History of <name type="place" key="name-170607">New Zealand</name>. Vol. III.

Front Cover

Spine

Back Cover

Title Page

History of New ZealandVol. III

[The Right of Translation and Reproduction is reserved.]

History Of New Zealand ByG. W. Rusden.Second Edition.In Three Volumes.Volume III. Melbourne:Melville, Mullen & Slade, 262 Collins Street.London: 12 Ludgate Square, E.C.1895.

Contents of Vol. III.

Chapter XVII. Pages 1–71 1872 TO 1874. Donald McLean and the Maoris—Mr. Todd shot—Fox Ministry implore the Governor to retain H.M.S. “Virago”—Lord Kimberley and Mr. Fox—Fenians and other Convicts—Conditional Pardons—Colonial Armed Forces—Te Kooti—Public Memorial of Waka Nene—Te Whiti at Parihaka—Sir D. Monro and Mr. Fox—Dispute as to Powers of Legislative Council—Opinion of Sir J. D. Coleridge and Sir G. Jessel—Mr. Sewell and Mr. Vogel—Railway Contracts—Financial Statement—Character and Death of John Coleridge Patteson—Polynesian Labour Traffic—Taiaroa's Resolutions on a Council for Native Affairs and Translating into Maori Bills affecting the Maoris—Karaitiana Takamoana—Commendations of Maori Members—Katene on Parliamentary Government—Native Land Bill—McLean, Sir W. Martin, and Mr. Fenton—Colonel Haultain on Acquisition of Maori Lands—Te Wheoro on the Working of the Land Courts—Sir W. Martin's Criminal Law Digest—Mr. Sewell's Praise of Mr. Mantell's Services—Committee on Native Affairs—Te Rangitake reconciled—Titokowaru allowed to return to his Home—Dr. Featherston sends out German and Scandinavian Emigrants — Emigrant and Colonists’ Aid Society—Public Thanksgiving Day on Recovery of Prince of Wales—Poihipi Tukeraingi at Taupo—The Governor assures him that the Queen will maintain inviolate the Treaty of Waitangi—The Governor cannot see Tawhiao—Gladstone and Kimberley Bill for Denaturalization—Ropata Wahawaha's Meeting—D. McLean's Tribute to him—Wi Tako Ngatata and Mokena Kohere Legislative Councillors—Vogel extols Provincial System—Mr. Vogel on Corruption—D. McLean's Speech on Maori Affairs—Fox Ministry turned out—McLean declines to take Office with Stafford—Stafford Ministry — Public Funeral of Patuone—Taiaroa's Committee on “Unfulfilled Promises” in Middle Island—Story of Tauroa's Captivity —Fox and Bell on Promises—Katene on the Rape of the Waitara—Want of Confidence Motion—Vogel's Statement as to the Intrigue which expelled the Weld Ministry—Stafford Ministry out-voted—Discussions as to Dissolution—Stafford resigns—Waterhouse Ministry—D. McLean's Native Councils Bill—McLean's Disclaimer of Responsibility for the War of 1860—Rangitikei—Manawatu Validating Bill—Railway Policy—Royalty on Gold—McLean's Policy as to dealing with confiscated Land sanctioned by Secretary of State—Mr. Water-house's Resignation—Governor Bowen's Departure—Statistics, 1867 to 1872—New Zealand University—Colleges—Pukekura Block—Death of T. Sullivan—Coroner's Inquest—Mr. Mackay and Mr. Mair report—Mr. Mackay at Te Kuiti—Rewi—Arrival of Governor Sir J. Fergusson—McLean's Policy acquiesced in—Maori Census, 1874—McLean's Native Lands Bill—Judges’ Tenure of Office— Native Reserves Bill—Dr. Pollen on Land Transactions—Ngatata in the Legislative Council—Mantell quotes a Speech by Dr. Pollen—McLean's Land Bill passed—Taiaroa on Middle Island Native Claims —Relations between the two Houses—Mr. Vogel's Manœuvres—Provincial Loans Bill thrown out by Legislative Council—Ancillary Bills thrown out—Mr. T. B. Gillies on Log-rolling—Australian Colonies Customs Duties Statute 1873—Dr. Featherston and Mr. Vogel—Emigration Commissioners and Mr. Vogel—Forest Waste in New Zealand—Annexation in the Pacific—New Zealand and Polynesian Company—Mr. Vogel and Mr. Phillips—Sir J. Fergusson on Educating the Children of the Chiefs—Donald McLean knighted. CHAPTER XVIII. Pages 72—141 1874 to 1877. Assembly summoned, July, 1874—Report of Judges of Native Land Courts —Taiaroa moves for Committee on Unfulfilled Promises in Middle Island—Mr. Mackay's Report on the Ngaitahu Claims in Middle Island—Mr. Fitzherbert on Mr. Vogel's State Forests Bill—Mr. Vogel's Bill to Abolish the North Island Provinces—Mr. O'Rorke indignantly resigns Office—Major Atkinson succeeds him—Discussions in the House—Mr. Fox confesses his Conversion from Provincialism to Centralism—A Member's Reasons for changing his Opinion—Native Lands Act Amendment Bill passed—Advances for Provincial Public Works—Pastoral Tenancy under the Crown; Gibbon Wakefield's System—Sir F. D. Bell as Speaker—Public Works Bills—Sir J. Fergusson resigns, and Marquis of Normanby becomes Governor—Dr. Pollen head of Ministry—Sir G. Grey elected Member of Assembly—D. McLean meets Tawhiao—Death of Mohi Tawhai—D. McLean's Land Purchases for the Government—Rangihiwinui—Moriori Race decaying—Maori Education—Parliament meets, July, 1875—Loan Negotiations in London—Statement of Purchases in Middle Island compiled by Mr. A. Mackay—Taiaroa and Carrington on the Unfulfilled Promises—McLean upon them—Heretaunga Block at Hawke's Bay—Piako Swamp Transaction—Ohaewae Church, and kindly Feelings—Bill to abolish Provinces—Struggles in the House—Taiaroa on the Suffrage—Bill to increase Number of Members—Dr. Featherston's Despatches in Answer to Vogel—Disqualification Act of 1870 inconvenient—Indemnity Act—Statistics of 1875—Pioneers ask for Grants of Land—Marquis of Normanby's Report on Abolition Bill—Dissolution, 1875—Vogel not economical—Swainson—Annexation of Fiji—Inscription of Colonial Stock—Death of Dr. Featherston—McLean and Te Wheoro see Tawhiao—Uriwera Tribes join in selling Land—A Maori Election Case: Karitiana Takamoana—Assembly meets, June, 1876—Fitzherbert Speaker—Sale of Piako Swamp to T. Russell and others—Mr. Waterhouse on Elections and Promises—Financial Statement—Price of Land in Provincial Districts—Both Houses adjourn as a Mark of Respect to Dr. Featherston's Memory—Vogel on “The Necessities of Democratic Institutions”—Mr. Fitzherbert's Tribute of Respect for Dr. Featherston—Vacancy of the Office of Agent-General— Mr. Stout on Vogel's Speeches—Mr. Stout and Major Atkinson on Appointment to post of Agent-General—Major Atkinson's Ministry of a Fortnight—Mr. Reader Wood on the Appointment of an Agent-General—Sir Julius Vogel's Farewell to the House—Mr. Whitaker's Attorney-General's Bill—Civil List Bill—Taiaroa's Maori Representation Bill passed as Amended—Mr. Hall, Mr. Holmes, and Captain Fraser eulogise the Maori Members—Major Atkinson's Indemnity Bill for Members of Ministry—Major Atkinson reconstructs his Ministry—Counties Bill: Qualification of Voters, &c.—Financial Arrangements Bill—Advances to County Councils—Waste Lands Bill—Carlyle on the Functions of Governments—Sir G. Grey introduces Manhood Suffrage and Triennial Parliaments Bills—Sir G. Grey and Sir D. McLean—Taranaki Land-claims Bill—Mr. Carrington and Sartoris and Downe Claim—Mr. Waterhouse on the Taranaki Land-claims Bill—Land claims of Sartoris and Downe compounded (1877)—Prorogation of Parliament—Taxation in Prospect: Sir Henry Maine's Prophecy—Proof of Efficacy of Gibbon Wakefield's Land Sale Theory—Land Revenue of Canterbury—Death of Donald McLean—Hawke's Bay (Heretaunga) Native Lands Alienation Commission—Devices to procure Signatures narrated—Assembly meets, July, 1877—Mr. Ormond's Charge against Sir G. Grey refuted—Mr. H. R. Russell—Sir G. Grey proposes an Acreage Tax on Land—Compact of 1856 Threatened—Education Bill—Mr. Whitaker's Native Land Court Bill—Mr. Whitaker's Wail—Debates on the Bill—Mr. Whitaker's Libel Action against an Editor. CHAPTER XIX. Pages 142—272 1877 TO 1881. Mr. H. R. Russell's Action against the Waka Maori Newspaper—Mr. Rolleston on Sir J. Vogel—Mr. Stafford explains the manner in which the Provinces were abolished—Mr. Larnach carries a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Atkinson Ministry—Sir G. Grey forms a Ministry—Confused Voting in the House—Gisborne, Fox, Mr. Stout on Privilege and the Governor—Mr. Speaker Fitzherbert—Mr. O'Rorke—Points of Order—The Governor and the Ministry—He declines to grant a Dissolution—Secretaries of State support the Governor in his Views, which his Ministry differed from—Sir G. Grey's Effort to Strangle a Land Sales Bill passed by both Houses—The Governor declines to withhold his assent, and is supported by Sir M. Hicks-BeachSir M. Hicks-Beach, Secretary of State—Sir G. Grey's Contentions with the Governors—Sir G. Grey's Financial Arrangements Bill, 1877—Mr. Hall vainly contends against Breach of the “Compact of 1856” in the Crown Lands Sales Bill—Mr. Sheehan's Native Land Purchases Bill—Mr. Sheehan's Statement on Maori Questions—Maori Reserve at Dunedin: Vote of £5000—Sir J. Vogel's Agency—Public Works and Immigration Scheme—Colonial Burdens—Loans—Sir W. Fitzherbert's Warning—Privileges of Legislative Council—Payment of Members—Sir G. Grey's Harangues—Electoral Addresses—Mr. Stout and Mr. Ballance join Sir G. Grey's Ministry—Conviction of Moffatt for unlawfully Manufacturing Gunpowder—A Cloud at Parihaka—Donald McLean's sanctioned Arrangements for Settlement within confiscated Boundary at Waimate Plains, &c.—Mr. Parris's Description of Te Whiti—Te Whiti's Settlement at Parihaka—Te Rangitake—Condition of the Maoris, 1877—Petition of nearly 1000 Maoris—Sir G. Grey and Sheehan offend Mr. C. O. Davis and others—Mr. Whitaker's Land Claims at Piako—Dr. Pollen in 1863, 1873, and 1877—Parliament meets July 1878—Immediate Survey of Waimate Plains announced by Governor—Obliquity of Sir G. Grey and Mr. Sheehan—Donald McLean's System of Management at Waimate Plains, &c.— “Takoha” there during Atkinson's Administration, and Bribes given to Titokowaru under assumed Names—Signing of Vouchers—Mr. Sheehan suspends the Survey—Mr. Ballance and Mr. Macandrew—Preliminary Meeting of Maoris at Kopua—Sir G. Grey sees Tawhiao at Hikurangi—Sir G. Grey, Sheehan, Wi Tako Ngatata and Rewi at Waitara—Mr. Sheehan sees Te Whiti and Titokowaru —Hiroki—Survey interrupted by Maoris—Sir W. Fox and Sir Dillon Bell's Report on the Forcing of a Road-line through Titokowaru's Cultivations—Sale of Land advertised without any Reserves of Maori Cultivations, &c.—Mr. Ballance—Mr. Mackay sent to visit Te Whiti; his Report—Mr. Sheehan declares the Country from White Cliffs to Waitotara “strewn with Unfulfilled Promises”—Sir G. Grey meets Tawhiao and the Tribes at Kopua—Narrative of the Meeting—Failure of Sir G. Grey—Mr. C. O. Davis—Mr. Sheehan's Account of the Failure—Rewi visits Auckland—Ploughing at Oakura—Sir G. Grey and Colonel Whitmore at Taranaki—An Auckland Newspaper confesses that after the Rape of the Waitara “we found we had been all wrong”—Te Whiti on the Ploughing—Arrests of the Ploughmen sanctioned by Sir G. Grey— Taiaroa in Legislative Council—Resignation of Mr. Stout and Mr. Ballance—Sir Hercules Robinson Governor—Sir W. Fitzherbert Speaker in Council—Mr. O'Rorke Speaker in House—Fox carries Vote of Censure—Sir F. D. Bell on Confiscated Land and McLean's Pledges—Peace Preservation Bill, 1879, thrown out by Council—Sir F. D. Bell and Mr. Waterhouse upon it—Taiaroa and other Chiefs send out a Panui—Te Whiti stops the ploughing—General Election—Mr. Hall—The Governor and Sir G. Grey—Mr. Hall and Tomoana—Tomoana quits the Ministry—Members of the Hall Ministry—Hall adopts the wild Proposals of Grey—Sir G. Grey's Exultation—Secession of four Auckland Members from the Opposition—The Manner of it explained by two of the Seceders—Statement as to Native Affairs which made Tomoana resign—Tainui and Te Wheoro on “buying the Votes of Members”—Maori Members complimented in the House—Whitaker and Taiaroa on Maori Tenure—Sir F. D. Bell on Maori Representation—Confiscated Lands Inquiry and Maori Prisoners’ Trials Bill— Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Bryce on the Bill—Sir F. D. Bell declares that the Land in Question was “never confiscated” and that “none of the Promises to the Maoris had been kept”—Taiaroa and Mr. Mantell—Mr. Scotland and Ngatata's Cousin—Sir H. Robinson assents to the Bill—Close of Session, December, 1879—Ministerial Designs on Parihaka—Parihaka Prisoners sent to Dunedin and Hokitika—Sir W. Fox and Sir F. D. Bell Commissioners—Stipulation that pending Report of West Coast Commission, the status quo in the District should be maintained—Tawhai declines to serve on the Commission—Ministry send a large Armed Force into the District.— Te Whiti warns his People to abstain from Provocation—The Inquiry and Reports (March, July, and August) of the Commissioners—Their Recital of M'Lean's Arrangements within the Confiscation Bounds —Their Summary of the Result of those Arrangements (p. 225)— Their Tribute to Te Whiti's Character and Conduct—Their final Recommendations—Sir G. Grev and Sir W. Fox—Assembly convened. May, 1880—Maori Prisoners Bill, 1880—Debates upon it—Captain Russell on Te Whiti and the “Page of History”—Mr. Andrews on the Maoris—Division in the House—The Bill in the Council—Mr. Whitaker upon it—Passing the Bill'in the Council—Maori Prisoners’ Detention Bill passed—West Coast Settlement Bill—Rangikaheke at Parihaka—Mr. Bryce, Sir G. Grey, Mr. Pyke, and Mr. Macandrew on West Coast Settlement Bill—The Bill passed in both Houses— Taiaroa's Extrusion from the Legislative Council—Bills on Native Affairs, 1880—Te Wheoro on Native Land Sales Bill—Mr. Reader Wood on. Maori Attributes—Patetere Block—Trial of Election Petitions by Judges of Supreme Court—Payment of Members of Parliament—A Tack avoided—How the West Coast Settlement Bill was applied—Trial of Maoris for alleged unlawful Obstruction—Departure of Sir Hercules Robinson—Prendergast Administrator—Sir F. D. Bell, Agent-General in London—Sir W. Fox sole Commissioner at West Coast —Sale of Maori Lands at West Coast by Governmeut—Resignation tendered by Mr. Bryce—Arrival of Sir A. Gordon — Secretary of State calls for a Report on Disturbances—Mr. Bryce's Memorandum —Magna Charta and Habeas Corpus Act Insignificant—Mr. Partis and Te Whiti—Captain Knollys, A.D.C., visits Parihaka, and Reports —Resignation of Mr. Bryce—Mr. Rolleston Native Minister——Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Bryce—Report of West Coast Commissioners on McLean's Arrangement that Lands at West Coast, though “nominally confiscated,” are “unavailable for Settlement”—Sir A. Gordon's Report (26th Feb., 1881) on West Coast to Secretary of State—Mr. Hall's Deceptive Memorandum on the Subject—Mr. Hall asks Secretary of State to suppress (at present) the Governor's Report—Lord Kimberley agrees to suppress it “if possible”—The Lyttelton Times— Meeting of Assembly, June, 1881—Taiaroa again in the House—Te Wheoro on a Crown and Native Lands Rating Bill—Tawhai upon it— Tawhiao visits Waikato District—Major Mair, Wahanui—Mr. Rolleston's Thermal Springs Districts Bill—Representation Bill, 1881— Mr. Sheehan, Taiaroa—Mr. Swanson on the Treatment of the Maoris —Mr. Mantell on the Himatangi Block—West Coast Settlement Reserves Bill—£100,000 voted for Suppression of West Coast Maoris— A Class of Men who become “Villains by Necessity”—Mr. Gisborne in the House—Sir G. Grey—All Votes of Censure afterwards expunged. CHAPTER XX. Pages 273—353 1881 TO 1882. Sir A. Gordon sails for Fiji—The Raid upon Parihaka—Rumours about Te Whiti and the Press—Mr. Rolleston at Parihaka—The Press on Mr. Rolleston—Mr. Hall and Major Atkinson—Lyttelton Times Correspondents—Mr. Rolleston and Te Whiti—The Lyttelton Times—Armed Men sent to the West Coast—Sir A. Gordon on the Way to New Zealand—Te Whiti's October Meeting—His Speech—Comments upon it in the Press—Determination “to break up Parihaka”—The Ministry —Mr. Hall and the Governor's Private Secretary—Prendergast and the Private Secretary—Nocturnal Meeting of Executive Council, 19th Oct.—Sir A. Gordon arrives at Wellington in H.M.S. “Emerald”— Proclamation by Prendergast threatening Seizure of Lands—Mr. Rolleston's Resignation and Mr. Bryce's Acceptance of Office as Native Minister—Sir A. Gordon lands at Wellington, 20th Oct.—Comments in the Press—Mr. Rolleston's Statement, 24th Oct.—Sir A. Gordon's Comment upon Mr. Rolleston's Statement—Troops poured upon Parihaka—Lyttelton Times—Mr. Stout's Protest—Judge Gillies'Charge to a Grand Jury on the Law applicable at Parihaka—Lord Kimberley —Deceptive Telegram to London—Leading Article in the Times— Te Whiti and Mr. Bryce—Te Whiti in Face of Captivity—Civilians forbidden to approach Parihaka—The Native Minister on a White Horse—Reading the Riot Act—Te Whiti Kidnapped—Te Whiti deemed a Gentleman—Pillage of Maori Houses—Sacred House destroyed—The EcJio on Te Whiti—Lyttelton Times on Blundering and Plundering at Parihaka—Titokowaru in Prison—Judge Gillies’ Charge to a Grand Jury—Te Whiti before Petty Sessions—Mr. Parris on the Bench—Te Whiti sent to Gaol—Mr. Hamilton on drafting Women and Children—Stolen Ornaments—Ramaka, Kukapo, and Motu—Mr. Stout on Impartial History—Death of Te Rangitake—Mr. Rolleston, Mr. Stout, and the Bishep of Nelson—Mr. Stout on Mr. Rolleston— General Election—Sir A. Gordon and his Despatches—Satisfaction of Lord Kimberley as to Affairs at Parihaka—Tawhiao's Visit to Auckland—Wahanui, Hemera Rerehau, and Ngapora—Archdeacon Maunsell—Lyttelton Times—Wahanui, Tawhiao, and Mr. Hall—New Zealand Herald—Resignation of Mr. Hall—Mr. Whitaker forms a Ministry—Houses destroyed at Parihaka—Judge Gillies’ Charge to a Grand Jury at Taranaki (1st May)—Sir John Hall's Evidence as to the Proceedings at Parihaka—Maori Meeting at Whatiwhatihoe—Te Wheoro—Peace Preservation (or Attainder of Te Whiti) Bill—Debates in the House upon it—Taiaroa—Mr. Bracken—Indemnity Bill— Protests in the Legislative Council—Debates upon Unfulfilled Promises in Middle Island,—Himatangi Block—Tawhai carries Orakei Reserve Bill—Maori Population discussed—A Native Reserves Bill— Crown and Native Lands Rating Bill—Ngatata, Mr. Whitaker, and Mr. Scotland—Tomoana's Native Committees Empowering Bin—Defeated by Negotiations—Wetere te Rerenga and Mr. Bryce—Amnesty Bill—Sir A. Gordon's Resignation and Departure—Sir W. Jervois Governors—Mr. Scotland and the Amnesty Bill—Te Kooti shaken Hands with—Debate in Legislative Council on the Withdrawal of Maori Pensions—Col Whitmore on Ropata Wahawaha—Captain Fraser on adding a Dark Chapter to the History of New Zealand—Sir G. Grey on Wahawaha and Mr. Brycc—Reports of Sir W. Fox as sole Commissioner on the West Coast—Paora Tuhaere, and Lord Kimberley —Ngapuhi Chiefs, Parore and others, present a Petition at the Colonial Office—Lord Kimberley's Reception of Them—Aborigines’ Protection Society—Lord Kimberley disingenuous—The Treaty of Waitangi, the Pledges to respect it, and Lord Kimberley's Abandonment of it— Extract from House of Commons Committee Report of 1837—Mr. Gladstone—Memorandum sent by Whitaker to Lord Kimberley as to the exceptionally favourable “Treatment extended to Maoris in New Zealand”—Lord Derby, as Secretary of State succeeding Lord Kimberley, acknowledges the Ministerial Memorandum. CHAPTER XXI. Pages 354—396 1883 TO 1894. Tawhiao, Te Wheoro, Topia Turoa, and others present at Downing-street a Petition to the Queen—Their Reception by the Earl of Derby—Mr. Gorst—Mr. Gladstone “passes by on the other side”—Lord Derby's Despatch to New Zealand—Jejune Reply to it by the New Zealand Ministry—Lord Derby's final Despatch on the Subject—Mr. Gladstone in 1887 on Imperial Control in a Colony—Departure of Tawhiao and his Friends from England—Sir W. Fitzherbert's Testimony as to Maori Character—Effect of Mr. Gladstone's and Lord Kimberley's Conduct—Owhaoko Land Bill and Sir Robert Stout—Mr. Stevens on the “Middle Island Native Claims Question”—Mr. Stevens and Taiaroa—Unfulfilled Promises—The Bible in Exile—Sir John Hall on Public Opinion—Education in Public Schools—Atkinson and Sir G. Grey—Meeting of General Assembly, Aug., 1884—Sir W. Jervois, Governor—Ministerial Convulsions—Sir G. Grey's Activity—Wahamii heard at the Bar in each House—Sir R. Stout and a “Historical Occasion”—A Heke in the House—Federation discussed—Financial Position—Resignation of Atkinson in 1891—Mr. Ballance Head of a Ministry—Sir Henry Maine on Representative Government—Degradation of Electorates—The “Caucus” and its Works—Mr. W. H. Mallock and Mr. G. Brooks — Mr. Seddon — Tampering with the Constitution—Nominated Upper Houses—Duke of Newcastle's Rebuke of Sir J. Young — The Governor and Lord Ripon — Lord Ripon's Ineptitude—His “Stewardship”—The Judiciary of New Zealand— Appeal to Judicial Committee of Privy Council—Delegates in Parliament—So-called “Labour Members” placed in the Upper House— Deaths of Sir W. Fitzherbert, of Captain Fraser, of Sir Frederick Weld, of Sir F. Whitaker, of Sir Harry Atkinson, of Mr. Ballance, and Sir W. Fox—Dr. Grace's Eulogy in the Upper House on Wi Tako Ngatata—Death of Rewi—Death of William Swainson.

