the despatch, which was of a severe nature, reprimanding and censuring me in very strong terms for not having paid the money, and ordering me to do so forthwith;—when I had read the despatch he said that such a thing had never been known as a colonial Governor refusing to obey an Act of the Queen, Lords, and Commons. A most severe rating was given to me. I said to myself, "Silence is golden, and it was better to say nothing." I said nothing, but that I was very much obliged to the gentleman for allowing me to read the despatch. As I sat there he looked at me. (Laughter, and cheers.) He at length said to me, "What do you think should be done?" I said I was very sorry for the Colonial Department; the despatch did not hurt me, it was injurious to themselves. He asked me, "What is your reason for saying so?" I replied that if Parliament led to legislate for a colony under a mistake, and their Act turns out to an Act against the interests and rights of the inhabitants of that country,—if the Governor, when it reaches the colony, says to the people you must obey an Act so made, because it is an Act of Parliament, you leave the people no resort but to revolt. What else can they do. If the Governor, on the other hand, says, Parliament has been deceived, I shall not obey the Act till a further reference has been made to Parliament. If he is right he has done you good service, if he is wrong you can punish him." Now, I was right that time. (Loud cheers.) I explained to him why I was right. Mr. Merivale said, "Well, I think you are right; I will report so to the Secretary of State." The next day I got a note from the Secretary of State, stating that he was anxious to see me. (Laughter and cheers.) When he saw me he said, "Do you think the Acting Governor will pay the money." I replied, "I think he will; he is a soldier, and I fancy he will just obey orders." The Secretary then said, "That is a great relief to my mind." Well, the order was obeyed. The money was paid, but afterwards refunded. What did the General Assembly do? They passed an Act, in which it was recited, and I was obliged to them for it, "That whereas the Governor did lawfully refuse to pay the money." Now, you will perceive the evils which spring from the interference of an exterior body which led to this state of things. I come now to another subject. You all, perhaps, know the history of the creation of the Land Fund that has been referred to from time to time. For those who may not be acquainted with it, I may state that the Government of Great Britain entrusted to me, some thirty years ago, with a sum of £10,000, directing me with that sum to purchase blocks of land—the best I could—then to sell those blocks and apply the land fund to immigration and other purposes; part of it also for public works. But I was to reserve a portion of the proceeds for the purchase of other lands, so that, with interest, I might go on purchasing lands. With these means I purchased almost the whole of the Middle Island, large tracts of land in the province of Hawke's Bay, large tracts of land in the province of Wellington, and I began to purchase some tracts of land here with the proceeds realised by those sales of land. I believe, if the system I was acting upon had been adhered to, that nearly the whole of the North Island, page 10 or a great part of it, would by this time have been acquired; that a considerable and natural flow of immigration would have taken place, and that every man in the colony, man for man, would have been four or five times more prosperous than he is now. (Loud cheers.) I object to the state of things as it is now. I believe that from the stopping of the system then inaugurated, a large number of the people have descended in the social scale to so great an extent that it would take their families several generations to retrieve their position. The amount of misery that has been entailed upon some of them can never be told. Recollect it was an Act of Parliament, an exterior influence exercised without full and prior enquiry that entailed this misery upon them. Now, what brought me from my retirement was to a great extent this question. "What I find you have been told on this subject is this—I find it published in the newspapers, and I think you were told so from this very platform, "We are going to sweep away all Provincial Institutions." Mind, you are not to do it yourselves, but another part of the world will do it for you. "We arc going to do this, and the reason is that you do not support your institutions here—your gaolsand lunatic asylums." According to this statement, such institutions in Canterbury and Otago are in admirable order. But it says you arc not all all so—or your institutions are not—in good order. We must sweep your powers of self-goverment away, and we will put your institutions in good order for you. We will provide you with a revenue"—which means that they are going to tax you for that purpose. (Hear, hear, hear.) For if you think that other people are going to pay for your lunatics, you deserve to be shut up yourselves. (Laughter and cheers.) You were then told that anybody who called in question the "compact of '56" regarding the land fund was a dishonest man—that it would be a dishonest transaction to do so. Well, I thought to myself that I would be one dishonest man and do that dishonest thing. The first thing to be done was to see if no one would stand forward and speak—if men were to be cowed by expressions of this kind falling from such high authority, and if no one else would, then I said to myself—I would stand forward and speak. I would come forth and see if anybody would stand by me. Such was the first thought I had. Then the second thought I had was that I did not like that speech to the electors of the City East, I think it was. (Laughter.) I read that your institutions were to be swept away, that you were in a very bad state, your gaols are in bad order, &c.; such was the line of reasoning. But it went on to say that the institutions of Canterbury and