Seven hundred years before the white man came to it the Maoris were in possession of New Zealand, but for all those years they knew nothing of the curse of alcoholic liquor. The white man and the whisky bottle came to New Zealand together. It is true that the white man brought other things as well. He brought the Bible. He brought Christianity. He brought the skill required to develop the hidden treasures of nature. He brought the settled institution of civil government. But when he brought alcoholic liquor he turned loose upon the country a force of evil that has done more than anything else to counteract whatever benefits have been introduced, and to leave a foul stain on the history of European settlement. The white man came to New Zealand to find in possession a virile native race, only too deeply dyed with the worst vices of barbarism. But until he came there was one vice the New Zealander knew nothing of—the vice of drunkenness. A child of nature, he was content to quench his thirst in the flowing stream, with his splendid strength unimpaired by the use of any kind of fermented liquor. When the pakeha, the white stranger from over the seas, first offered him such liquor, the smell and taste of it led him to describe it by an unflattering name, ‘Waipiro’—‘rotten water.’ Well would it have been for him and for his race if that first foul taste had led him to seal his lips against it for ever. But ‘rotten’ as that ‘water’ was and is, it has the fatal quality of creating an appetite for itself that only too frequently becomes insatiable. Lacking the power of restraint found among more civilized races, the introduction of alcoholic liquor among the Maoris has led to the writing of the blackest and most shameful chapter in the history of New Zealand. The most damning indictment of the liquor trade in this country is found in the wholesale destruction it has wrought among its aboriginal inhabitants. There were at least one hundred thousand of them in the country when the white man first appeared. They have been reduced since then to less than half that number, and among the causes that have contributed to this frightful holocaust, alcoholic liquor has played the most prominent part.

How It Came. The first direct shipping contact with New Zealand was made by whaling and sealing ships from Australia, and in the cargo list of such ships the rum puncheon would invariably find a place. It was unfortunate that the first outsiders to settle in New Zealand were mostly the left-overs or runaways from such vessels, also escaped convicts from Australia. The example set by such unworthy specimens of the white race was in many ways demoralizing, not least so in connexion with the use of alcoholic liquor. All too early the natives acquired a taste for the liquor which they first contemptuously described as ‘rotten water,’ and orgies of drunkenness and debauchery took place that stamped certain parts of the country with disgrace. The Bay of Islands became the rendezvous of the South Seas whaling fleet, more than one hundred ships being sometimes found anchored there during the season. No more beautiful scenery of its kind can be found anywhere than at the Bay of Islands, but by reason of the excesses of drinking and licentiousness indulged in by European sailors and natives, its name long stank with infamy as ‘the Alsatia of the South Pacific.’

The First Temperance Society. With the arrival of the Rev. Samuel Marsden from Sydney, at the Bay of Islands in 1814, to commence the Church of England Mission, followed by the arrival of the Rev. Samuel Leigh, also from Sydney, at Whangaroa in 1822, to open the Wesleyan Methodist Mission, there arose the hope of uplift for the race whose original plight of moral degradation had been rendered all the more deplorable by the vices that had been introduced by Europeans. As the Total Abstinence Movement in England, started by the ‘Seven Men of Preston,’ only began in 1832, it was only natural that the views of the early missionaries on alcoholic liquor were coloured by the notion that was then general in all classes of society, that its use in moderation was not only permissible, but actually beneficial and necessary. But the ravages of drunkenness among the Maoris whom they sought to convert to Christianity compelled some of them at least to face the fact that some drastic steps were necessary to stop the plague. At the Waiapu Diocesan Synod, held in September, 1911, Mr. H. Hill, Inspector of Schools, stated that ‘the first thing to be printed in English in New Zealand was a summons to a Temperance Meeting in the Bay of Islands in 1834.’ The first printing press in New Zealand was set up at the Church of England Mission Station at Paihia, Bay of Islands, and it was from this press that the summons went forth to what probably was the first Temperance Meeting.

In the Bibliography of New Zealand Literature, compiled by Dr. Hocken, of Dunedin, it is stated that the first book printed in the Colony appeared in 1836. It was an eight-page pamphlet recording the formation of the New Zealand Temperance Society. It is difficult to decide whether or not this is the same printed publication referred to by Mr. H. Hill at the Waiapu Synod, although there is a difference of two years in the dates.