New Zealand.Volume III.

Chapter XVII. 1872–1874. Mclean and The Maoris.

Donald Mclean, meanwhile, was tempering to the chiefs the loss of their lands by urging them to cultivate flax. A few sentences will show how the Gael accommodated his phrase to the Maori. “Pleiades is high in the heavens, the warm season has arrived, and the thoughtful man considers it time to grow food to enable him to live, and to extend hospitality to strangers, lest he be as the thoughtless one who, when seasons of scarcity arrive, is in a very help less condition. In former days all kinds of food used by the Maoris—kumara, taro, and other things were largely cultivated; at present their cultivation has decreased. I therefore think that you should again be attentive lest they disappear utterly; and that the word of the proverb ought to be fulfilled, which says, ‘The fame of a man brave in war is uncertain, but the fame of a man diligent or brave in tilling the ground will always last.”’ He offered prizes for production of flax. “I know that you, the Maoris, are ignorant of the prices, &c., in England; therefore, I think that if you will again turn your attention to these industries you will obtain the benefit of prosperity.” The Maoris could not but reflect that former governments had destroyed their plantations and burned their dwellings.

The burly Scotchman was not easily stirred from his policy of peace. A surveyor, Mr. Todd, was shot near Pirongia, in Waikato, by a Hau Hau, who took refuge at once in the king's territory. McLean determined to treat the outrage as agrarian rather than political. It was anomalous that no writ could run within Tawhiao's territory; but a broken pledge to him might entail many more murders. The king's pale recognized by the government could not be infringed. If the Hau Hau who committed the murder had hoped to embroil the races afresh he was disappointed. Even when a chief on the Thames River barred the electric telegraph, and stopped the conveyance of the mail between Auckland and Tauranga, McLean pursued his policy. It was condemned as dilatory by some fiery spirits. In March, 1871, 167 residents in Waikato petitioned the Governor. They asked him to establish a rival pale to that of the Maori king, under penalty of death to any Maori who might cross it. By this bold and firm policy, they said, peace would be secured. McLean was not to be diverted into a path which led to blood.

Sir G. Bowen visited the Middle Island early in 1871. When he returned to Auckland he was confronted by the eld difficulty of retaining Imperial sympathy without a symbol of Imperial strength. H.M.S. “Virago” was ordered to England in March, and until the “Rosario” could arrive in New Zealand in May no man-of-war could be placed there by Commodore Stirling, who was in H.M.S. “Clio” at Sydney. Instantly the New Zealand ministry declared that it was “very perilous” to withdraw the “Virago.” Mr. Fox telegraphed to the Governor that “the removal of the land forces, and the manner in which it was done, and Lord Granville's celebrated despatch, tried the loyalty of the colony very severely, and I consider it my duty to state, in the plainest possible manner, that should the colony arrive at the conclusion that the Imperial government intends to withdraw the countenance afforded by the presence of a naval force, small as it already is, it will be very difficult for many of the best affected to retain those feelings of attachment to the parent country which have hitherto been so strongly felt and warmly expressed.” Whether Fox ineluded himself amongst “the best affected,” after the “coasting welcome with which he had unclasped the tables of his thoughts” to a foreign consul, it might be hard to tell. But it was clear that many of Fox's supporters would be the “spoils of opportunity.” On the day on which Sir G. Bowen received Fox's telegram, he telegraphed to the commander of the “Virago”: “I request you to postpone the departure. I take the responsibility on myself. I will write to the commodore.” McLean separately urged the necessity of retaining a ship of war. “An imaginative and acute race like the Maori was,” he said, “quick in seizing upon any points of apparent neglect towards New Zealand on the part of the Imperial government.” The commander of the “Virago” agreed to wait till the arrival of another vessel, and copies of the correspondence were sent to England. The Earl of Kimberley told the Governor that, under the circumstances, the detention of the “Virago” was justified, but he regretted the tone of Mr. Fox's telegram, which that gentleman would on reflection see was ill-calculated to improve and strengthen the friendly relations which it was the earnest desire of Her Majesty's government to maintain. The Earl had shown readiness to retain ships of war in New Zealand, and was able to refer to correspondence in rebuking Fox's intemperance. It is fair to add that Mr. Fox regretted his expressions, and assured the Earl that nothing could be further from his intentions than to disturb the friendly relations between the Imperial and Colonial governments.

A singular turn of fortune about this time brought Mr. Fox into antagonism with his old opponent, Mr. Weld, who became Governor of Western Australia in 1869; the only colony in the Southern seas to which English prisoners had recently been transported, and which had then ceased to receive them.