Otago were in an excellent state. That is quite true. I can say so from my own knowledge. Now, what is to be gained from this statement? Is it not clear from this that under local supervision, and by the agency of local authority, institutions of the kind referred to were brought to the highest condition—that is, if the authority has funds. That is what I should have told the electors of the City East had I been addressing them. It was clear that when local authorities have plenty of funds they did exceedingly well in regard to their institutions, and it was admirable to see that they spent their funds in a worthy manner, and for such worthy objects. This all shews what local supervision and authority would do. You are to be provided with a revenue, which means that you are to be taxed. Had I been addressing you, who may be the electors of the City East, I would have told the people of the province of Auckland how the money might be obtained without resorting to taxation—for that was what it came to. I should have said they had been very badly used in that land fund business. I should have told you what I would do, being your representative and the Premier of the Colony. (Loud cheers and laughter.) I am now speaking as if I had been Mr. Vogel. If I had been him I would toll you how I would appoint all the judges of the Supreme Court as a Commission who should sit as a Court of Equity to take evidence and determine if you, the people of Auckland, had suffered a wrong in the case of the land fund, and if any wrong were found to have been done, then to say what remuneration you were entitled to. (Cheers.) That would have appeared to me a just way of dealing with a question of that kind, and not to say that any man was "dishonest" who presumed to say anything whatever about it. (Loud cheering.) But coming back to myself, I believe still there will be a great difficulty in your getting any portion of this land fund in that way. I also do not think that with the £700,000 that has been set apart for land purchase you will get any great amount of good land. I hear that in order to get any good land you will have to take a great deal of inferior land, which is perhaps a necessary evil. The fair way would be, if that Were to be done at all, to do it in the terms of the Constitution Act and hand the money for purchasing land over to the Superintendent, so that the inhabitants of the province might get the interest until the land should be bought. Then let the Superintendent purchase good land from time to time as he found it to be disposed of, or as occasion should serve; not to have agents all over the country, and by a complicated system putting the money to enormous waste. That £700,000 would have helped us greatly now in our troubles. I believe that a greater quantity of good land would be got in this way, and at half the price. I still page 11 think that some change of this kind should be made. These are my opinions in regard to the land fund. I hope I have made myself clear to you upon this subject. While we are considering these great constitutional questions, I will dwell upon another of them. It is a point of the greatest importance to you all. First of all, I look at it in this way : I will take the resolution of last session passed by the Assembly. As well as I can recollect, the order in which things occurred were—First: They passed a resolution that the Northern provinces should be done away with. I will not say anything on that point at present. The second part of the resolution was passed, declaring Wellington to be the capital and seat of Government of the colony. Now, I want to tell you that that is the most illegal thing that I ever heard in my life. How any statesman—and we have many statesmen, and some great statesmen in this colony—could have fallen into such an error, I am at a loss to conceive. The constitutional law says that there shall be no declared capital,—there shall be no law passed for declaring such a thing; for if a law were passed declaring anything of that kind, let us consider what the position even of Wellington would be? If a mob were to get possession of Welling ton, there would be no Legislature at all, and they could not pass a law to put them down. If an enemy, say, for instance, Russia, took possession of Wellington, we must sit down, tor no law could be made at all. Therefore, it says generally that no particular part of the colony of New Zealand shall be set apart as the capital, or seat of the legislature, except such as the Governor, by proclamation, may from time to time appoint. First, then, there is the Constitutional Law, and then the Statute Law, which prohibits any interference on that point. Therefore, although I do not like to attribute evil intentions, it appears excessively as if there had been some intention to buy votes, by putting that clause in the resolution. Now, having cleared away that point of the resolution, and shewn that any fixing by law of a permanent and immovable seat of the Legislature is against the constiutitonal and statute laws, which were not regarded at all in the resolution, I will give a general outline of the objects which, I think, we ought all to aim at. I will first of all say that the present machinery, in addition to all the defects I have pointed out in the machinery of the General Assembly, is an ingenious device to keep us from the Queen and people of Great Britain. Honours like those that I have spoken of must only separate us from them the more. Could any person sit down and devise a system that would be better calculated to separate us from our fellow-countrymen at home than this? You will see that it is clear, beyond all question, if we want anything done here in order to bring us into communication with Great Britain, the first thing is to have to recourse to the Governor, and then to the Colonial Minister, who must be more or less under the influence of parties in England. Our Minister here would have to go to the Governor, who would bring his views under the home