In the New Zealand Methodist of November 22, 1890, an interesting account is given by Mrs. W. Gittos, of the founding of what she calls the ‘First Teetotal Society in New Zealand.’ The year was 1842, and the place was Mangungu, on the Hokianga River. It was at the Wesleyan Methodist Mission Station, with which the Rev. John Hobbs, the father of Mrs. Gittos, was at that time connected. The missionaries had been greatly troubled by the prevalence of drinking and drunkenness among the natives, resulting in a serious loss of life by drowning in the river. It was Mrs. William White, the wife of one of the missionaries, who was moved to propose to attempt a remedy for the evil by forming a teetotal society. She herself had taken the pledge in England at the hands of Father Mathew, and it was from the medal he gave her that she wrote in a copy-book Father Mathew's pledge—‘We agree to abstain from all intoxicating liquors except for medicinal purposes and for religious ordinances.’ The first teetotal meeting was preceded by the first tea-meeting in New Zealand, which was held in a raupo workshop with a carpenter's bench as the table. A public meeting was held in the church, the chair being taken by Dr. Day, an Irish Methodist, who had recently come to settle in New Zealand. Stirring addresses were given by members of the mission staff—the Revs. John Warren, George Stannard, William Woon, and John Hobbs. Mrs. White then produced her copy-book, and the pledge was signed by all the ministers named, also the ministers' wives and the ministers' children, among the latter being Mrs. Gittos herself. Some laymen also signed, among whom was Mr. C. O. Davis, who afterwards became a well-known native interpreter, and who, to the end of his days, did his utmost to win the Maori people from the curse of drink. Mrs. William White, who started the pledge-signing at Mangungu, removed afterwards to Auckland, where she lived to a good old age, and always as a pattern of good works.

The First Local Veto Experiment. Mangungu was also the scene of the first Local Veto experiment in New Zealand. Not only had drink played awful havoc among the natives—the settlers in too many cases had given way to drunkenness. The following extract from Brett's Early History of New Zealand, pp. 371–2, is worth quoting:

About five hundred of the natives were present at the meeting and a few of the colonists. In accordance with the fourth resolution a deputation proceeded to a vessel shipping timber for Australia, and, making known the decision of the meeting, the delivery of the grog on board was demanded. The master, finding there was no alternative, reluctantly complied, making the observation, ‘Matters have come to a pretty pass now that we are compelled to go on our voyage without our supply of grog.’ The captain, however, ordered the puncheon of rum to be hoisted on deck; it was taken by the natives to the gangway, the bung drawn, the sailors' coveted treasure emptied into the sea, and the cask handed back to the captain, who remarked, ‘I have no more spirits on board.’

Unfortunately, this spasm of heroic virtue was only of brief duration, for the narrator proceeds to say, ‘The resolutions were, however, not likely to be kept. Some of the settlers renewed their excesses openly, and some of them went so far as to visit the Mission Chapel at Mangungu and dance around it, holding bottles of rum in their hands.’

Prohibition in Kaipara. A much more successful attempt at local Prohibition was made some years later in the Otamatea portion of the Kaipara district. The Methodist Missionary in charge of that district was the Rev. W. Gittos, a son-in-law of the Rev. John Hobbs. Mr. Gittos possessed qualities that commended him very favourably to the mind of the natives. He had a good grip of their language, he was well skilled in handicraft, he was daring and courageous, uniting a kind heart and a strong will, and devoting himself unselfishly to all the varied interests of his charge, temporal as well as spiritual. So completely did he have their confidence that they trusted him with the management of all their affairs, and accepted implicitly any restrictions he saw fit to lay upon them. He hated the liquor trade with a passion which knew no bounds most of all because of the fearful mischief it had wrought among the people whom he loved. So the decree went forth from the benevolent despot who ruled Kaipara from the Mission Home at Otamatea that no intoxicating liquor of any kind was to be brought into the district. As the only mode of conveyance at that time from Auckland to that part of the Kaipara was by water, it was comparatively easy to check the imports. From henceforth, no mention was made of alcoholic liquor in the manifests of any of the vessels that sailed up towards Otamatea. On one occasion, however, strangely enough, among the goods landed from a vessel at Otamatea, close to the missionary's house, was a keg of whisky. It bore no address, and in answer to the missionary's inquiry as to who claimed it, no applicant was bold enough to make an appearance. Mr. Gittos then made it the occasion of an object lesson which the large number of assembled natives would never forget. Rolling it close to the water's edge, he smashed in the end of the keg with an axe, leaving the whisky to flow into the river. Before long, the natives gazed with astonishment on the ridiculous antics of fishes that were actually drunk. The moral was driven home still more forcibly when afterwards they saw the river banks strewn with the dead bodies of these fishes that had been killed by whisky.