Both Maoris and colonists had protested against Earl Grey's proposition to send convicts to New Zealand, and they had never been sent thither, although, amongst the troops of gold-seekers, quondam convicts had found their way. When, in order to rid itself of some refuse of the convict system in Tasmania, the government granted pardons enabling criminals, who had not undergone the whole term of their sentences, to migrate to other colonies, South Australia, Victoria, and New Zealand at various times passed Acts to keep out convicts. The New Zealand Act was passed in 1867. To the horror of Mr. Fox, eight convicts holding conditional pardons (i.e. pardons with a condition prohibiting a return to England) arrived at Port Lyttelton in 1871. Four of them were Fenians, and the New Zealand government had already been troubled at the goldfields by Fenian disturbers. Mr. Fox and many others were indignant with Mr. Weld for subjecting New Zealand to the pests thus cast upon her. There was commotion amongst ministers and in despatches. Four ordinary holders of conditional pardons were sentenced in the resident magistrate's court to be deported to the colony from whence they came. The Fenians were released on bail, on their undertaking to leave New Zealand. Mr. Gisborne, the Colonial Secretary, in an angry letter demanded from Western Australia the cost (£150) of sending back the four convicts, but it was discovered that no New Zealand law gave power to hold in custody the arrested convicts when the vessels containing them should reach waters outside the jurisdiction of the colony, and a claim could hardly be urged for payment by one colony to another for the doing of an illegal act. The convicts undertook to depart to New South Wales. Mr. Fox's remonstrance was transmitted to the Secretary of State, and Lord Kimberley assuaged the wrath of Fox and his friends by directing that the holders of conditional pardons should be barred in future from resorting to any Australian colony, and that a breach of the condition should entail forfeiture of the pardon.

The amicable relations which Lord Kimberley established fired the soul of the special envoy, Mr. Vogel. He scorned the lower rung of the ladder of promotion. Presuming on his position as a loan negotiator, accredited to the commercial capital of the world, he aspired to be made a knight, without passing through preliminary gradations. Even his New Zealand associates declared that to grant the request of so recent an interloper in New Zealand affairs would arouse mdignation. Eventually, but by steps, the New Zealand envoy obtained the coveted honour. It is fair to mention that he had never joined in disaffected movements, and had advocated a large view of the advantages which Imperial connection might confer upon colonies, and on this ground his private claims were urged upon the Colonial Office. It was true that his view was not a high one. He valued the connection with the mother-country because the colony might borrow money more easily there than elsewhere. But the Manchester school was in high repute in England, and its principles were not very different from his. His success in carrying his financial schemes in the New Zealand Assembly commended him to moneyed men in England. His reception by moneyed men in England impressed colonists with his importance. His colleagues put off the meeting of their Parliament in order that he might be present to expound his views.

When the relative strength of armed men under the hunted Te Kooti and the quiescent Titokowaru as compared with the Europeans and allied Maoris is considered, it might seem difficult to imagine that the helpless condition of the colonists had driven such men as Mr. Fox to countenance, and others to advocate, that separation from England which all men deemed it Earl Granville's desire to permit if not to procure. After Te Kooti had been brought to bay at Mahaetari—his prisoners being recaptured, his forces annihilated, and his “mana” swept away—he merely slunk from hole to hole to escape seizure by Ropata. Titokowaru was absolutely at peace, and it was not deemed necessary to take any measures against him. Yet when Mr. Fox emitted a spark of disaffection on the proposed removal of H.M.S. “Virago,” there were enrolled in New Zealand 4263 militia, 6568 volunteers, 723 armed constabulary, 4000 armed Maoris; total, 15,554. Of this large force less than 3000 (volunteers) were enrolled in the Middle Island. Nothing but the suddenness of Te Kooti's raids can explain the terror which his name inspired, and the loud wail with which, in speeches, despatches, and letters, the hard fate of the colonists was sighed to the Colonial Office. In addition to the Maoris formally enrolled there were others eager for the fray. Old Waka Nene, full of years, erect in stature, but undimmed in mind, passed away in the faith of the Christian, with his last words enjoining peace between the English and his tribe. Borne to his grave by some of the principal colonists, the pall bearers being his brother chiefs and colonial officials, the funeral obsequies were, by his own desire, conducted according to the liturgy of the Church of England. His death was deemed worthy of special notice in the Governor's speech to the Parliament, and both Houses concurred in lamenting the death of the great chief, whom the Council termed the unswerving friend of the colonists and the constant supporter of the authority of the Queen. His children had preceded him, and the silver goblet which the Queen had sent to him he bequeathed as an heirloom in the family of a niece married to an Englishman. In the churchyard of Kororarika

The settlement at Kororarika has been called Russell in modern time officially, but the old name is still remembered, and is sometimes used.

the traveller may still see the following public memorial:—

Waka Nene's character, as described in these pages, is confirmed by the epitaph prepared by the government.

The hereditary lust for battle was not extinct in his tribe, and when the old man was removed, some fiery spirits desired to display their prowess. They demanded from the counsellors of King Tawhiao the surrender of the murderers of Mr. Todd, and they would have made refusal a ground for war. But McLean would not yield to such demands. His policy was accepted by all. The Assembly raised no questions about it. Those who had thirsted for revenge against Titokowaru and Te Kooti sullenly consented to leave things alone, trusting to the decimation by disease and death, which the rifle and civilization had ensured.

Two meetings were held by the Maoris—one at Parihaka on the west coast, where Te Whiti was rising into repute as a prophet; the other at the Maori king's residence, Te Kuiti. To both of them colonists and their Maori friends were invited, and Te Wheoro was treated with marked respect at Te Kuiti, where the Maori king no longer kept aloof, but mingled freely with his guests, as had been the custom before the rape of the Waitara in 1860.

When the Assembly met (Aug., 1871), Mr. Fox made more pronounced his past antagonism to Sir David Monro, who retired from the Speakership, himself proposing his successor, Mr. Dillon Bell. Sir D. Monro had been Speaker from 1861 to 1866, and again from 1866 until, at at the close of the session in 1870, he announced his intended retirement. He expected that Mr. Fox would then “invite the House to take the steps which are dictated by custom and courtesy,” but averred that he “was allowed to leave without a single word of thanks or any acknowledgment” of his services. Fox retorted that it was not usual for a ministry to recommend that their active opponents should be offered seats in the Legislative Council, and he did not doubt that Sir David Monro was opposed to the government policy. Sir David, irritated at the discourtesy shown, was elected to the House of Representatives, and proposed the new Speaker before he was himself unseated on petition. Then the representatives, feeling compunction for their late presiding genius, adopted an address to the Queen, on the motion of Mr. Fox, seconded by Mr. Stafford, praying that some mark of favour might be shown to Sir David Monro, and Sir G. Bowen was requested to intimate that the intention of the House would be met if a seat in the Legislative Council should be offered to Monro. Though Fox moved the address to comply with public courtesies, he thwarted its immediate fulfilment. An official memorandum by the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Gisborne, declared that though the government had moved the address, “they would not on any account recommend that Sir David Monro should be placed in the Council during the then session.”

N.Z.P.P. 1872; A. No. 1, p. 20.

A dispute between the Houses threatened to arrest public business. Mr. Vogel carried through the Lower House, though not without opposition, a Payments to Provinces Bill, modifying certain provisions in the cognate Act of the previous year. The Council demurred to a clause which tended, under colour of repayment to the provinces of former outlay on public works, to endow provincial treasuries with additional funds. To divert to a new use a sum authorized under a Loan Act for specific purposes was a violation of the spirit of the Loan Act. The Council expunged the clause. The Representatives impugned the right of the Council to interfere with clauses relating to appropriation of money. The Council claimed a right to exercise its own judgment whether the clause violated the faith pledged by the Parliament. Each House gave reasons for insisting on its position. Conferences were held. Mr. Sewell, who had recently retired from the Fox ministry, held a seat in the Council, and with Major Richmond and Mr. Seymour was appointed to prepare the reasons of the Council. Mr. Fox, Mr. Vogel, and Mr. Stafford performed a like office for the Assembly. Towards the close of the dispute Mr. Sewell openly voted with the majority in the Council, while his late colleagues in the Lower House were active on the other side. It was easy to get rid of a colleague, even if he should be unwilling to go, but it was impossible to pass a measure against which there was a majority in the Council. Finally, the Council resolved that while insisting on its constitutional right to make the disputed amendments, it would abstain from exercising that right if the other House would engage:—1. To amend the Bill by restricting its operation to the financial year. 2. To refer the point in dispute to the law officers of the Crown in England, upon a case to be prepared by managers appointed by each House. Subject to these conditions, the Council would, on being made acquainted with the names of the managers appointed by the representatives, cease to insist upon its amendments. These terms were agreed to; the limitation clause was passed, and the case was transmitted to England. The law officers, Sir J. D. Coleridge and Sir G. Jessel, were categorically asked—Whether the Council was constitutionally justified in striking out the disputed clause, and whether the claims put forward by the Representatives were well founded, or what were the proper limitations of them? It was contended on the part of the Council that a Privileges Act of 1865, which gave equal privileges to members of each House, had conferred on the Council a power to deal with money bills in detail. It was retorted that if such a power had been acquired it ought to be taken away. The law officers in England held that the Council was not constitutionally justified in its amendments, and that the claims of the Representatives were well founded,

Proceedings of Legislative Council New Zealand, 1872, Appendix 3.

… “subject of course to the limitation that the Legislative Council have a perfect right to reject any bill passed by the House of Representatives having for its object to vary the management or appropriation of money prescribed by an Act of the previous session.” As in 1870 so in 1871 there were many conferences on bills. In most cases it may be inferred from the yielding of the Representatives that they had been in the wrong; for men are loth to admit their error even when they see it. A difference on an amending Immigration and Public Works Bill was only solved after a free conference the day before the close of the session. In that case the Representatives adopted the advice of the conference. Certain amendments were made in the manner recommended by the Council, and the Lower House abandoned its disagreement on all questions not specially dealt with by the conference.

Mr. Sewell did not shrink from displaying his contempt for the Treasurer, and broke off his connection with the ministry before the session closed. A proposition to replace in the provincial treasuries funds already dedicated to railway purposes by the provinces, and to charge the cost of the railways to the general government, was one which he refused to propose to the Legislative Council. He would rather resign office. Fox could not dispense with Vogel's services, and Sewell resigned. Mr. Waterhouse (without a portfolio) undertook to represent the government in the Council. He resigned his position at the end of the session. Hard words were uttered in both Houses. Stafford could not control his anger against Vogel, whose help he had himself used in the expulsion of the Weld ministry, but to whom he had not given office, and who had crept into place under the wings of Fox and McLean when Stafford was expelled. Mr. Vogel's mission to England formed the staple of much discussion. He associated himself with Mr. Julyan (one of the Crown agents for the colonies) in negotiating the loan on the Stock Exchange at 5 per cent., and raised £1,200,000 at a rate of £95 16s. 9d. Contractors were found who undertook the construction of railways to an extent of £4,000,000. The contractors were guaranteed interest for their outlay, and the government was to have power to purchase the lines when made. Two forms of agreement were signed in England to enable the colonial government to exercise an option. Under one of them it was proposed to give the contractors three-quarters of an acre of land for every pound sterling expended by them in constructing railways and providing plant.

Though not present at the opening of the Assembly on the 14th Aug., Mr. Vogel made a financial statement in it on the 12th Sept. The revenue had fallen off. The invitation to the provinces to co-operate with the government in promoting immigration having produced no fruit, the government proposed to deprive the provinces of all control in the matter, and their policy was not repelled by the House. New Zealand seemed to have put her affairs into the hands of an agent, who, having contracted her debts, was to be allowed time to show whither they would lead her. Attempts were made to abolish the gold export duty, i.e., the trifling royalty collected at the Custom House on the treasures taken from the earth by every comer and goer. By large majorities the proposition was rejected on two occasions.

The revenue was supplemented in 1871 by increased Customs and Stamp duties. Contractors were on the way to the colony to carry out the works for which loans had been raised, and when the session was concluded additions were made to the ministry. Mr. J. D. Ormond became Minister for Public Works, and was to reside in the Northern Island; Mr. Reeves became Resident Minister for the Middle Island. Mr. Vogel was looked upon as a kind of dictator, and to avoid inconvenient responsibility he generally travelled during vacations to England or to the neighbouring colonies, but always upon an errand which imposed upon New Zealand the cost of the journey.

A terrible shock, felt poignantly throughout the southern hemisphere, caused fervent addresses to the Queen. John Coleridge Patteson, Bishop of Melanesia, who ever modestly declared that he sat at the feet of Bishop Selwyn, the founder of his bishopric, was one of those rare mortals who seemed vouchsafed to the world to show that humanity, not altogether vainly, may strive to follow the precepts of the Divine Master. Able, but veiling all consciousness of talent under the simplicity of earnestness; yearning after his dark pupils as veritably and indeed carven in the image of God, and calling in their weakness for help from their more fortunate brothers; gentle, yet bold; considerate of others’ fears and prejudices, yet daringly committing himself to the surf and landing defenceless, save by his heroic bearing, amongst the wondering armed islanders who were accustomed to see the scoundrels of the Pacific loaded with weapons which they mercilessly abused—the young Bishop had won the affection and admiration of all who had seen or heard of him. He falsified the adage that no man can be a hero in the eyes of his valet; and proved in so doing how much higher is the type of the Christian than that of the man of the world.

There had sprung up an abomination under the name of labour traffic among the islands of the Pacific. The natives were nominally hired. In most cases it was ascertained that the terms of the so-called hiring were not understood by the hired. Three months was their idea when three years were in the bond. But fraudulent or deceptive contracts were not the only weapons resorted to. By artifice or force natives were kidnapped when they were unwilling to go with the robbers of men. When crowds of islanders gathered round a vessel heavy weights were dropped upon canoes to crush them, and the natives on rising to the surface were picked up, or sometimes shot in brutal sport if they seemed able to swim to the distant shore. On the sea, terror was the rule—murder the means to enforce it. Seventy lives were sacrificed by indiscriminate firing into the densely-crowded hold of a vessel in which the islanders were packed. The dead, and even the wounded, were cast into the sea when the white savages proceeded to put their vessel in order. One rascal simulated the appearance of the bishop by walking on the deck clad in bishop's garb. The islanders thus inveigled were seized, and their countrymen were enraged. At Nukapu, an island of the Swallow group, near Santa Cruz, the bishop and two companions, one of them a native missionary, were slain in revenge—and never perhaps was there more willing martyrdom. He had earnestly besought the government to restrain the traffic whose atrocities incarnadined the seas. He knew, and others dreaded, that in consequence of it, wherever he went, his life was in his hand. Both Houses in New Zealand declared that there was reason to believe that his death was owing to an infamous traffic, which was a reproach and scandal to the British name. Both Houses implored the Queen to take some steps to redress the wrongs of the islanders, and redeem the character of her subjects.