authorities; but as long as the appointment of the office of Governor was a party appointment, as it is now, it would be difficult to get any Governor to write home to the Minister upon a question that might embarrass him in his action with his party. He could hardly do it; it would be a question with him possibly of honor. It was a most trying position altogether to put any man in. Even supposing the Governor took our view of matters, and his despatch goes home, it goes to the clerks in the Colonial Office. Then the question is, what view they may take,—for do not think that a a Minister sees every despatch. There are some forty colonies, and suppose that only one despatch from each was written each day, these have to be attended to. A Minister at home has also his duties in the Cabinet to attend to; his duties in parliament must be rigorously fnlfilled, and he has also to look after his own affairs. Could he possibly read and answer forty letters every day out of the three hundred and sixty?—letters of great length, as despatches must necessarily be, with all their enclosures and private communications. They go to the clerks in the Colonial Office, who determine what shall be laid before the Minister, and what they shall advise him to do. Then the Minister does not necessarily lay the whole matter before Parliament at all. You must not think that every document that goes home is allowed to be brought before the British nation. Many of them are suppressed if they are adverse to the views or interests of the party in power, and if you complain of their suppression, the Minister will be most distressed when he hears of it. It will be, "It was all the fault of the Parliamentary clerk, and, poor fellow, you would not get him into a scrape." (Laughter and cheers.) In the present system that is what takes place. The Queen can hardly know anything about this Colony. She takes an interest in the people of this country as well as she takes an interest in those of the whole Empire. Don't you believe that she is not interested in the inhabitants of these Colonies, in the welfare and preservation of her mighty Empire. She naturally desires to live and die, seeing it prosperous and glorious, and desires to hand it down, in this state, to her descendants, leaving an imperishable renown after her. But with the enormous claims upon her attention her opportunities are now very few. Indeed, what I say more particularly is this: we have page 12 a perfect right to go to the throne under our constitution; and why should she not communicate with us in the same manner as with her subjects in other parts of the world. Let us have a Secretary of State of our own. Let us select some one from amongst our own people, and send him home. It would not hurt you if you gave him £3000 a-year—say a large salary to represent you in England, If you gave £2500 he will still have more than an .American Ambassador, and will still be a very great man. At the present moment when a colonist goes home to England on some mission, he goes as a helpless individual. He goes to the Colonial Minister, upon whom he is dependent almost lor ever thing He is dependent upon the Colonial Minister to give him a start in life at home. (Laughter and cheers.) Necessarily he feels under great obligations to the Colonial Minister. It would be very hard of him as a Commissioner, when he is asked to dine with all the great men in England, and has got his entree into society by means of introductions from the Secretary of State, to do anything which should have the appearance of embarrassing his new-made friends. If we had a Secretary of State of our own he might be made a member of the Privy Council, and he would be the Right Honorable all over the world, as he ought to be. When he landed in England he would be a great man, and would have the right to put on the finest uniform that could be worn before the Queen, a Lord Lytton kindly arranged for us, if this is really any benefit, which I do not think it is. He would be honoured in all ranks as one of the best and foremost in the service of his Queen and country. He would have the right of laying, in printed papers, all kinds of views that might be thought desirable before the British Parliament. He would have the right of laying them even before the Queen, and she would become acquainted with all her leading subjects in this part of the world. He would be elevated by right of his own merit to the highest rank, instead of creeping to it under an ambiguous title. An affectionate intimacy would spring up between the Queen and her colonial subjects as we sent home man after man who would reflect honor upon the colony. She would take the greatest interest in our affairs—an interest such as she cannot be supposed to take now, not being informed of the facts of each case. The people of Auckland, as well as those of other places and colonies, would be under the personal Government of the Sovereign. By our Secretary of State being a member of the Privy Council, I would have you to understand I mean that the Queen might be in a position to call upon him whenever she wanted advice in connection with the interests of the colony, and there are multitudes of Privy Councillors whose advice is never asked at all; but he would rank with foreign Ambassadors. I say that this established, a career would be open to the statesmen of this country which would provide an object and an ambition worthy to raise them in our estimation and in the estimation of the world at large. A man who is put in such a position of rank and importance will strive to act up to such a position and be worchy of it. You would in this way raise up greater men, give greater honor to public life, would provide a higher and more laudable object of ambition to your children and the people who would be brought more immediately into communication with their sovereign. Difficulties which are now possible to arise between the Queen and this country, could not arise under those circumstances. Any difference which