The Albertland Settlers. Too often, as we have seen in the case of Hokianga, the drink evil among the Maoris was aggravated by the bad example set them by European settlers. Mr. Gittos, however, was favoured in his attempt to ward off the liquor curse from the Kaipara natives by the proximity of settlers of a totally different type. In the history of the Temperance Movement in New Zealand, a place of honour may well be given to what were known as the Albertland settlers. Albertland is the name of a district in the North of Auckland, adjacent to Kaipara. It was chosen as the place of settlement by the members of what was called the English Nonconformist Association. While not figuring so largely in the public eye as the Presbyterian settlement in Otago, or the Church of England settlement in Canterbury, this Northern Nonconformist settlement has contributed in no small degree to some of the best elements in the moral and social development of New Zealand. Albertland was by no means the best favoured part of the country to be chosen for settlement, and the original settlers had a back-aching and heartbreaking experience that might well have driven them to despair. But among them were men and women of intelligent conviction and sturdy moral purpose in relation to social reform. Their devotion to high ideals has favourably influenced the whole Dominion even to this day. Many of them, before leaving England, were members of the United Kingdom Alliance. A local auxiliary of the United Kingdom Alliance was established at Port Albert in June, 1869. The official board was as follows:

President, Rev. W. Worker. Vice-presidents, J. Turner and J. Ryan, J.P. Secretary, G. T. Hartnell. Treasurer, George Plummer. Committee , H. Marcroft, T. A. Gubb, J. Shepherd, H. W. Neal, R. Nicholson.

An auxiliary was also established at Drury, of which Dr. Rayner was the secretary. Action was taken by these auxiliaries in promoting a petition to the Auckland Provincial Council, and also to the General Assembly in favour of a Permissive Bill on the lines of that laid down in England by the United Kingdom Alliance. The records show that they had much the same disappointment with politicians that has been common since that day. Promises made on the hustings were not always fulfilled when it came to a vote in Parliament. The Permissive Bill was introduced into the Auckland Provincial Council by Mr. John Shepherd, of Port Albert, in 1864. It was finally passed by that same council on January 26, 1871, and was the first Bill of the kind to be adopted by any legislature in the British Dominions. It had a less fortunate fate when it was dealt with by the General Assembly.

In addition to these attempts to secure legislation affecting the whole of New Zealand they were active in promoting sentiment favourable to temperance locally. A Band of Hope was started at Port Albert in 1873, one permanent result of which is seen in the fact that it has not been found possible to establish a licensed public-house within twenty miles of the settlement.

Besides those already named, there were others who gave distinction to the Albertlanders as stalwarts in the cause of temperance. Among them were John Brame, Charles Hill, John Shepherd, Solomon Hercus and the Rev. Samuel Edger, B.A. The last-named was for many years the minister of an Independent Church in Auckland. He was a man of marked ability, both in speech and writing, and anticipated the most advanced positions of to-day in dealing with the liquor traffic. His intelligent zeal in the anti-liquor movement has been inherited by his daughters, Mrs. Judson and Mrs. W. Evans, M.A., both of whom, the latter especially , have for many years rendered distinguished service in connexion with the Women's Christian Temperance Union.

A River of Death. Nearly every river in New Zealand has a sad record of drowning accidents from various causes, but the Northern Wairoa overshadows all others in the number of deaths by drowning through drink. For many years, before the bush was cleared and proper roads were made, the river was the main highway of traffic through the district, and boating was the chief means of transport. Through those years the principal industries of the district were bush-felling and sawmilling, to which was added the shipping on the river that took the timber away. When licensed houses were planted in a district in which lumbermen, saw-millers, and sailors formed a considerable proportion of the population, it is not surprising that, having to make their homeward journeys by boat, the river swallowed up many brave fellows who had been overcome by liquor. From many homes thus made desolate and from others threatened by the same peril, it is on record that a number of widows, mothers, and wives waited upon the principal owner of these public houses to ask him to remove the cause of so much sorrow and loss. But business interests rose superior to humanitarian considerations, and the Northern Wairoa was left still to roll on as the river of death.

At a Convention held at Helensville on October 3, 1905, there was shown a Petition, thirty feet long, bearing the signatures of 877 residents in the Kaipara district in 1877, presented to the Lincensing Bench, asking its members to refuse all applications for license. There was a refusal, but it was that of the prayer of those 877 petitioners. Auckland has been favoured beyond all other cities in New Zealand in the matter of handsome and costly endowments. It is greatly to be regretted that so much of the wealth that made the most conspicuous of these benefactions possible should have been drawn from a source associated with some of the saddest tragedies in human experience.

Auckland. Many who came out with the Albertlanders left the original settlement to reside elsewhere, carrying with them their old-time zeal for total abstinence. In Auckland, they found they had been anticipated by many years and in various ways. The last issue of the Auckland Standard in 1842, reported a crowded temperance meeting in Auckland City, addressed by Mr. Thomas Russell, who afterwards became well-known in political and financial circles, but not so well-known in the ranks of liquor abolitionists. In the list of pioneer workers in Auckland are found such names as David Goldie, Joseph Newman, Joshua Robinson, Caleb Robinson, Richard Spragg, John W. Carr, Edwin Carr, Ebenezer Carr and James Coupland. A Temperance Hall was built in Albert Street, which is still the property of the society, although the society, as such, is now scarcely heard of.