The addresses were graciously received, and a bill was laid before Parliament to check the horrors which, under a smooth name, and sometimes under the flag of England, vied with the black deeds of the slave-trade. The Admiralty was set in motion, and Commodore Stirling was instructed to be vigorous in repressing “the abominable traffic” which had grown up. A vessel of war was requisite at New Zealand, and another at Cape York; but the other four vessels under the Commodore might be employed in the Pacific, and he was empowered to build some small craft to aid them. The cry of outraged humanity had reached the throne. The law enacted was useful, but the one thing needful, though pressed upon the official mind, was not accorded. If every vessel proved to contain a South Sea Islander, placed there without his or her consent, had been by that fact confiscate, the labour of the Commodore would have been light, and the traffic in mankind would have been stayed. It was urged upon the Colonial Office that there could be no nobler task than to obtain the aid of the United States, of France, and of other nations in crushing the nefarious trade in which rascals of all countries were engaged. Mutual permission of search in the Pacific would speedily clear the seas of the ruffians. But a proposition so simple did not commend itself to diplomatic minds.

New Zealand laboured in troubled waters as to the relation of provincial and general governments. The subject was discussed more than once, but remained to harass future Parliaments. The Native Lands Court was taken into consideration, and Sir W. Martin was consulted, but no legislation was arrived at during the session. The Maori members were not idle. In August, Hori Kerei Taiaroa carried a resolution that there should be a council of native chiefs for the Middle Island, charged to devise means for the better administration of lands (whether held by Maoris under Crown grants or not) and of Maori property. Mr. McLean supported Taiaroa's proposal. In October, the same chief carried, by forty-one votes against fifteen, a resolution—That all bills or parts of bills specially referring to the native race be translated into the Maori language before discussion, and referred to the committee on Native Affairs. One member, Mr. Reynolds, said that the motion pandered too much to the Maori members. Karaitiana Takamoana raised a larger question. On his motion it was resolved that it was desirable that the native race should be represented in the other branch of the Legislature. He moved further—that a Maori should be appointed a member of the Executive Council to advise with the Minister for Native Affairs; that the Maori Representation Act should be amended, and the number of Maori members “increased to twelve, giving three Maori Representatives to each of the present Maori electoral districts; and that Europeans as well as Maoris should have the privilege of voting at election of Maori members of the House of Representatives.” The propositions were rejected without a division. Katene, stimulated by the example of his colleagues, carried a resolution that “the government be requested to send down to this House a measure by which a runanga will be granted to the districts of the Bay of Islands and Mongonui; the object of such board to be the promotion of public works, education, the carrying out of law and order, &c. &c.” Nor was the success of the Maori orators due to contemptuous pity. The Governor reported that he had been assured by Mr. Fox that undoubtedly the best speeches of the session were those of the Maori members. Mr. Sewell declared that the Maori members contrasted favourably with many whom the colonists were pleased to call the superior race. Mr. McLean was in favour of the proposition to give to the Maoris a voice in the Legislative Council. Karaitiana Takamoana's motion was carried on the 15th Sept. On the 29th, Mr. Mantell moved in the Council that it was desirable that the Council should be informed of the views of the government on the subject, but after discussion the motion was withdrawn. Not only by Mr. Mantell and Mr. Sewell were kindly feelings expressed in debate in the Council. Colonel Russell did not scruple to say that the peace negotiated with the Maori king was due to the Maori members, through whom the first communications with the king-party had been made.

The new Maori members in the Representative House were the theme of universal praise in both Chambers.

Katene's views on parliamentary government were thus reported:— “All parties act in the same way. They always have objections to the government in power. I know very well what they mean by that. I am only deficient in this respect. I cannot hear all that goes on, and am not able to speak in the European language. All that the opposition want to do is to oppose the government in power, in order to take their places upon those benches. I do not think that a proper course for the General Assembly of New Zealand to pursue… It is not right that the desire for the emoluments of office should be the cause of upsetting a good policy which is for the benefit of the whole colony.” Sober truth seems almost like the satire placed by Swift in the mouth of the king of Brobdingnag.

In the prorogation speech the Governor said that the high intelligence of the Maori members, and the judicious manner in which they exercised their functions, fully justified the recommendation of the Representatives, and that he would consult his advisers as to the best means of giving it effect. A Bill to Amend and Consolidate the Laws relating to the Native Land Court passed the Legislative Council, and was sent to the other House on the 20th Oct. There it was not even read a second time; yet the subject had been earnestly considered by McLean and his colleagues. The Native Lands Act of 1865 had been amended in 1867, in 1868, and in 1869, but yet there were causes for discontent. The certificates issued were deceptive. The original Act of 1865 required that the native owners should be ascertained, but a proviso that “no certificate should be ordered to more than ten persons” was alleged to have deprived of their rights large numbers of proprietors. The definition of the estates or interests of the natives was left so vague, in the form of grant prescribed by the amending Act of 1869, that litigation, if not absolute warfare, would be engendered. Moreover, a single native could call upon the court to deal with a claim to land which nine out of ten of his tribe were unwilling to sell. They could not take refuge in apathy. They had to risk loss of land, or accept the burthen of litigation in a court whose fees were complained of as excessive.

Karaitiana Takamoana, of Hawke's Bay, visited Auckland in Jan., 1870, to lay the Maori grievances before Donald McLean. He had detected faults which had escaped notice. In 1870 McLean consulted many persons, and amongst them was Sir William Martin, who drew up in Jan., 1871, a careful statement of the amendments required. McLean requested Sir W. Martin to draft the necessary clauses, and the work enlarged under his hand until, in July, 1871, a draft bill was prepared which elicited from Mr. McLean the “best thanks of the government for the arduous labour” undertaken. A separate bill dealt with the native reserves, the income from which Sir W. Martin considered it proper to administer through the Native Department, and not in connection with the Land Court. Mr. Fenton, the chief judge of the Land Court, did not agree with all Sir W. Martin's proposals. His assistant judges furnished reports, which, with his own comments, were forwarded to the government.

Colonel Haultain reported upon the whole question. After the surrender by the Crown, in 1865, of its exclusive powers as to sale of land, to the end of 1870, the Land Court had heard 3489 applications for investigation of title in the North Island. Certificates or Crown grants had been issued in 2619 cases for an area exceeding 2,400,000 acres. “The natives are almost universally opposed to the employment of English counsel in contested cases. They say that these know nothing of Maori law and custom, and only protract the sittings and increase the expenses. If one side employs them the other must do the same; but they would like to see them altogether excluded from practising in the court.” So wrote Colonel Haultain. Another of his opinions was significant. “The Maoris have always been loth to part with their fertile land, and it is chiefly by confiscation that we have obtained any large tracts of really good land.” Many chiefs wrote earnestly to Colonel Haultain. Te Wheoro said it would be better if “lawyers’ agents and interpreters were disallowed in the land courts, as they make so many expenses. The money goes, and so does the land. Behold! there is the survey—one; the court—two; the lawyers—three; the interpreters—four; the Crown grant—five; and the giving of the land to the other side. The burden of this is great. Nothing could be objected if it was only the court and its interpreter.” Weary of forensic ways, he urged that a Maori runanga should settle all land disputes, and that the magistrates in their different districts should carry out the decisions of the runanga. An Arawa (an assessor in the Native Land Court) argued that the Acts relating to native lands should be translated. “I have never seen a translation of the Acts of 1865, though I have been in the chief judge's office for three years. I myself paid for printing, at the Bishop's press, some portions of the Acts. The natives would gladly read the Acts if they could get them, and there are intelligent men amongst them, well able to explain the Acts to others.” The Maoris highly prized the digest of criminal law prepared by Sir William Martin, and a summary of the Land Acts should be translated for their behoof. He also would banish lawyers. “It was to be expected that they would prolong cases in order to get more fees.”

In the General Assembly (Nov., 1871), Parata declared that much dissatisfaction existed with regard to adjudication by the Land Court in cases where there had not been actual survey. The Maoris had been informed that a plan ought to be deposited with the court before the case could be tried. How then stood the matter? Was there a law passed by the House, and kept back from the Maoris? Mr. McLean pointed out that there was a clause in the Act of 1865 authorizing new trials without survey. He confessed that in a matter affecting tribal rights the natives ought to have been made acquainted with the law in their own language, and that they had not been so made acquainted with it.

Though the government thanked Sir W. Martin, they did not adopt his draft bill. Mr. Fenton drew another which they preferred. Mr. Sewell introduced it, and took occasion to speak of Mr. Mantell thus: “I say now what I have always said, that if there is one person to whom the colony is more deeply indebted than to another for having brought about a better state of things between the two races through the working of the Native Land Court, that person is Mr, Mantell.”

Mr. Sewell averred that the bill framed by Mantell and his colleagues in the Fox ministry in 1862 was (although not passed) the “foundation of the Native Land Court Bills;” that it was revived in Domett and Bell's Act of 1862 (Mantell being still Native Minister), which was inoperative until, “on the return of Mr. Mantell to the administration of native affairs in 1864, it was galvanized into life… In 1864 he gave life to the Native Land Court, which up to that time had been practically dead.”

On one point, Sir W. Martin, Judge Fenton, and Mr. Sewell agreed, viz., that in order to prevent the sanctioned mischief created by facilities given to an individual to bring his tribe into litigation without their consent, it was essential to provide that there should be a thorough investigation before any title could be brought under the operation of the court. After long debates the bill was passed in the Council, but the Lower House declined to discuss it.

A Committee 011 Native Affairs, to which Taiaroa's resolution referred all clauses relating to the Maoris, was appointed. There were fourteen members, including Mr. McLean, and the four Maori chiefs. Five formed a quorum, and they were empowered to send for persons or papers. Petitions from Maoris were referred to and reported on by them.

Ere long the old chief, Te Rangitake, gave convincing proof of his trust in the policy which McLean directed, and in which Maori chiefs had a voice. He had accepted the proffered peace in his retirement in the forests at the rear of Mount Egmont in 1864, but held aloof from the settlers. He refused to countenance Titokowaru, but would not associate with those who had robbed him of his land, destroyed his property, and slain his people. When Donald McLean became a minister in 1869, he lost no time in apprizing Te Rangitake that land at Waitara should be reserved for his use, but the old chief still held aloof. In 1872, his scruples were overcome. McLean was at Taranaki when Te Rangitake, after twelve years of estrangement, mingled again with Europeans. With four hundred followers he marched to Taranaki, where a repast was prepared for them at the Native Office. European inhabitants crowded to see the warrior whom some remembered, and all knew by repute. Children were allowed to enter the room in which he sat, and a bystander reported: “The old chief seemed to enjoy the levée, for as each batch of children came in, he laughed with delight as he took their tiny hands in his, and kindly shook them.” Mr. McLean pointed out the Maori significance of the speech, that when a chief trod in friendliness the path lately pursued by warparties, hostility was past, and even the thought of revenge for the dead was put away. Thus did Te Rangitake, denounced by the Governor's advisers in 1860 as “an essential savage,” and robbed of his land, return in 1872 with the warm approbation of another adviser. In the theatre of his wrongs the children of his persecutors came round him with affection, and by the “touch of nature which makes the whole world kin,” as by the wand of a magician the strifes of the past were quelled—for a time. There were none to carp at the reconciliation, for all men knew that in the past Te Rangitake ever spared the weak and made war only against the proud.

Titokowaru emerged from his forest haunts about the same time. Mr. McLean let him know that he would not be molested if peaceful, and with about 30 followers he returned to the neighbourhood of Patea, the scene of his successes against Colonels McDonell and Whitmore, and of his discomfiture by Rangihiwinui and the men of Wanganui. There was less satisfaction at his implied pardon, but not much was said about it. Te Kooti was compelled to learn that a policy of peace was adopted, and that his day was past. Ropata Wahawaha's myrmidons were scouring the mountain fastnesses in which Te Kooti had lurked, and the passes from the Uriwera territory to Waikato were guarded by numerous bands. Nevertheless, he eluded them, and in June, 1872, it was reported that, “in spite of the various parties watching for him,” he passed with less than a score of companions to the sanctuary which Rewi had stipulated for, and Donald McLean had agreed to, at Te Kuiti in 1869. The government, though vexed at the escape of the marauder, whom it had hoped to bring, like Kereopa, to the gallows, did not commit a breach of the peace they had made. On the whole, everything seemed prosperous. There was a large debt to be paid in future; but thoughts of payment are put off like thoughts of death. Moreover, in the case of a State, not the borrower, but a successor pays. The first mixes the potion which the last must drink.

To carry out the authorized public works immigration was actively promoted. Dr. Featherston, the Agent-General, was instructed to send out, in 1872, 8000 adults. He had arranged in 1871 for the deportation of 6000 Germans and Scandinavians. Moreover, the railway contractors were to procure labourers, and the agent was to provide passages for them to an extent, including wives and families, of 5000 persons. There was in London an Emigrant and Colonists’ Aid Corporation, of which the Duke of Manchester was chairman. An agent visited New Zealand and purchased for the corporation more than 100,000 acres of land in the Manawatu district, undertaking to convey not less than 2000 statute adults to the island within a limited period. Some Norwegian immigrants were placed, on their arrival, at Palmerston, on the Manawatu river. Twenty acres were reserved for each family for two years, with a right of purchase. On purchase of them within 12 months 20 other acres were similarly reserved for purchase, so that in a short time each family might become possessed of 40 acres at the rate of £1 an acre. Swedes and Danes followed the Norwegians, and an official report

N.Z.P.P. 1871; D, 3, A. p. 21.

stated that “their fears of their future neighbours were much lessened” by a present of potatoes and kind speeches from a Maori chief. Tidings of the illness of the Prince of Wales reached the colony early in 1872, and the general joy at his recovery gave occasion to the Governor to report that the loyal sympathy displayed by Englishmen and Maoris could not be surpassed in any portion of the empire. Prayers and thanksgivings were offered in the churches. At a crowded theatre the audience rose as one man and sang together “God save the Queen” and “God bless the Prince of Wales,” on the day when the recovery was announced. It was now known that in the colony, as in England, a few disloyal busy-bodies had put forward their own ideas as those of the public, and had been believed by the mass of mankind which is incapable of weighing evidence. An English newspaper which had deplored the manifest decay of loyalty in England was startled by the outburst of national grief at the illness of the heir to the throne. Its morality had been to study signs and to prophesy the immediate future. It had erred. It avenged itself by declaring, not that it had erred, but that “the community was astonished at its own profound emotion.” It professed to believe that Englishmen had been disloyal rather than its scribe mistaken. If men could appease their consciences by casting imputations on others, the world would cheaply become moral. A day of public thanksgiving was appointed in New Zealand. Services were held in all the churches on the 9th May, and the people responded to the proclamation by the government.