might now occur either from mismanagement or from wrong action on the part of some unknown individual, might occasion a revolt or excite the greatest indignation. In such an emergency, our own Secretary would have the right to make a representation of the real state of the case, and prevent such difficulties taking place. This is what I say ought to be done. The next consideration refers to the General Assembly. On this point some people may differ from me. All I ask is that they will hear. If I can. I will convert them; if they can, they may convert me. I am not unreasonable. I will first instance the case of Auckland. I believe that, if the General Assembly should succeed in the objects it declares it will carry out, and if provinces are done away with, the future of Auckland will in many respects be extremely gloomy. On the other hand, if you were to reduce the General Assembly in number, make them meet every two or three years, and meet in such part of the colony as they might be summoned to meet at, not being bound to one town; if you were to increase the powers of your Provincial Governments, you would make this place a Sydney, some other place in the colony would become a Melbourne, and some other place an Adelaide. You would have good government, your towns in all directions would grow into importance in every way—in intellect, in education, and in legislation—your provinces of New Zealand would be not inferior in magnitude to a great number of British colonies, and far surpassing many of them which now have their own separate Government and Legislature. Auckland city would rise to be of the first importance, a seat of commercial intelligence and civilisation; education would be spread all over the countrv. Such would be her prospects, instead of sinking into insignificance as she is now. That is my belief. I believe that by sweeping away the General Assembly in its present form, you would save a now absolutely useless expenditure. I believe that by in page 13 creasing the powers of the provinces you would manage public affairs more economically—that you would bring things under immediate supervision and authority, that your youth would have a worthy ambition set before them, that you would rear up great and eminent men in your midst, who would be fit by their ability to represent and maintain the interests of this country in England, and be able to hold their own with the best statesmen she could produce. (Loud cheers.) No; the only answers I have ever had made to me on this subject were of the most ridiculous kind. Some have said, there is no use your talking; we are determined we will be governed by gentlemen. I say to that, give me Nature's gentlemen. Look, for instance, at Abraham Lincoln Was there ever a man honester or nobler than Abraham Lincoln? He was actuated by the loftiest motives; therefore let all men, of every rank, come into public life. Let us all set an example before us and our country of the good we can do. Then another answer made to me, by one of the leading statesmen of the colony, was this : "All you say is true. It is quite true the Constitution Act intended that all these privileges should be given to you. But we have accepted a different system. Don't you trouble me about it. I do not agree to any great constitutional changes now. I accept the present system, and I won't have your constitutional changes." When did ever I agree to give up these rights which I possess under the Constitution? By what compact was it inferred that ever I agreed to these rights being taken away? I ask you, did they ever come to you to seek your agreement that you should abandon the privileges which the Constitution gives you? Have they ever addressed you in this form: Now, electors, all these rights which have been given to you you must give up? Did they ever explain to you the consequences of your position on this point? Did they ever say to you, will you have a Governor nominated by the governing class at home; did you ever agree that you would accept fifty members of the nominated Upper House, all paid and all influenced by the Crown? Did you ever say that you would give up any part of your liberties? I do not think any man in the colony would have said this. I do not think we are bound to believe in any agreement of the kind, and I say to them, "Get rid of the changes you have made; we do not want change, but are contented as we were. Give us what the Constitution has provided for us, and we will be satisfied that things should remain as they were." I have explained before what I would do. Let us have a Secretary of State resident in England, and let the Queen be placed in a position to rule the people of the colony, and the people of the province of Auckland under her own personal sovereignty. She will do ready to do this. There is one point on which you must not be led astray. Do not think that the loans which are now being raised are obtained upon the security of one man or a few men. No; they are raised upon the security of the industry of the settlers, not on the security of one or two individuals. Money-lenders will not give their money upon uncertain security; it has been the security of your farms, your stores, and on the enormous wealth that you have created in this country that they offer their money. Loans of money can always be raised upon such security as this, and if more millions of money were wanted they would be found, they can be raised by telegraphic communication. But I say, reduce the enermous wasteful expenditure that is going on. Let us spend our money economically; let us settle our institutions so that a few persons could not conic down and say we are going to change this and that, and the whole tenor of your Constitution; let us settle the Constitution that we have had given to us upon a permanent and sure foundation; let us take stock of our rights, and determine our privileges; let us carry on our immigration and public works upon a sure and permanent footing; but let us not have a crisis threatening from