The City Band of Hope was established in Auckland in 1859, and meetings were held in the residence of Mr. E. Tremain. It was afterwards removed to a schoolroom at the top of Hobson Street. Mr. Richard Archur and Mr. F. Battley took an active interest in it. Another Band of Hope in Auckland was started in the Boys' Academy, Lorne Street, under the leadership of Mr. John Graham. Mr. Archibald Clark was the secretary, and Mr. William Rattray was joined in the work. Another Band of Hope was formed in connexion with the Newton Congregational Church, of which Mr. Richard Spragg was the leader. The first Band of Hope Union in Auckland was established in 1865. The present flourishing Union was formed in 1881.

An Albertlander living in Auckland, Mr. J. M. French, presided at the first meeting called to consider the starting of the Independent Order of Rechabites in New Zealand. He was the first Chief Ruler of the first Tent, and the first Chief Ruler of the first District. At the jubilee of the Order Mr. H. R. French, of Hastings, was elected Chief District Ruler for a second term, and the coincidence was then discovered that the then D.C.R. of the Northern District No. 84, was a grandson of the first D.C.R. and that between times, his father, Mr. Robert French had passed through the same orders.

Thames. With the opening of the Thames goldfield in 1867, there was a sudden rush of population in that direction, which bore with it a much needed contingent of ardent temperance workers. The gold fever usually creates a big thirst, which liquor sellers are keen to exploit for their own advantage, and the Thames was no exception. It soon had a live Permissive Bill Society of which Mr. Robert French was secretary. In conjunction with Mr. French, the present writer started a Band of Hope early in 1871. In this connexion, it is becoming to refer to the painstaking and devoted manner in which Mr. French laid himself out to the end of his life to promote every phase of the anti-liquor movement. Other prominent workers at the Thames were Mr. J. Nodder, Mr. J. H. Manners, Mr. James Renshaw, Mr. J. Foster, Mr. W. Ashby.

Wellington. Pioneer tracks in Wellington bring prominently into view Mr. John Harding. In a letter to the Rev. J. Crump, dated May 7, 1911, published in the Vanguard, Mr. Edward Lewis, of Belgrove, Nelson, who was then within two months of his eightieth birthday, gives an interesting

Methodist. Among the earliest missionaries in New Zealand were some who soon awoke to the mischief wrought among the natives by alcoholic liquor, and, by personal example and plain-spoken precept, sought to win them to sobriety. Reference has already been made to the establishment of a Temperance Society by the Church of England Missionaries at Paihia, Bay of Islands, in 1834, and another by the Rev. John Hobbs at the Wesleyan Mission station at Hokianga in 1842. Attention has also been called to the regime of absolute Prohibition set up some years later by the Rev. W. Gittos in the Kaipara. These and others were instances of individual effort in connexion with the temperance movement in all the Churches, but many years had to elapse before any of the Churches, as such, took united action in antagonism to the liquor traffic. The Wesleyan Methodist Church was as early in mobilizing for direct attack as any, but it only reached that position by slow and cautious steps. Up to the formation of the first New Zealand Conference in 1874, it is hard to say whether or not a majority of the ministers were total abstainers. At that first Conference, which was held in Christchurch, and which was composed of ministers only, under the heading ‘Intemperance,’ the following resolution was adopted:

‘That, being impressed by the terrible moral and social evils resulting from the prevalence of intemperance, the Conference expresses it sympathy with all efforts conducted in a Christian spirit, having in view the lessening of this public vice.’

‘Lessening,’ be it observed, not abolishing.

Four years later, in 1878, it would seem as if a big stride forward had been taken. Under the heading ‘Temperance,’ more than three pages of the Minutes of Conference are taken up in recommending that Temperance Societies and Bands of Hope should be established in all circuits, and in setting forth the rules and regulations by which such societies should be controlled. Well would it have been for the Methodist Church itself and for the cause of sobriety in New Zealand if those Conference resolutions of fifty years ago had been, in the main, faithfully and persistently carried out. There is, however, in the light of later days, a fly in the ointment even in connexion with these resolutions. In defining ‘Membership’ we read as follows:

‘All persons who shall sign and observe either of the following declarations shall be regarded as members:—

Abstaining Members— I hereby agree to abstain from all intoxicating liquors as beverages, and will endeavour to promote the objects of this society.

Non-Abstaining Members— I hereby agree to exert myself for the suppression of intemperance, and will endeavour to promote the objects of the society.’

That non-abstaining membership was the Achilles' heel which weakened the stand of the Wesleyan Methodist Church against the liquor trade.

Further developments will be found recorded in the section dealing with the Methodist Church, appearing on p. 164.

Presbyterian. In the Presbyterian Church no name is more worthy of honour and respect in relation to temperance work than that of the Rev. W. J. Comrie. He began early and he still keeps at it with untiring diligence, notwithstanding that the shadows of evening begin to lengthen. Some notable workers will be found mentioned in the section dealing with the Presbyterian Church, on p. 168.