After a tour through the province of Marlborough, Sir G. Bowen started on an expedition to Lake Taupo—the abode of Poihipi Tukeraingi, who once stood almost alone in that central spot to resist the tenets of the Hau Haus. He met the Governor with oriental welcome at Tapuaeharuru (“resounding footsteps”), where hollow reverberations warn the traveller how thin is the crust which separates him from the subterranean fires which rage continually from Whakare to Tongariro. He told how great had been the troubles of the loyal… “Still a few of us were ever true to the Queen: and, like the Horormatangi (sea-god) that dwelt of yore in Lake Taupo, and swallowed the evil monsters of the deep, we have now destroyed our enemies.” The Governor unprophetically told him that the Queen would ever maintain inviolate the treaty of Waitangi which Poihipi had signed. The Hau Hau flag had disappeared in the district, and the Union Jack met the eye. Hundreds of men once active or aidant in rebellion were at work to subdue the land by making roads, and Topia Turoa, the companion of Rangihiwinui in his march from Wanganui, welcomed the Governor at Tokano, at the south end of the great lake. Maoris were working for wages on the roads. At their head was Ngatote, a brother of Kereopa who had recently been executed. The loyal Arawa were everywhere eager to obtain good schools and roads. At Tauranga the Ngaiterangi chiefs, some of whom had fought at the Gate Pah, were as cordial as the Arawa. Two of them volunteered to escort the Governor through the forest from Kati Kati to Ohinemuri on the Thames. At Ohinemuri the Governor met Mr. McLean. Sir G. Bowen was anxious for an interview with the Maori king, but McLean's negotiations were resultless. The Governor's tour on the whole was described by McLean as “productive of the most beneficial results;” but the secluded king maintained a boundary which he would not pass to see the Governor, and which the Governor could not cross to look at him. The attempt seemed so easy and McLean's triumphs had been so great that the Governor could scarcely curb his vexation. Mr. McLean essayed to pacify him by declaring that “owing to various tribal differences the interview is likely to be deferred, and it is deemed advisable that no impatience should be displayed to hasten the negotiations.” There was a lamentable tone of exultation in some documents of the period, at a rumour that Tawhiao had given way to habits of intoxication—a tone which can be accounted for, but not justified, by disappointment at his obstinate seclusion. While the Governor was thus employed, the Treasurer was abroad at the expense of the colony. Between the end of 1869 and the beginning of 1872 his travelling expenses were £3825, which he charged against various funds in round sums, and in which he did not affect to be economical. The New Zealand ass was saddled, and had to bear its burden.

A despatch from Lord Kimberley (1872) gives significance to the Naturalization Act of 1870, and its tendency to undermine reverence for the title of an Englishman, and the love of country on which that reverence was founded. In 1871 a convention, under Mr. Gladstone's and Earl Granville's auspices, was entered into at Washington to empower Englishmen and citizens of the United States mutually to part with and reassume their nationality, as a man puts on and off an easy glove. “I, A. B., being originally a citizen (of the U.S.) [or a British subject], and having become naturalized within the dominions … do hereby renounce my naturalization as … and declare that it is my desire to resume my nationality as …” This glib transfer could be made before the clerk of a court or before a consul. It was hardly to be wondered at that the original Act failed to clothe such a transaction with sufficient legality, and a new statute was passed in 1872 to remove all doubts. The pupil of Peel had become the Coryphaeus of the Manchester school in a sense never countenanced by his master. The decay of the republic was at hand when Roman freedom could be gained without desert. But while Rome remained great the words Civis Romanus sum never ceased to thrill the bosom of a Roman with a pride which the labours of Mr. Gladstone and Earl Granville tended to banish from the breast of an Englishman.

A significant meeting of Maori chiefs took place on the east coast. Ropata Wahawaha had been kind to captives made in his recent campaigns. To retain them amongst his own people until peace could be established was his aim. He called an assembly of the tribes, at his place, Mataahu. More than 3000 Maoris met, and under his guidance made friendly orations, hoisted the Union Jack in token of their loyalty to the Queen, and celebrated the rejection of Hau Hauism and a hearty return to Christianity. “That, Sir,” said McLean in the House, “is the sequel to those operations which have been carried on under Major Ropata.”

A Maori clergymen, Rev. Mohi Turei, rendered thanks, and asked “for the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord, that we may show forth Thy praise and declare Thy goodness, not with our lips only, but with our whole hearts, and turn unto Thee, and walk before Thee in holiness and righteousness all the days of our lives, through Jesus Christ our Lord…” Ropata, wearing the sword presented to him by the Queen, exhorted the tribes to “pray always, in prosperity and in adversity, to be the children of Christ, as the first duty, and to be loyal to the Queen. God preserve the Queen and you (the people), and take you under His Divine protection.”

When the Assembly met (July, 1872), the Governor congratulated it on peace, prosperity, and public works. The government had no representative in the Council. The committee appointed to prepare the Address regretted that the Governor had not been “advised according to constitutional usage” to secure a representative. The omission was especially notable, because new members had recently been appointed. The attempt to dispense with a responsible organ of the government in a legislative chamber was not persisted in, and Mr. Hall and Mr. Miller were appointed to represent the government in the Upper House. Mr. Hall's first appearance as a minister had been with Fox in 1856. Stafford then cut short Fox's term of office. Ten years afterwards Hall joined Stafford. Fox turned Stafford out in 1869, and in 1872 Hall again cast in his fortune with Fox. Parata asked why the government had done nothing towards compliance with the resolution of the House, in 1871, that it was desirable that the native race should be represented in the Council. McLean announced that measures would be taken to call two members to the Council. Nearly three months elapsed, two changes of ministry had been made, and the session was almost at an end before the promise was fulfilled. Wi Tako Ngatata from the west, and Mokena Kohere from the east, were then (11th Oct.) appointed. The first had laid the English under obligation by checking Hau Hauism at a critical time. The second had risked his life in campaign after campaign, and had received a sword from the Queen. Sir David Monro, whose appointment to the Upper House had been looked for as an act of courtesy, had found a constituency at Waikouati, and sat again amongst the Representatives. At his election he had denounced the policy of the government as “reckless, extravagant, and unstatesmanlike.”

The manner in which the ministry made and annulled ministerial offices induced Mr. Waterhouse to move in the Council that it was opposed to constitutional usage. The burning question of provincial and central powers had been raised, but evaded, in 1870 and 1871. Mr. Macandrew's proposition, in the latter year, to substitute, inter alia, one provincial government in the Middle Island for the several existing provinces, and to establish a uniform system of dealing with land throughout the colony, had been defeated by 41 votes against 22. In the same session Mr. Vogel had promised that the government would, in 1872, introduce a measure to deal with the whole subject. Mr. Gillies, member for Auckland City West, and Superintendent of the Auckland Province, asked for the fulfilment of the promise. Mr. Vogel said that the government were of opinion that “it would not be feasible to take from the provincial governments their present powers without throwing so much work on the central government as would break it down… We are not in any degree approaching the termination of provincial legislative powers. I think it quite possible that we shall see—perhaps after the lapse of considerable time—the establishment of a single province in each island, exercising larger provincial powers than those which at present exist.” The question was evaded without a division, but a future measure was hinted at. Supporters might be lost in 1872 if its provisions should not prove acceptable, and while the bill could be renewed there was no desire to meet its obligations. But no caution could ward off a blow even in 1872. Mr. Stafford moved hostile resolutions. Some effect was produced by a member for Hokitika, who showed how the Treasury had subsidized petty partisan newspapers by advertisements, and squandered most money where least result was obtained. Other favours there were, secret, sweet, and precious, which Mr. Vogel justified on the ground that, as an old member of the fourth estate, he knew they would be agreeable to many newspaper proprietors. Corruption was hinted at by Mr. Reid, the member for Taieri. “Has the action of the government with regard to appointments been satisfactory? My reply is that they have not, and it would be interesting for us to know how many appointments are yet to follow, especially for members of this House. I may say that there are rumours about the lobbies that appointments are to be given to honourable members, but I do not know that they would condescend to accept them.”

Mr. Vogel, to whom the manœuvres complained of were chiefly imputed, showed little sense of the degradation they represented, but he was apparently heard without impatience:—“I should like to know whether entering this House is to be considered as a disqualification from holding office in the Civil Service of this colony… We are carrying the principle to a ridiculous extent if we exclude persons who have been members from receiving appointments…” “The statements which have been made are not reflections upon the government; they are reflections upon honourable members. If there are corruptors there must also be corrupted, and when we are charged with corruption it is also a charge against members of this House that they are capable of being corrupted.” By this process it might be argued that when the physician of Pyrrhus offered to poison his master, Fabricius became corrupt although he exposed the corruption of his tempter; or that when Fabricius refused to be dishonourable the physician ceased to be corrupt.

Mr. Reader Wood, a colleague with Mr. Fox in 1864, asked in the debate, and no one impugned him: “Has not patronage flowed back wards and forwards through this House in one continuous stream? How many members have been launched into the Civil Service? Has it not been understood, and have we not intentionally been made to understand, that the direct pecuniary interest of members of this House is to support the government?”

Mr. Fox could hardly rely on such a defence, and early in the debate McLean was put forward. His aid had enabled Fox to oust the Stafford ministry in 1869. Confidence in him gave assurance of peace. His speech was a running commentary on his dealings with the natives. The Board of Advice at Taranaki, which comprised Maori chiefs; the peace with the Maori king; the campaigns of Rangihiwinui and Ropata; the civil service then being rendered by Rangihiwinui, “as faithful and good an officer as there is in the country;” the intention of the government to avail themselves still more of Maori advice; the special intention “to restore to Te Rangitake a portion of his ancestral property;” the prospect of a general amnesty;—formed the burden of his address. At its close he revealed a startling proof of the confidence reposed in himself. A suggestion had been made that he should take office in the new government on the downfall of Mr. Fox, but he had stated that he should decline to do so. Yet, after this public statement members expressed a hope that McLean's scruples would be overcome. One member declared: “If the government are saved upon this question it will be through the reputation of Mr. McLean.” They were not saved. By forty votes against thirty-seven, Mr. Stafford's first resolution (on administration) was carried. The four Maori members were equally divided, for and against the resolution. Mr. Vogel probably thought them stupid. A ministry hung in the balance, and yet these men talked about peace, patriotism, and justice. Sir G. Bowen wrote that it was reported that the chiefs said that as both sides were profuse in expressions of friendliness they determined not to be unfriendly to either, but to allow the dispute to be settled by the Pakeha votes. Fox resigned (Sept., 1872) and Stafford formed a ministry. Mr. Waterhouse declined to take office. Mr. Sewell became Colonial Secretary. Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Gillies (Treasurer), Mr. Reid, and Mr. Curtis were his colleagues. Stafford announced that the government would maintain the unity of the colony with the seat of government at Wellington. He enumerated the measures which he would proceed with before the recess. But he was not fated to reach that haven of rest. His assumption of responsibility for native affairs was not calculated to breed confidence. In 1860 he concurred in the rape of the Waitara; and in later times he had allowed Col. McDonell so to deal with a few cases of horse-stealing as to rouse Titokowaru to resistance. He had transported (without warrant, and untried) Te Kooti, who had never been a rebel. He had converted the escape of his captive into a dreary catalogue of murders, which only the gallantry of Rangihiwinui and Ropata and the prudence of McLean had been able to crush. He had insulted and dismissed the man on whom Maoris looked as their friend. To secure the aid of that man he was now willing to arrange that if McLean would, on the fall of his colleagues, come over to the camp of the victors, McLean should retain the office for which all men thought him fitted. Failing to secure McLean he would himself be Native Minister, and deal with Maoris through local officers. Not to such hands would either colonists or natives submit themselves. Sir G. Bowen lost no time in soliciting for Mr. Fox, Mr. Vogel, Mr. McLean, and another outgoing minister, permission to retain the title of “honourable”

The craving for the retention of this title might have warned the Colonial Office that by wholesome conferring of heritable honours a valuable order might have been created; while the grace of the Queen would have been revered. Some Governors were blameable for not enforcing the early colonial regulations which declared that it was understood “that outgoing ministers would tender their resignation of office as Executive Councillors.” Some defeated ministers declined to conform to this requirement; and Governors did not compel them to obey it. Sir W. Denison in New South Wales was an exception. He told a recalcitrant that unless resignation were tendered removal would ensue. The New Zealand and other examples fixed the evil practice. Amended Regulations for Her Majesty's Colonial Service have stereotyped it. It is now “understood that councillors who have lost the confidence of the local legislature will tender their resignation … or discontinue the practical exercise of their functions, in analogy with the usage prevailing in the United Kingdom.” The Governor is empowered to “appoint and remove,” but the power is ineffective. An ex-executive councillor may misconduct himself without fear of removal. In one colony a man who was dismissed from an inferior post for dishonesty, became subsequently a minister, and induced the Governor to cancel the order of dismissal made by a previous Governor; and the man remained officially “Honourable.”

after their retirement.

Eruera Patuone, the brother of Waka Nene, died a few days after Stafford became minister. He announced that the government would accord a public funeral to one of the most faithful allies they ever had. McLean told the House that in anticipation of the old man's death he had issued the necessary instructions before vacating office. Captain Wynyard, son-in-law of the deceased chief (and son of General Wynyard), had died in New Zealand, and Patuone was to be buried by the side of his white son-in-law. On the same day (19th Sept.) that this tribute to a faithful ally was promised, Taiaroa, who had voted against the downfall of McLean, put a crucial question to Stafford. Would the government consent to the appointment of a committee to inquire into the unfulfilled promises in the Middle Island; or would they inquire into the matter? Stafford was scarcely ingenuous in reply. He did not object to the committee, but had no power over the order in which notices were brought before the House. McLean thought the reply unsatisfactory. Precedence could easily be given to Taiaroa's motion. Stafford took the hint. Precedence was given, and Taiaroa carried his motion without a division.