day to day, and be told that if Ministers do not have four millions of money we shall be all ruined. Let us determine upon some far-seeing line of policy by which the public works can be carried on for many years to come, and if we need additional loans to carry them on we shall be in a position to pay them without being depressed. That, I think, is the way that I would like myself to see the Government carried on, and that is a way which I think is practically within the power of the people. All this may be easily done, but you must not be misled on some points. I frequently see statements made upon authority which must mislead the public mind. Indeed, I was misled myself upon some of them until I looked into them. It was said that the population had increased only five or six-fold, whilst the revenue had increased seven or eightfold; but the population has increased more than the revenue, for it turns out now that there is more than two millions of revenue, but revenue depends upon taxation, and if you are burdened with greater taxation than formerly, of course, there must be more revenue. There is another question in respect to this two millions revenue. The interest on your debt is nearly one million, so that your revenue has fallen off if you consider the liability upon it. You are not only subject to that liability, but you have come under enormous obligations to the native race, which you cannot stop without the page 14 fear of disturbances. There are other enormous obligations which you cannot get rid of at once, such a monstrous civil list, an exorbitant pension list, neither of which existed formerly. Therefore, instead of your revenue being increased in proportion to population, nothing of the kind has taken place. Another tiling to be borne in mind is that the revenue is not the test of prosperity. It would be quite possible, and even probable, to raise an enormous revenue from the population in the North, but it would be done by imposing misery upon the great bulk of the people for the benefit of absentees. I say that you are about to turn New Zealand into what Ireland was formerly, and possibly into an Ireland of a worse form. Let us, while we carry on public works and immigration, take care that all the wealth of the country contributes to the taxation necessary to bear such a system out. It is late, and I must not detain you long. There are other points I would have touched upon had there been time. I have endeavoured to sketch out such a system for you as I firmly believe, if followed, would create thousands of happy homes in this North Island. I have endeavoured to sketch the mode of action by which your great men may rise to imperial rank, and which would not impose a nominal aristocracy on this country. I have tried to sketch a system which will open up and lead to objects of ambition for every man—not a system by which there should be a few rich persons in the country, while millions remain in misery,—under which there would be some equality of wealth, happiness, and prosperity throughout an entire contented community. It shall not be if I can help it that women and children shall starve and sink into misery in consequence of the resources once open to industry being absorbed by wealth and power. I dare say you have heard of Gustave Dore and Blanchard Jerrold. Dore is a distinguished artist and a man of great ability. Jerrold is also a man of high literary attainments. They have made a joint study of London and the lower stratum of its population. The conclusion they have come to is that it is false to say that wickedness is the cause of all the misery that is witnessed. It is their opinion that for every ten men who take to robbery, to vagrancy, or to pauperism by the impulses of their own vices, there are one thousand who lead lives of misery and die in misery, but struggle like heroes throughout the whole of it. Such is their deliberate statement; one being a most intelligent Frenchman, the other a most intelligent Englishman. The scheme that I propose will allow no such frightful scenes to spring up in New Zealand. I believe my ideas must ultimately prevail. Whoever joins me to carry them out must join me from conviction. I am not able to offer him place or power or bribes. He must join me with the earnest hope of doing good to the Empire. Men of this kind will be tenfold more worthy than those to whom they will be opposed. I believe that truth and justice will live in this colony, as they will live throughout the whole of the British Empire. I thank you very much for the attention with which you have heard me. I will not detain you further; and depend on it if you elect me to serve you I will do it to the very utmost. (Loud and prolonged cheering.)

Mr. Robert Graham came forward and proposed the following resolution :—"That the electors thank Sir George Grey for his address, and express their confidence in his fitness and ability to undertake the duties of Superintendent of the province."

Captain Daldy seconded the resolution. He said ho must congratulate the electors of the province upon a broad platform of public policy being opened up for their consideration. This had been wanted for ton or twelve years past. It was a disgrace to the province that they had been meeting from time to time to discuss men and not measures; under this platform they would be able to discuss measures and not The resolution was put and carried by acclamation, the whole assemblage rising and giving round after round of cheers.

Sir George Grey, in returning thanks, said : Gentlemen electors,—I thank you very much for the resolution you have passed. I can only say that if you choose me for your Superintendent I will do my utmost to promote your welfare. I hope you will all remember that you will find in me not only a Superintendent, but a friend. (Cheers.)

Mr. Graham called for three cheers for Sir George Grey, which were responded to with great enthusiasm.

A vote of thanks was proposed to Mr. Boylan, the chairman, and carried by acclamation.