As in the case of the Methodist Conference, it took many years for the anti-liquor sentiment so to develop itself in the Presbyterian Church as to lead to a pronouncement in its favour by the General Assembly. It is interesting to find on record the fact that at the Presbyterian General Assembly, held in Dunedin in December, 1877, a Committee was appointed ‘to take steps to support any good piece of legislation towards the suppression of the drinking customs of the people, and decided to draw the attention of people to the evil use of wine at funerals, baptisms, &c.’ But when once it did swing into line, that pronouncement became more and more marked and definite until, in the completeness of its committal to the most extreme form of antagonism to the liquor trade it has hardly been excelled by any Church Court in Christendom.

The Church of England. While not so prominent in its attack on the liquor trade as the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches, the Church of England can claim the credit of making some valuable contributions to the working forces in the temperance movement. Identified with it at various stages during the period now under review, that is prior to 1886, have been Bishop Stuart of Waiapu, Bishop Mules, Nelson, Archdeacon Williams of Te Aute, Canon Webb of Gisborne, Archdeacon Chatterton now of Rotorua, the Rev. H. J. M. Watson of Christchurch, Dean Howell of Napier, Canon Haselden of Onehunga, Archdeacon Dudley of Auckland, Rev. P. S. Smallfield, Auckland, Rev. T. J. Wills of Ormondville. That last name calls up the memory of one of the most intensely devoted workers in the anti-liquor movement that New Zealand had known. Owing mainly to his unflagging energy the Waiapu Anglican Synod became noted for the thoroughness of its researches into every phase of the temperance movement in all parts of the world, the reports of which proved a valuable means of educating the general public. Mr. Wills came into conflict with Bishop Nevill of Dunedin, who controverted some of the positions which the Vicar of Ormondville had taken up. His reply to the Bishop, entitled Bishop Nevill's Mistakes, was not lacking in spice or cogency, for where the liquor question was concerned, Mr. Wills was a fighter of no mean calibre. His ardour in the duties he undertook, unfortunately, led to a breakdown of health, and his sun went down while it was yet noon. Such men have not lived in vain. The seed they sowed has borne good fruit as evidenced by later developments in their Church and country.

Other Churches. In the years when New Zealand was in the early stages of its growth as a colony, such churches as the Congregational, the Baptist, and the Church of Christ, were not so solidified in corporate organization as they have since become, so that pronouncements on the temperance question from such a gathering as an annual assembly or conference could hardly be expected. But the value of such pronouncements by any representative assembly depends largely upon the extent to which its individual members accept the responsibility of endeavouring to give effect to them. In the matter of personal service the record of the three Churches named comes not one whit behind the record of either the Methodist, Presbyterian, or Anglican Church. The Nonconformist Albertland settlers, previously referred to, were mostly Congregationalists and Baptists, whose successors are among the keenest in the movement to-day. Among Congregational ministers in the front line may be named the Rev. S. Edger, B.A., of Auckland, the Rev. Dr. West, of Wellington, the Rev. Dr. Roseby, of Dunedin, the Rev. H. J. Miller, of Napier, and the Rev. W. A. Evans, of Wellington.

The Baptist Church has always put up a fine record in the crusade against intemperance. Ministers and laymen everywhere could be counted among the ‘reliables’ whenever it came to a skirmish with the common foe. The names occur of the Rev. Charles Dallaston, the Rev. J. Williams, the Rev. T. Spurgeon, the Rev. J. T. Hinton, and the Rev. R. S. Gray.

It would be difficult to say how much the temperance movement in this country owes to the Adams family in Dunedin, whose connexion with it dates back nearly sixty years. Mr. A. Hoby, of Wellington, represents another long standing connexion, also the Kirk family, one of whose daughters, the late gifted Mrs. A. R. Atkinson, rendered splendid service to the cause as president of the W.C.T.U.

The Church of Christ, first introduced into Dunedin by Pastor Matthew W. Green, has always taken a firm stand on the temperance question. Several of its ministers have been trained in America, and the experience they have gained there has been used effectively in advocating Prohibition for New Zealand.

The Seventh Day Adventists are out-and-out in advocating the banishment of all intoxicating liquors. They make a strong point of advocating as a religious duty the maintenance of physical as well as spiritual health, and so the sale and use of alcoholic liquor, as the foe of both, lies under an unsparing condemnation.

The Salvation Army, which ‘opened fire’ in New Zealand in 1882, has never done otherwise anywhere than maintain a strongly antagonistic attitude to the liquor trade. It is the only religious body that insists on total abstinence as a condition of membership. In its social work it discovers such a frightful amount of moral and physical wreckage caused by drink that it is supplied with a never failing incentive to do its utmost to get rid of it. Hence it is out to support all that can be done by moral suasion and legislative action to free the country from one of its greatest curses. The Salvation Army uniform has always been conspicuous when the ranks have closed for a definite struggle with the licensed liquor trade.