Another Maori matter cropped up. Tauroa, a chief of the Pakakohi hapu on the west coast, had joined Titokowaru. Tauroa's friends averred that he was compelled to do so, and Colonel Whitmore stated in the Legislative Council that Titokowaru “sent parties to bring Tauroa and his hapu to his camp by force.” When Titokowaru was routed and Rangihiwinui was pursuing Te Kooti, the resident magistrate at Patea and Major Noake (commanding the local force, nearly 300 (composed principally of Maoris) marched to the abode of Tauroa, who had refused to act with Titokowaru any longer. Tauroa had fought against the English in 1866, and his tribal rights had then been declared confiscated, but Mr. Parris had afterwards permitted him to settle on a block of land, on which he was living peaceably when Titokowaru compelled or persuaded him to take arms. Major Noake with his small army found Tauroa willing to submit to the Queen. The resident magistrate reported: “Tauroa does not plead anything in extenuation, and has thrown himself entirely on the mercy of the government.” With 122 others the chief surrendered, and was handed over to the Ngatiporou allies, who were serving in the forces on the west coast. But such chivalrous treatment was brief. Tauroa was sent to Wellington, convicted of high treason, and sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. The sentence was commuted to three years’ imprisonment.

Tauroa could not understand why the colonists punished the body and also confiscated the goods. “I was told” (he said to the West Coast Commissioners in 1880)—“‘You and your people have done wrong in rebelling against the Queen.’ I answered, ‘I have not done wrong. I have not carried arms against the Queen, but against you, and you now say it is done against the Queen.’ I waited, expecting to be told that the land would be all taken for my wrong-doings; but no; all the blame was put on me, and not on the land… If I had been told, when I was tried at Wellington (1869), that my land was to be taken for my offences, then I should have understood it; but I was not told so at the time. My body was punished for my offences.” Messrs. Fox and Bell told Tauroa that it was no part of the duty of the judge to say anything about the confiscation: but the facts remained that Tauroa was occupying his land with full knowledge and consent of the government in 1869—that no proclamation of confiscation was or could be made after that date (the Settlements Act having expired)—and yet his land was seized. Another Maori retorted to the Commissioners: “Mr. Richmond's promise to Tauroa was not made verbally only; it was put in writing.” “We know that,” replied Fox and Bell; “but the war swept away all promises written and verbal to those who joined in it” (N.Z.P.P. 1880; G. 2, pp. 37, 38, 39), How foolish must the Commissioners have thought the hero of Waterloo, who declared that there could be “no higher interest than that of keeping your word!”

Captain Fraser declared that— “The self-denial of the chief, and his affectionate attention to his people during their incarceration, won for him the respect of everyone connected with the gaol, and (Captain Fraser) was so favourably impressed with his conduct that he told him that when the time came for his delivery from the gaol, he would do all in his power to obtain for him the restoration of a portion of his lands.” Rangihiwinui and others pleaded for their countrymen. At last Donald McLean appeared, and Tauroa with the remnant of his hapu was taken back to Wellington in 1872. Then new difficulties arose. The white settlers at Patea resented the proposal that Tauroa should return to the land of his birth. McLean feared it would be injudicious to restore him at once. The remigration was arrested. The natives were told that they might quarter themselves on their countrymen anywhere except at their homes. McLean hoped to allot land to them out of Tauroa's hereditary possessions, when discontent amongst the settlers had subsided. How the discontent might manifest itself was adumbrated by a paragraph which at this time was quoted by Mr. Mantell in the Council, from a newspaper. “We are assured, however, that if there is any further interference the Maoris will be shot down like dogs, as a number of determined men are armed and ready to act. This is the best argument in such a case with savages, if the Native Agents and Native Office cannot maintain the indubitable right of the settlers. The argument is a potent one with the Australian blacks.”

Potent indeed had been the rifle and the gun against the Australian native, and the wide domains of Queensland had witnessed and were witnessing in 1872 unnumbered murders committed on a race ignorant of fortifications, and armed only with wooden missiles. But what the editor called argument was not less brutal because it was true. Colonel Whitmore, who had met Tauroa in the field, admitted that it was a Maori custom for a successful chief to compel the adherence of others, “and it seemed to be a peculiarity in the native character that it never occurred to them to resist or refuse under those circumstances the constraint that was put upon them.” He sympathized with Tauroa, but said that Fox had created a special difficulty by improperly telling the settlers at Patea that Tauroa should never return there. Thus McLean's hands were bound, and Colonel Whitmore feared that if the unfortunate tribe should appear in its birthplace it would go from imprisonment to death. After an adjourned debate the Council resolved that it was “desirable to act with clemency and liberality towards the chief Tauroa, and the Pakakohi hapu, lately prisoners at Dunedin, who have been dispossessed of their land.” On the day when the Council thus resolved, Taiaroa brought forward a kindred motion in the Representative House. Parata supported it. Would the government restore a fragment of Tauroa's birthright to him? Let them not refer to the deeds of the late government. Maoris wished to know what was to become of their brethren,—whether they were to be well or ill treated,—whether they were to exist or to perish. Mr. Fox thought it was highly dangerous for any one but McLean to deal with a problem so difficult. Several members asked Taiaroa to withdraw his motion. Katene joined in the entreaty, but denied that Maoris only were in fault in the past. Was there not the Waitara land seizure? Did they not know that if Te Rangitake had been willing to abandon to the Pakeha what his father on a deathbed had enjoined him never to lose, the government would have been friendly to him? Say not then that the Maori had committed all the faults. “It was alleged that there were difficulties in doing anything for Tauroa and his people; but the promised act of grace was long in being fulfilled, and therefore it was that the Maori members joined in urging a speedy determination, so that these people who were wanderers on the face of the earth might be settled somewhere …” Let not the government make matters worse by selling the land which might be needed for the returned prisoners. In deference to the desire of the House, Taiaroa withdrew his motion; hoping at the same time that the government would leave the matter open for a just settlement by not selling land in the district in the meantime.

On the 4th October, Mr. Vogel moved that “the House has no confidence in the present government.” There had been much secret management and Mr. Vogel considered a majority secure. But Fox was not more popular than Stafford, and it was arranged that Fox should declare that his name should not appear in the ministry to be formed on the fall of Stafford. McLean, of course, as Native Minister, was to be a tower of strength. Vogel, resolute to take office, spoke of the “exquisite tact” of the gentleman who thus gave way to a politician so young and inexperienced as himself when compared to Mr. Fox. He assailed the government for having, during their month of office, followed “the footsteps of their predecessors.” He revealed unintentionally his own disappointment because he had not in 1865 been taken into Stafford's government when Mr. Weld was driven from office. He stood forward as the champion of provincialism. “All the prominent members of this House who are provincial in their tendencies” (he said) “were members of the party whose vote turned out Mr. Weld's government, and who in a little room in this building asked Mr. Stafford to accept the position of head of the government under the assurance—alas! it was a very delusive one—that he would carry out the policy of his party. It is a matter of history how he became released from his colleagues a few months afterwards, and joined himself with those whom, by the assistance of the provincial party, he had before turned out.” He descanted about the Treasury accounts; he extolled McLean, and predicted that “native affairs in disorder,” and a stop to colonization, would be the result of Stafford's continuance in office. A relic of the contempt formerly felt in the colony for the mover was shown in Stafford's reception of the motion. No one rose to reply to it, and when Vogel complained that discussion would thus be “burked,” Stafford said there was nothing to debate. By 37 votes against 35 the motion was carried. Parata, the western Maori member, with Katene and Taiaroa supported the resolution which seemed calculated to restore McLean as Native Minister. The influence of the goldfields population was powerful in all divisions. There were 33 members for the Northern Island, and there alone Maori questions were dangerous, but 45 members for the Middle Island were able to overbear them. Stafford asked for a dissolution. Sir G. Bowen wished to know whether the existing Assembly would grant supplies. He added (in a postcript to one minute) that he would not object to testing the opinion of Parliament upon the point at issue:—on condition that his correspondence be placed before it, and that the passing of the Appropriation Act be deemed the proof that Parliament agreed with Mr. Stafford. Stafford replied, that but for the postcript he would have tendered his resignation at once. He submitted that before making proposals in Parliament founded on a contemplated dissolution, he ought to “be enabled to announce that on supplies being granted Parliament would be dissolved. By adopting any other course the duty of deciding whether Parliament should be dissolved or not would in fact be relegated to the House instead of resting, as it constitutionally does, with his Excellency.” It was Sir G. Bowen's habit to discuss profusely with men of all parties every question of the hour; and those who thought his confidence most intimate and gracious, were surprised to find that he had poured into the ears of many what they had thought reserved for their own. He had arrived at the conclusion that Vogel could form a ministry, and he declined to give the pledge desired. He laboured to secure a fresh administration containing Mr. Vogel. He urged that all proper attempts to form a ministry had not been exhausted, and that if circumstances were different his action would be different. He did not touch upon the implication that he had been ready to surrender the prerogative of dissolution to the will of the House. Mr. Stafford, after one month's tenure of office, placed his resignation in the Governor's hands.

Mr. Fox was not to be one of the new ministry. Donald McLean resumed office as Native Minister. The knotty question of the confiscated lands was to be decided by him in conjunction with Maori chiefs. In the management of native reserves, Maori chiefs were to be associated with the existing commissioners. McLean was prone to magnify his office and to assume that none but himself could deal wisely with the Maori question. His colleagues were compelled by public opinion to accept him at his own estimation, and he easily induced them to put Ngatata and Kohere into the Legislative Council. The final constitution of the ministry was deferred until the end of the session. Some offices left unfilled became baits to the expectant, and postponed the anger of the disappointed. Mr. Vogel could not safely assume the position of head of the ministry, but assured himself that he could be the real leader under the name of another, who came from an unexpected quarter. Mr. Waterhouse, a comparatively new colonist, but a man of position who had migrated from South Australia, and had in 1870 become a member of the Legislative Council, had publicly stated to the Council (13th Sept.), that “no consideration whatever would induce him to identify himself with any party or any administration” in New Zealand. Therefore he had declined to join Mr. Stafford, although there was “no difference of opinion between them.” It was said that his resolution fell before the persuasive entreaties of the Governor. On the 11th October, Mr. Waterhouse became the chief minister without salary. It was correctly anticipated that he would either be a creature in the hands of others or that he would cast off an ignominious position. Mr. Miller, by whose amendment Waterhouse's condemnation of the Fox ministry had been barely qualified in August, now declined to rejoin the remnant of that ministry which Mr. Waterhouse was nominally to lead. The latter, in announcing the fact, publicly deplored the loss of Mr. Miller's “ability and integrity of character.”

The new ministry was in no danger throughout the brief remainder of the session. The railway policy of the Fox administration was pursued. Seven hundred and sixty-four miles of railway, to be constructed at the public cost, were sanctioned. The inadequacy of New Zealand ministries in fulfilling promises was speedily displayed. Wi Tako Ngatata, taking his seat (15th Oct.) in the Council, asked for the postponement of a bill by which lands, to which titles were in dispute, were affected. He wished to see a translation of the bill, but none had been made. On the 18th October Mr. Mantell carried a motion that in order that Her Majesty's subjects of the Maori race might have full opportunity of considering legislation affecting them, all bills of such purport should be “prepared, translated, printed, and circulated at the earliest possible date prior to their introduction.” McLean did not produce his measure for constituting native local councils until the 22nd October. It was to apply only to what were called native districts. Everything was to be done with consent of the Maoris. McLean said they were the best judges of their own disputes, and that no English lawyer or judge could understand them so fully as they could, but the House was averse to entertain the subject at the close of a session, and McLean withdrew it. A measure dealing with remnants of the celebrated Rangitikei-Manawatu land case was introduced at an equally inconvenient date. On the 22nd Oct., McLean moved the second reading. After all Dr. Featherston's labours, and after the judicial decision accepted by so many natives, McLean assured the House that so inexorable was the pugnacity of Maoris that “it would have been dangerous to attempt anything like forcible measures for the occupation of the district. This much he could say, that if such measures had been resorted to, no settlers would now be living upon that block.” To justify his position he declared that the imputation that he was responsible for the Waitara wrongs was erroneous. He did not deny that he had advised Governor Browne in March, 1859; but long before “disturbance broke out he was on the east coast, and did not know what was taking place. He afterwards removed to the Middle Island, having determined to retire for two years on account of illness. On his return from Otago after an absence of a few weeks he first heard that war had been declared at Waitara.” His enemies declared that he had secluded himself under the plea of illness when he saw the gulf into which Governor Browne's advisers were about to plunge, and even friends must have been disappointed, when after twelve years the old man could make no better defence than the ambiguous statement dragged into the debate on the Rangitikei-Manawatu Bill. It may have been that McLean like others had something to learn in 1859, and had been wise enough to learn it. It is certain that his reputation in the colony in 1872 enabled him to take higher ground than he could aspire to when the Taranaki conspirators obtained the ear of the Governor in 1859, and McLean, like Crispus, yielding to the torrent, defended in 1860 at Kohimarama the wrong doing at Waitara.