It was only to be expected that the earliest combined efforts to combat the liquor evil should be local and sporadic. Mention has already been made of the formation of Total Abstinence Societies in various places, and also Bands of Hope. They did good work locally, but there was no general organization to bind them together. There is still nothing in the shape of a Dominion Total Abstinence Union or a Dominion Band of Hope Union. Such Unions as exist are at most only provincial. The time came, however, when branches of temperance organizations in other lands were transplanted to New Zealand. The transplanting took place at various periods and in various localities. As typical of the stages of progress in the transplanting of these organizations, it is instructive to note the record covering Dunedin.

In the year 1864 the first Temperance Society was founded in Dunedin. This was a Band of Hope, which was largely attended and was very successful. Mr. Thomas Morris was organizer and superintendent.

In 1871, a branch of the Order of the Sons and Daughters of Temperance was established by Mr. R. N. Adams. Mr. J. I. Adams, father of Messrs. R. N., J. A. D., and A. S. Adams, was an active member of this society.

In 1872, under a charter from the Grand Lodge of England, Mr. Robert Greig instituted the Good Templar Order in Dundin, by opening Pioneer Lodge No. 2, Mr. J. W. Jago being the first Chief Templar.

In 1874 a branch of the Rechabite Order was founded by Mr. Peter Rankin and Mr. George Watson. In later years Mr. David Gain and Mr. Richard Farrant were very active members.

It has been possible to publish the foregoing items of information through the kindness of Mr. D. C. Cameron of Dunedin, who was elected Grand Secretary of the I.O.G.T. in 1875, and retained that office for thirty-four years. It is pleasing to be able also to add that Mrs. D. C. Cameron, who attended the Grand Lodge in Dunedin in 1875, was for forty years active in temperance work, especially among the children.

All the above named organizations have continued to render good service, as will be found more fully described in the special articles devoted to them elsewhere in the present volume. It remains to be said here that of all the societies mentioned it was the Good Templar Order that at the outset was the most popular and successful. It spread throughout the country almost with the swiftness of a prairle fire. It became practically the Aaron's rod that swallowed up all other rods. It drew into its membership ministers of nearly all denominations, lawyers, journalists, merchants and large numbers of the working class. It became the means of rescuing a great many people from the grip of intemperance, and of diffusing a sentiment in favour of total abstinence that has had far-reaching results. Its foundation principle, ‘Total Abstinence for the individual and Prohibition for the State,’ has enabled it to co-operate with all departments of service in the Anti-Liquor Campaign.

The first temperance periodical in the south was The Liberator, published in Dunedin in 1874, Mr. W. Hooper, editor.

In 1876, The Liberator was merged into The New Zealand Temperance Times. Of this, the original directors were John A. D. Adams, D. C. Cameron, H. Smythies, Jnr., W. Hooper (editor), W. Carr, J. Dick, W. McEchern, R. N. Adams, secretary.

The Temperance Herald was published on March 9, 1878, editor—J. W. Jago, manager—D. C. Cameron. This continued publication until September, 1891, when it was incorporated with and succeeded by The Prohibitionist. In addition to the journals especially devoted to temperance advocacy, there were religious papers that gave it prominence. Such was the Christian Record, that was also published in Dunedin. Such, too, was The New Zealand Wesleyan, published in Christchurch in 1871, the predecessor of The New Zealand Methodist, later known as The Advocate, and still later as The New Zealand Methodist Times. Such also was The New Zealand Primitive Methodist.

It may be said of the editors of all these papers that they have not failed to keep the flag flying in the interests of temperance reform. Notably too, was it the case with the Outlook, the organ of the Presbyterian Church, which, under the able editorship of the Rev. Dr. Waddell, was a burning and a shining light on the pathway of temperance progress. The War Cry of the Salvation Army began in 1882, the fusillade against the drink evil which it has kept up ever since.

It cannot be said that the newspaper press in those earlier years, any more than in later years, proved a factor in temperance education, otherwise than by admitting discussion concerning it in the correspondence columns. What gains have been made in temperance progress have been in the teeth, for the most part, of newspaper opposition. There were, however, some honourable exceptions that are worthy of mention. Mr. Gilbert Carson, an early Auckland stalwart, was not slow to affirm his temperance principles when he became proprietor of The Wanganui Chronicle. Mr. George Jones consistently used the Oamarti Mail in the cultivation of temperance sentiment, and that to an extent which, in later years, proved a valuable factor in making Oamaru a No-Licence electorate. Commendation is also due to the memory of Mr. John Stallworthy of Dargaville, whose paper, The Wairoa Bell, gave no uncertain lead in the fight against the liquor trade.

Valuable service has been rendered from time to time by the visits of temperance advocates. In those earlier years these were pledge-signing campaigns—a feature that, unfortunately, has become less conspicuous since the emergence of the demand to get rid of the liquor traffic by voting it out of existence. The permanence of any gain secured by legislation would be made all the more certain by the extent to which people were won to the practice of total abstinence. Much good work had been done on these lines by such organizations as Good Templars, Rechabites, and the Band of Hope movement, but there was both scope for, and need of, a popular appeal on a wide scale. Hence the advent in 1885 of a temperance advocate who had gained considerable popularity in Australia—Mr. Matthew Burnett—was hailed with great expectations. If those expectations were not all realized it was not because Mr. Burnett was lacking either in zeal, sincerity or ability. He was a Yorkshireman, charged with emotion, and having to his credit the rescue and rehabilitation of not a few sad wrecks of humanity. The story of some of these rescues, relieved by touches of pathos and humour, made up the ground-work of impassioned appeals for total abstinence that led to pledge-signing on a large scale at all his meetings. Mr. Burnett's unselfishness and geniality commended him to all associated with him in the various missions he held.

A still more widely advertised temperance advocate visited New Zealand, also in 1885, in the person of Mr. Richard T. Booth, the American founder of the Blue Ribbon Army. His name and fame drew crowds to hear him wherever he was announced to speak, and there was no lack of plainness and persuasiveness in his setting forth of the perils of the drink habit and the need of every form of practical protest against it. The form of protest that gave distinction to his world-wide mission was that every one who signed the total abstinence pledge should wear on a conspicuous place on an outer garment a bit of blue ribbon. That appeal to the quietly spectacular caught on immensely, and Mr. Booth's course through the colony could be traced by the wearing of the bit of blue in the home, in the street, in the market, in the place of business, in church, in the pulpit, and in one case at least, on the judicial bench. It was the badge of what looked like an exceeding great army, out to demolish the liquor trade. The badge has disappeared but the record at the triennial licensing polls shows that the army has not ceased to exist.

There was another visitor in 1885, Mrs. Mary Clement Leavitt, also an American, who left a far deeper and more lasting impression than any who preceeded her. In inaugurating the New Zealand branch of the World's Women's Temperance Union, she made one of the biggest contributions

In another place will be found a summary of the Licensing Legislation in New Zealand from the year 1841 to the year 1918. It is interesting to note that the first successful attempt made in any British legislature to bring the liquor trade under popular control was made in the Auckland Provincial Council. On January 26, 1871, a Permissive Bill was passed by the Council, introduced by Mr. John Shepherd of Port Albert. It was easier to get it through the Provincial Council than the General Assembly. Many years were to elapse before the principle of that first Permissive Bill was recognized in the legislation of New Zealand, and it was only reached ultimately by stages. The first stage was that indicated in the Licensing Act of 1881. Prior to that, Licensing Committees were nominated by Government. By the Act of 1881 the country was divided into licensing districts and the election of Licensing Committees was placed in the hands of ratepayers. As the election was annual and the objective on both sides was to secure a majority on the Committee, there commenced at that period the straight-out struggle between the forces of liquor and of anti-liquor that has continued ever since. It is interesting to recall the intensity of the struggle and the paeans of victory that were sung when a majority of the anti-liquor party succeeded in gaining seats on the licensing bench, but the interest becomes pathetic when it is remembered how limited the powers of such committees were. There was, it is true, a clause in the Act giving ‘discretion to the committee to grant or refuse certificates for licenses (including renewals).’ That seemed to give very wide powers, even that of the extinction of all liquor licenses in the country. But even when a reduction of licenses was attempted, before reduction became an issue in a licensing election, the reasons for such reduction were challenged in law-courts. As is well-known, when in later years the ratepayers of Sydenham interpreted the clause literally, and elected a Committee pledged to refuse all licenses, and they did so, a judge of the Supreme Court, on appeal by ‘the trade,’ set aside the Committee's decision on the ground that in arriving at such a decision they were influenced by ‘an incurable bias.’ For all the strength that was put into the struggle for a majority on the Licensing Committees, the results in the way of curbing the evils of the liquor traffic were pitifully small. The one advantage gained was the sharpening of weapons for the bigger and longer fight when the issue at stake was the total abolition of the traffic.

The year 1884 is noted for the beginning of a famous struggle to shut the liquor trade out of a native district in the North Island, known as the King Country. By Section 25 of the Licensing Act, 1881, it was provided that the Governor may proclaim an area of native land in which no liquor license shall be granted, if the owners of the land apply that that shall be done. In 1884 the owners of the Rohe Potae, better known as the King Country, as represented by the leading chiefs, headed by Wahanui, did so apply, and the Proclamation was issued, and signed on the 3rd of December, 1884. (See New Zealand Gazette, 1884, vol. ii. p. 1,685.) The Governor was Lord Glasgow, and the Premier was Mr., now Sir Robert Stout. The action taken by the chiefs in securing the Proclamation was inspired by what they had seen of the terrible results of the sale of liquor among the natives under the then existing conditions. It was known that the Government was planning to construct a section of the Main Trunk Railway through the district, which meant practically the opening of the land for European settlement. It was also known that European settlement elsewhere had been accompanied by the opening of licensed houses for the sale of alcoholic liquor. In view of such a prospect, the feeling of the leading chiefs was expressed by Wahanui when he appeared before the House of Representatives in support of a petition which nearly all the chiefs had signed, and when he said:

‘Another request I have to make is that the sale of spirits within our district shall be stopped absolutely. I do not want this great evil brought upon our people. I hope this House will be strong in preventing this evil coming upon us and upon our people.’ (Hansard, vol. 50, app. p. 556.)