The bill of 1872 related more to provincial necessities than to Maori tenure. McLean had reserved nearly 14,000 acres for the Maoris in order that the government might derive benefit from the decision of the Land Court in 1869. An Act was required to make valid a grant of the land, which was provincial, and the province of Wellington demanded compensation, although by the reserve of less than 14,000 acres McLean had secured quiet possession of 240,000. A clause added to the bill appointed the Speaker (Dillon Bell) to decide what compensation should be given. The clause was rejected in the Upper House. Vogel asked the Lower House not to insist upon it, but its author, Mr. Fitzherbert, foiled him on a division. Vogel equivocated, and Mr. Fox declared—“The House has now done the maddest thing I have ever known any Assembly to be guilty of.” A prorogation terminated the dispute, and the efforts of the session were not altogether thrown away. A Rangitikei-Manawatu Crown Grants Bill, previously passed, enabled the Governor to fulfil agreements with the Maoris. The Speaker furnished an opinion only, as the Attorney-General had formally pronounced that he could not give an award. The opinion (brought before the Representatives in 1874) elicited angry disputes. It recog- nized the broad facts that after the decision of the Native Lands Court in 1869 there were disturbances, the surveyor's pegs were removed by the discontented, and McLean, with the earnest concurrence of the general government and of the province, had hastened to the spot to allay trouble, and make needful concessions. All were glad when he made them in the shape of reserves. Fox telegraphed from the spot (Nov. 1870): “There were only three possible courses:—1st, to fight for it, which neither the government nor the Assembly would do; 2nd, to render settlement possible, by satisfying the natives as McLean has done; or 3rd, to let it stand over for years. The course pursued has been by far the best and cheapest of the three.” For the 13,875 acres reserved by McLean, and taken from the provincial estate, the province of Wellington claimed compensation; and the Representatives, on the opinion of their Speaker, seemed willing to grant it, to an amount of about £15,000. But the government, with questionable morality, strove to evade responsibility for McLean's award by saying that they thought it would bind not them, but the province. They alleged that McLean, though Native Minister, must have been deemed acting as an agent to save the province from trouble, and the province ought to bear the cost. Fox said that such was his impression at the time; but when asked whether—if money had been awarded by McLean instead of land he would have thought that the province ought to pay it—he replied that he “did not think that view occurred to him at the time.” The provincial authorities, on the contrary, averred that they believed it to be the duty of the government to put them into peaceable possession of the block. Seizing upon the Attorney-General's opinion, Vogel said: “The government have no intention whatever to abide by the award, but to confine themselves strictly to the terms of the reference.” The Speaker replied that when the Native Minister declared to him that the government were willing to leave the matter to his decision he had agreed to act, but that if he had known how the government were about to proceed he would have washed his hands of the whole affair. Angry debates ensued. Mr. Gillies, differing from the award, thought the honour of the government pledged to it. Fox defended, and Mr. Fitzherbert vehemently attacked the government. By 29 votes against 25 Mr. Vogel was defeated. He then opened a masked battery. He would include the sum in the Provincial Works Advances Bill then before the House, and thus keep the word of promise to the ear, but break it to the hope. Mr. Fitzherbert retorted that such a course would be equal to saying, “We owe you £15,260; we will discount your bill and charge you for it;” and Mr. Vogel resorted to secret means to sap the majority recorded against him. A week later, in committee, a different decision was arrived at by 31 votes against 25; after a debate in which Mr. Fitzherbert averred that Mr. Vogel had “connived, colluded, and conspired with certain members of the Provincial Council, and had informed them that they need not put themselves to the trouble of rejecting a certain bill, for if it were sent up to him he would disallow it.” Mr. Vogel denied the impeachment, but his antagonist undertook to prove it in the House, and Vogel could only reply that what he said in private conversation was not said in his capacity as Chief Minister. The New Zealand proverb that land was I a cause of war had been exemplified at Manawatu. From I the time of Eauparaha's conquests in 1818 until 1874 the land had furnished battle-grounds for Maoris, for soldiers, for land courts, commissioners, governors, and politicians. Sir Charles Dilke thought he had seen it put to rest in 1866, yet in 1874 it was the subject of doubtful contest in the General Assembly for adepts in secret arts which they called diplomacy, but for which other men found other names.

The railway policy sanctioned by the loan schemes of 1870 was pushed on in 1872, although the contracts entered into by the government were largely in excess of the amounts authorized by law. Vainly a member implored the House not to approve a plan which would create a debt of £4,000,000 sterling for works to which, under the existing Loan Acts, only £2,000,000 were applicable, while more than £1,000,000 had already been paid. Vainly some members shuddered at the blankness into which they were asked to plunge. Sir J. Cracroft Wilson reminded the House that two years previously he had warned them of the calamities they were embracing, and they had now nothing to do but to front the danger boldly. Vainly Mr. Sewell moved an amendment expressing a desire to give effect to the true policy of 1870, but refusing to authorize the government to enter into new contracts beyond Parliamentary control, for which no provision had been made, and by which unlimited liability might be created. Vainly Colonel Kenny entreated the Council to stand between the colony and ruin. Vainly Mr. Charnberlin made “one remark” on the bill: “I am one of those who supported the public works scheme, and never in my life did I make a greater blunder.” Vainly did Mr. Sewell declare that they were allowing the Treasurer to saddle a population of 280,000 people with a total debt of more than £14,000,000 sterling. Eleven members of the Council entered upon their journals a protest against the bill. The enormous debt, so disproportionate to the means of the colony; the vague powers put in the hands of the government; the indecent haste with which the measure was forced on at the close of a session, and when many members had left the seat of government,—were recorded for the benefit of the curious.

The royalty or export duty on gold was ordered to be reduced to two shillings an ounce. The government had urged that the loss of revenue would fall on the provincial governments, but the motion was carried, some members ludicrously denouncing the royalty as a tax upon a class. The gold which was public property was allowed to be removed at a rate which for eleven years averaged more than £2,000,000 sterling in the year. Any one of the public could remove it if he chose. The duty was levied only on the amount of public property abstracted, and the amount paid by way of royalty for taking possession of the property was about 3 per cent. Generally, it was removed by persons who were not the material of which worthy colonists are formed. Yet to obtain votes the mining interest was to be propitiated. In vain did Mr. Curtis, a Nelson member, assert that though obtained for convenience through the Custom House the levy was derived as royalty, and was properly Crown Lands revenue. Other Acts of a less objectionable nature swelled the statute-book. But the master-stroke of the session was the Railways Bill, which gave blank-charter to Mr. Vogel, who relied upon the necessity under which the colony would be placed to retain him as croupier in the game played under his direction.

After the close of the session the Waterhouse ministry placed two Maori chiefs, Katene and Parata, in the Executive Council. Early in 1873 the Governor was informed that his services were to be transferred to the colony of Victoria, and that Sir James Fergusson (Governor of South Australia) was to govern New Zealand. Sir G. Bowen's last public act in New Zealand was to unveil the monument in memory of Waka Nene, at the Bay of Islands; and he commented on the fact that the close of his government witnessed such “a mark of respect to the memory of the Maori chief who was mainly instrumental in procuring the cession of the sovereignty of the islands to the British Queen.” He had sent to England a significant document prepared by McLean in Feb., 1872. At the west coast, as at Waikato, McLean pledged the government to terms on which the Maoris were to live peacefully on their hereditary lands. McLean wrote: “During a late visit to Wanganui and Taranaki, he had been enabled to adjust various points in dispute in connection with land boundaries and other matters which had for some time been a cause of irritation… Arrangements have also been entered into with a view to a more accurate definition of native rights within the confiscated territory, and for the acquisition by purchase with the goodwill of the natives of such portions of land as they hold within it but do not require for their own use, and which appear desirable for European settlements.”

N.Z. pp. 1872, A. No. 1, p. 63, and A. No. 1 A. (Vide infra, chap, xix.,—Mr. Hall's comment on Sir A. Gordon's despatch of 26th Feb., 1881.)

The Governor congratulated the Secretary of State on these “very satisfactory assurances of the establishment of permanent tranquillity.” Lord Kimberley, in return (May, 1872) had “much pleasure” in conveying to the Governor “the congratulations of Her Majesty's government upon the success which has attended your endeavours and those of your ministers to improve the relations between the Maoris and the settlers.”

Ten years later it was the miserable fate of Lord Kimberley to assist in violating the arrangements of which in Her Majesty's name he thus approved.

On the eve of his departure the Governor was perplexed by the resignation of Mr. Waterhouse, who found his position irksome. He had taken office to confer dignity upon the ministry, and he had brought indignity upon himself. The Treasurer's office enabled him to drag his colleague through ways of which the latter disapproved. Mr. Hall, the Colonial Secretary, resigned, and in handing Mr. Hall's resignation to the Governor, Mr. Waterhouse tendered his own. He declared that he did not desire that his release from office should terminate the ministry. He was willing to hold office till the return of Mr. Vogel, who, as was his custom, was absent at the charge of the colony at a conference in Sydney. Three of the ministry, Messrs. Bathgate, Eichardson, and O'Rorke, entreated Mr. Water-house to withdraw his resignation. The Governor was equally importunate. But Mr. Waterhouse resented the Governor's reference to the importunities of his colleagues.

“He, while Premier, and not his Excellency, was the mouthpiece of the ministry, and felt bound to observe that the numerous interviews which his Excellency has had with Mr. Waterhouse's colleagues, and the formal meeting which, prior to the receipt of Mr. Waterhouse's resignation, his Excellency arranged to have with them, but to which Mr. Waterhouse though Premier was not invited, have not been in accordance with recent constitutional practice.” For a time Sir G. Bowen appeared master of the situation. When Mr. Waterhouse pressed his resignation, the Governor told him that Mr. Vogel would be asked to accept the office of chief minister on his return from Australia. Mr. Water-house declined to nominate a new Colonial Secretary, and directed the master of the vessel which was to waft the Governor to Auckland not to sail without directions from himself. He entreated the Governor at the same time to accept his resignation. In dudgeon, Sir G. Bowen wrote a curt minute, formally releasing Mr. Waterhouse. The “New Zealand Gazette” informed the gossiping public of many minor details. Mr. Fox consented to hold office until the return of the man whom the strange “art of the necessities” of New Zealand had made precious to her. On Mr. Vogel's return he became chief minister in name as well as in fact. He took into the ministry Major Atkinson, of Taranaki, who had been a colleague of Mr. Weld in 1864. McLean was the inevitable Native Minister, and Dr. Pollen accepted office as Colonial Secretary, with a seat in the Legislative Council. Throughout the ministerial changes the Maori chiefs, Katene (the Ngapuhi) and Parata (the Ngatiawa), remained members of the Executive Council.

The material progress of New Zealand during Sir G. Bowen's tenure of office may be briefly recorded. The population, 218,668 in 1867, was 279,560 at the end of 1872. The export of gold had fallen from £2,700,275 to £1,730,992; but it was natural that the hoard of ages at the surface should be grasped in larger quantities by early seekers than by subsequent gleaners. The value of wool exported had risen from a million and a-half to two millions and a-half sterling. The flax exported had sprung from £4256 to £99,405. The kauri gum had risen from £77,491 to £99,405. Of wheat, provisions, tallow, timber, and minor articles, the exported value had mounted from £116,834 to £584,703. The ordinary revenue had declined from £1,195,512 to £1,005,942; the territorial had increased from £561,730 to £618,772. The total imports were £5,344,607 in 1867, and £5,142,951 in 1872; but the importation of capital and labour required for the public works and immigration schemes, the consequent increase of population, and the facilities of communication which would be afforded by the hundreds of miles of railway, the construction of which was in progress, were rightly regarded as sure to remedy, at least for a time, the decline in that table of figures which is the gospel of men of the Manchester school. The electric telegraph already throbbed over much of the island. There were 714 miles of line in 1867. In 1872 there were 2312. The postal revenue had risen from £55,331 to £94,733. There were nearly 10,000,000 of sheep in the islands, which showed an increase of nearly a million and a half since 1867; and horned cattle had multiplied from 312,000 to 436,000.

A laudable ambition prompted the authorities of the universities of New Zealand, and of Otago, to petition for Royal recognition of their degrees throughout the Queen's dominions. The Waterhouse ministry supported the petitions. Lord Kimberley shrank from advising the grant of charters to an indefinite number of universities in the colony. He had thought that the university constituted by an Act of the general legislature would be looked upon as the central university, and would wait for further information as to the views of the General Assembly. His suggestion was well received. The original Act, founding the New Zealand University in 1870, and enabling the Otago University to merge itself by arrangement with the general university, was repealed by a new Act (1874), reconstituting the New Zealand University, and recognizing it as the institution which was to confer degrees in the colony. The authorities of the Otago University concurred in the arrangements made, and the Queen granted a Charter of Incorporation.

Canterbury College, and the Auckland University College prospered. In 1892 Canterbury had 345 students, Otago 213, Auckland 137; and the number of enrolled graduates (by examination) in 1893 was 373.

Mr. Henry John Tancred, one of the members of the first ministry appointed by Governor Browne in 1856, was elected Chancellor by his brother councillors in 1871, and was re-elected in 1873 and in 1875. The office of Vice-Chancellor was similarly conferred on Mr. Hugh Carleton, previously mentioned in these pages. Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Gisborne, Mr. Rolleston, and Mr. Stafford were amongst the public men appointed by the Governor-in-Council to control the university when it was first created in 1870, and an amending Act in 1874 confirmed them and others in their positions. Letters patent of a later date gave rank and precedence to degrees conferred by the University of New Zealand, equal to those of degrees conferred by universities of the United Kingdom.

During Sir G. Arney's temporary administration an event occurred which warned the colonists of the thin crust which separated them from the volcanic fires which lay under what was called the native question. Maoris were in many districts resuming agricultural operations, but commissioners and magistrates reported that there was a growing addiction to strong drink, and that the rising generation were not so fine a race as their progenitors. The chief Katene was complimented upon having energetically promoted roads and public works in the north, and eagerness was shown in many places to establish schools. Mr. H. T. Clarke uttered a warning voice as to the risk of collision, by reason of the eagerness of European speculators and run-holders. Friendly relations with the Ngatihaua ought to be encouraged, inasmuch as “in the event of a conflict with the Waikato, should such a calamity arise, altered relations with the Ngatihaua would tend greatly to the security of the Bay of Plenty districts.” At Wanganui, Rangihiwinui was commended for having declared that he would look to the law, and to the law alone, for redress of land grievances between his people and the Ngatiraukawa. He had subscribed largely towards the erection of a mill at Pipiriki, in order to win back to their old homes the tribes which had been scattered by the war; and McLean promised a government subsidy of £50 for every mill erected.