The famous fighting chief, Rewi, the hero of the last brave stand of the Maoris at the assault by the British troops on the Orakau pah, March 30, 1864, sent from his deathbed a telegram to the Governor, Lord Glasgow, as follows: ‘O Governor, long may you live! This is my first request that you prevent strong drink from being allowed to come within the Rohe Potae. This my first request will be my last.’

Premier Stout, speaking at the cutting of the first sod of the railway, said, ‘It was a feature of the arrangement that no liquor was to be sold if the territory was opened for the railway.’

There can be no doubt about the validity of the Proclamation and the guarantees to which the Government committed itself when the proclamation was issued. Barring the granting of a wholesale license by a magistrate at Waitara many years ago, which had to be cancelled by special Act of Parliament, the Government has so far kept its word in refusing to grant a liquor license for the King Country. But when it comes to the question of enforcing the law against illegal sales the record is not praiseworthy. Sly-grog selling has been practised on a very large scale and with the most injurious results. It is a grave scandal that the railway, permission for the opening of which was only granted on condition that no liquor should be admitted into the King Country, has been used for the transport of liquor which it was known was to be handled by sly-grog sellers. Various technicalities have been urged by the Government in defence of its action in this respect, but there can be no doubt whatever that the quantity of liquor illegally disposed of in the King Country would have been considerably diminished if a more resolute and persistent stand had been taken by the Government in refusing to be the tool of liquor merchants in Auckland and elsewhere in facilitating the sale of intoxicants among the natives whom it stands pledged to protect. The difficulties of the situation have been increased by the considerable number of Europeans who have settled in the district. The claim has been set up and vigorously pressed in Parliament and elsewhere that conditions in the King Country have so greatly changed since 1884, when the Proclamation was issued, that the law with regard to the sale of liquor should be altered, so as to bring it into harmony with the law in other parts of the country. There might be some force in the claim but for the consideration that no Europeans have gone to settle in the King Country without knowing beforehand that the sale of liquor in that district was prohibited. The claim is further weakened by the consideration that the original demand for the protection of the King Country natives from the evils of alcoholic indulgence still holds good, and that experience in native districts elsewhere shows that so far from licensed houses lessening such evils, they are all the more intensified. These rival struggles—the demand on the one hand for the more strict enforcement of Prohibition in the King Country and the demand, on the other hand, for the opening up of the King Country for the licensed liquor trade— will, it is hoped, before long, find a common solution when the objective of the New Zealand Alliance is gained, and the blight of the liquor traffic will be everywhere abolished.

The New Zealand Alliance. The year 1886 saw the birth of the New Zealand Alliance for the abolition of the liquor traffic by the direct vote of the people. It was called for by the growth of sentiment and conviction concerning the need of a more drastic method of dealing with the liquor evil than any hitherto in operation. A vast amount of good had been done by such organizations as Total Abstinence Societies, Bands of Hope, Good Templar Lodges, Rechabite Tents, and the Order of the Sons and Daughters of Temperance in spreading education concerning the injury caused by the use of alcoholic liquor and winning thousands of people to sign the total abstinence pledge. But it became more and more apparent that much of the good thus done was nullified, and the further spread of temperance principles was hindered by the temptations to the use of liquor that were presented in licensed public-houses. It was, therefore, resolved to copy the example that had been set in England by the formation of an Alliance for the purpose of securing, first of all, such an alteration of the law as would furnish the people with the power, by direct vote, to determine whether the liquor traffic should or should not exist, and then, when such power was secured, to induce the people to use their power of voting to bring the liquor traffic to an end. A succinct account of the formation of the Alliance was furnished by the late Mr. Robert French to the New Zealand Alliance Handbook of 1914, and is hereby transferred to these pages:

‘Some members of the United Kingdom Alliance emigrated to New Zealand, settling in the early sixties, and formed the Drury Auxiliary of the U.K.A. In 1862 their number was reinforced by the arrival of the Nonconformist settlers, a number of them being members of the parent society. The Maori War hindered the growth of the society; when peace was re-established the propaganda flourished. On September 10, 1869, a branch was formed in Auckland, soon to develop into a “Provincial Committee.’”