Suddenly, where Mr. Clarke apprehended danger, amid the Ngatihaua territory, a deed of blood threatened to revive animosities. The territory of the tribe at the place was about 400,000 acres. Confiscation had taken from them 150,000 acres. They had alienated a larger quantity by lease or sale to Europeans. Of the remaining 90,000 acres about 50,000 were claimed by a “hapu” unfriendly to the remnant of the followers of the late king-maker. That remnant, nevertheless, could put fighting-men into the field. Many of them were Hau Haus, and might meet sympathy among Tawhiao's adherents. Blocks of land in their territory had been surveyed, and the Native Lands Court had, in 1867 and 1868, investigated the title and issued certificates. The surveyor swore that when making his survey of the Pukekura block he was opposed by two Maoris, Tima and Mohi Purukutu. Mohi declared that a portion of the land was outside of the government boundary. The Court found that a large number of natives living with Tawhiao had claims on the land, but it nevertheless issued a certificate in favour of 26 named Ngatihaua claimants; and subsequently a Crown grant was issued to 10 Maoris recommended by the claimants as the persons who were to hold the land in trust for the owners in terms of the Act. One Captain Wilson obtained a lease of the block, and transferred his lease to Messrs. Walker and Douglas, who placed stock on the land without delay. In Sept., 1870, three cattle were shot. In July, 1871, a hut was burnt on the land, and sheep and cattle were driven away. In 1872 Mohi Purukutu harassed the cattle on the land. A meeting of Tawhiao's friends was held (Jan., 1873) at Maungatautari, and a king's messenger said that the cattle ought to be removed. Mohi Purukutu was the keeper of the march (the king's aukati in the neighbourhood), and after the Maungatautari meeting associated nine others as his “comites,” with Maori titles. Unfortunately, McLean's wariness was not brought to bear on these dangerous symptoms. In Feb., 1873, two of the border counts saw Europeans digging near Rotorangi on land which had been purchased, and Paora Tuhua struck one of them. The assailant was seized, but was released immediately. Mohi Purukutu threatened worse proceedings, not only against Europeans, but against natives who had concurred in letting or selling the land. On the 23rd April a Maori, Parakaia, was seized by Mohi Purukutu and armed companions, who carried him off to their settlement. They questioned him sharply, but spared his life on finding that he had taken no part in leases or sales of land. Some of the band kept guard over him while seven went on an expedition. At daylight on the 25th they returned, and saying that “slaying had taken place,” released their captive. The man slain was Timothy Sullivan. With two other men he had been engaged (24th April) making a fascine road outside the confiscated boundary. They knew that they were beyond that boundary. While gathering firewood one of them looked up and saw natives. It must have been felt that transgression was dangerous, for the man cried out, “We are dead men, the natives are upon us.” All three ran. After a few minutes Sullivan called out, “I am done, I shall stand. Good-bye; take care of yourselves.” He endeavoured to hide in some underwood. The others held on their course for two miles, but they heard a shot fired near Sullivan's hiding-place. When they reached the confiscated boundary the leading Maori fired a parting shot, and called off the pursuers. Sullivan's body was found mutilated. The head had been taken away. One of the successful runaways testified that a friendly Maori had warned him that the Europeans must be cautious, for that natives were out in the fern, but he said, “The reason why I did not take the warning was that I had been so often warned before.” He thought that the man who shot Sullivan was Te Pouturura, and suggested the names of two others. An inquest resulted in a verdict that Sullivan was “wilfully and brutally murdered by Pere Te Pouturura and three other natives, names unknown, but one supposed to be a native named Whira, and another named Paora; and that the government be requested to adopt such measures as will effectually prevent the recurrence of such horrible outrages.”

How much mischief might have been done by prompt seizure of the Maoris named may be inferred from the official report of Mr. James Mackay, jun., who was ordered to inquire into the circumstances. “The finding of the jury has since been discovered to be incorrect, and that none of the persons mentioned in the verdict were present at the time.” The perpetrators, Purukutu and Te Tumu, with Maori candour, made no secret of their work. A significant report was made by Mr. Mair in June. “The unfortunate murder of Sullivan, while working on leased land, now admitted to belong to Mohi Purukutu, but leased to Europeans by others, furnishes considerable cause for uneasiness.” Mr. Mair acquitted the Maori king of any responsibility for the murder; he was, indeed, using his influence to withdraw Mohi Purukutu and other dangerous persons to his residence, where he might control them. But his influence was not great. Mr. Mair said:

“In consequence of the repeated warnings about the selling and leasing of land, very few of the kingites will admit that the slaying of Sullivan at Pukekura is a ‘kohuru’ (murder); with them it is simply a ‘patu’ (killing). At the same time they think it only natural that we should expect ‘utu’ (payment) for Sullivan's blood, and if Purukutu could be secured quietly, I believe that they would willingly let the matter rest; but the open advance of a European force into the king country even for the avowed purpose of pursuing the murderers of Sullivan, or the occupation of Kawhia, would, I am satisfied, lead to a war all along on Waikato frontier. Ngatin:aniapoto, as a tribe, might for a time stand aloof, but the well-known Maori lust for excitement, recklessness of consequences, would be too much for the hot blood of so warlike a people. Te Kooti does not appear to exert his influence for evil, his desire being to live at peace; but should the tribe go to war, he would, I am convinced, again come to the front.”

The government sent Mr. J. MackayJ. Mackay, jun., to Cambridge to investigate the circumstances of Sullivan's murder, and of the Pukekura block. He called on the principal Ngatihaua chief to surrender the murderers. He wrote to Tawhiao, to Rewi, and to Tamati Ngapora. He learned that they disapproved of the murder, but attributed it to unauthorized meddling with lands. He did not ascertain until the 16th May that the finding of the coroner's inquest was erroneous, and in the meantime an attack had been made upon his own life. Receiving no answer to his letters to Tokangamutu, and learning that Ngapora had written that he could go “to Tokangamutu if he liked,” Mr. Mackay left Alexandra (5th May) accompanied by Hone te One, a native assessor; Warana, a native policeman; and Eruera Hororiri, a Ngatihaua Hau Hau. At Te Kuiti, food was brought and natives called to see the visitor. In the morning he was surprised to hear a Hau Hau service in the open air, such ceremonies being usually confined to houses, but he did not rise. A native named Ruru walked into the tent, and made a blow at him with a native weapon, which, though partially warded off, wounded his temple. A struggle ensued; Mackay seized the hands of his assailant, and called out that he had been struck. A native, Parawhenua, followed by Mr. Mackay's companions, rushed into the tent, and Ruru was dragged away. When Mr. Mackay was washing the blood from his face by the Mangaokewa stream, Rewi rushed up to him, and said: “I am Rewi. Come with me. If I wanted to kill a person I would do it openly, not thus.” He turned to his people, and said: “Do not slay me in this manner.” He bandaged the wounded man and took him to his house. But Mackay could not see Tawhiao or Tamati Ngapora. The mind of the latter was dark because of the deed of Ruru. At night Mackay slept in a house protected by 60 of Rewi's people. On the 7th, with a guard of 25 of Rewi's horsemen, he went to Te Uira, where he saw Te Kooti and shrunk from conversation, but Te Kooti insisted on telling how he had been wronged by deportation to the Chatham Islands, when innocent, and fresh from fighting for the government at Waerengaahika. Rewi arrived at Te Uira on the following morning at daylight, but would say no more than that the subject of the murder of Sullivan would be considered. He showed how accurately he had been informed about it: “I have heard that the Maoris who killed the Pakeha (Sullivan) at Pukekura chased another man named Jones, fired at him, and when Jones reached the boundary of the confiscated lands, called out:” Stop, Jones, there is an end of it; you are at the boundary. “Mackay said: “Yes, that took place. Jones says so.” “Then,” rejoined Rewi, “do you not see that the Maori thought that he was acting-according to the law? The king said, ‘Do not lease the lands outside the boundary.’ They are leased and the Europeans are therefore killed. If you demand the slayers they will not be given up.” With a body-guard of 19 men provided by Rewi, Mackay rode back to Alexandra, and thence returned to Cambridge, where the government, assisted by Te Wheoro and Kukutai, established patrols and redoubts for the protection of the district. Te Wheoro had a contingent of 60 men. At the suggestion of Mr. Mackay the government withdrew some survey-parties from the Ngatiraukawa district, and Tawhiao kept Purukutu out of further mischief by keeping him at Tokangamutu, where rumour stated that it was his custom to be always armed.

When Sir G. Grey quitted the government in 1868, brief time elapsed before mismanagement under Mr. Stafford provoked Titokowaru and Te Kooti to the field. It almost seemed as if before the new Governor could arrive, in 1873, the Waikato frontier was to be in a blaze. But Donald McLean averted the danger. Sir G. Arney informed the Secretary of State that it was deemed unwise to pursue Sullivan's murderers, who were lying in wait, ready to be attacked, and hoping that an assault upon them would rouse Ngatimaniapoto and Waikato to their aid. It was determined to appeal to Tawhiao, through the mission of Mr. Mackay, and otherwise. Many chiefs expressed their disgust at the murder of Sullivan, and at a meeting of Ngatihaua and Waikato chiefs at Tamahere, on the 5th May, a committee was appointed to take measures to capture the murderers. The Ngapuhi tribe offered their services as usual to uphold the law. The government resolved “to treat the outrage as an ordinary case of murder;” to secure if possible the aid of Maoris in arresting Purukutu and his comrades, and by no means to endanger peaceful relations with the Maori king, or embroil the centre of the island in war. Sir James Fergusson, having arrived in June (1873) met the Parliament in July. His speech dwelt more on renewed declarations of loyalty by friendly chiefs than on the atrocity committed, and announced the grounds -on which the government had abstained from precipitating a war. Both Houses accepted the policy of McLean. The fact that Purukutu was really an owner whose interests in the Pukekura block, though asserted, had been unjustly neglected, was not forgotten in a Native Land Bill which McLean introduced and in the preparation of which Sir William Martin assisted.

Almost for the first time was heard a voice expressing doubt whether the Maoris were destined to disappear from the face of the land. A more accurate census than had previously been obtained indicated, in 1874, that their numbers were greater than had been believed.

Males. Females. Total. There were in the North Island 23,639 19,769 43,408 In the Middle Island 1,417 1,191 2,608 Total 25,056 20,960 46,016

The returns furnished to Sir G. Bowen in 1868 had ascribed to the North Island 37,017, and to the Middle Island 1500, making a total Maori population of 38,517; and though hundreds had fallen in the field in the mean time, the later census showed that the Maori population was larger by nearly 20 per cent. than had been supposed. Mr. Fitzherbert declared that the race was not in his opinion destined to be swept away so rapidly as some who professed to be great authorities imagined, “and he saw no reason, looking at the matter from any point of view, why such a consummation should be expected. He believed the natives would yet form an important part of the permanent population of the country.”

McLean's Land Bill thrust increased responsibility on the government, and gave more power to restrain improper traffic in land. It professed to guard the native reserves as an ancestral patrimony inalienable by temporary occupants; it threw on the government the charge of the surveys of lands, leaving it to make necessary arrangements for the recouping of the cost; it prevented any litigious member of a tribe from forcing upon the Land Court the investigation of a title when the tribe who were joint-owners were almost unanimous against it. It required that, not ten names only, but that those of all native owners should be included in a grant. Mr. McLean declared that the native members had made “valuable and thoughtful suggestions” which he had embodied in the bill. Critical members almost shrank from the task of analyzing the bill, which Mr. Rolleston pointed out was hopeless in face of the fact that “last session it was impossible in the view of a considerable number of the members for any government to exist that had not Mr. McLean in it.” Takamoana opposed the bill because it had no retrospective action in regard to lands already unjustly dealt with. Mr. Fitzherbert did not oppose the bill, but objected to the provision that the lands of original native owners should be unaffected by provincial or county laws. With his views that the Maoris would not vanish from the land, he thought it monstrous that their lands should for ever be exempt from local taxation. He saw danger in legalizing large purchases by speculators. It would be well to suspend all transactions temporarily. One person had negotiated for 50,000 acres, at fourpence an acre. How, if such things were allowed, could the Legislature afterwards burden the country to make roads and railways for the benefit of owners of lands thus acquired? Parata supported the bill, not because it was brought in by his honourable colleague (McLean), but because it embodied a principle in vogue with Maoris for eleven years. He maintained that the Native Land Courts had conferred great benefits, and averted frightful evils. The absence of compulsion in the new bill was prized by Maoris. Mr. Reader Wood supported the bill. Mr. Sheehan, the first of the New Zealand legislators of European descent who could claim Maoria as the land of his birth, supported the second reading, but suggested alterations, and after a short reply by McLean, the second reading was agreed to without a division. There was one palpable blot in the bill, which was not removed. The judges under the Act of 1865 held office during good behaviour, and their salaries were fixed. McLean, prone to personal government, and jealous of other authority than his own, left the salaries to be annually appropriated; the Governor (acting, of course, under McLean's advice) having power to remove any judge from time to time and appoint another. Although the bill contained this arbitrary power, McLean said: “The constitution of the Native Lands Court did not vary from what it was formerly, except that the government from year to year would ask the House to vote the salaries of the judges of the Native Land Court, and thus the House would exercise a control over this branch of the native service.” Mr. Rolleston remarked that nothing could be more “mischievous than that the judges, if they did not carry out the desires of a political body, should be liable to have their salaries reduced,” but he raised no question as to the power to remove judges “from time to time.” The student of constitutional history is aghast at the readiness with which the independence of judges was imperilled by making their remuneration precarious, and subjecting their tenure of office to the caprices of an executive department.

Though passed without obstruction, the measure was not deemed a final settlement. In both Houses warning voices were heard. Seeds of war or of subversion were espied. Mr. Sewell prophesied evil from the attempt to force upon the natives individual titles in subversion of tribal rights. The substitution of each owner's name in the grant instead of the ten names held to be sufficient under the existing law did not remove the blot complained of, because the fixing of the proportionate share of each owner disintegrated the tribal rights. Was not the blunder of neglecting Purukutu's claim the cause of Sullivan's death at the Pukekura block? Wi Tako Ngatata entreated that time might be given to the Maoris to consider the bill. He had presented petitions from Rangihiwinui and others, who declared that they could not concur with it. Tikawenga te Tau and forty-four other chiefs had petitioned that the bill might be circulated for a year amongst the Maoris, so that they might be able to consider it. Henare Matua and twenty-nine others had arrived at Wellington from the east coast with a commission from 1661 of their countrymen to protest against the bill and other contemplated measures.

“We have,” they said, “suffered from mortgages, from sales of land, and spirituous liquors; … we trust you will permit our land to abide with us, for such was the Queen's promise at the treaty of Waitangi in 1840. The same promise was renewed by Governor Browne (at Kohimarama). Friend, Mr. Speaker, … the Queen has certainly no desire to see her Maori people, her New Zealand subjects, live without estate. Should you nevertheless sanction these laws, then our very existence will be crucified… We ought to project laws for ourselves, inasmuch as you have been these 32 years enacting laws for the Maori people, and grievances to the Maoris are the only results of your labour and your guidance.”

It may seem incredible that, after Mr. Mantell's motion was carried in 1872, the New Zealand ministry had done nothing in the way of compliance with the resolution that bills affecting the Maoris should be translated for their information. The defect was exposed by Mr. Mantell himself. He moved for a return showing the titles of the bills translated, and the dates at which they had been circulated. Dr. Pollen, the new leader of the Council, confessed that the return would be—nil. Mr. Mantell carried his motion, and the return, when furnished, was a blank.

It was natural for Wi Tako Ngatata to demand time to consider the new bills. It was not unnatural that the Vogel government should be careless about compliance.

The Native Lands Bill was passed with amendments added in the Council. The warnings of Mr. Fitzherbert were justified by events. Rogues and capitalists plied their various arts to cajole the Maoris and procure their lands. McLean probably had not intended to promote those arts; but it was difficult to resist the wiles of schemers whom he was unwilling to offend.

A Native Reserves Bill, brought in by him, proposed that receipts and expenditure connected with the reserves should be published annually in the Maori language. It consolidated and amended the existing law on the subject. In the early occupation of New Zealand it had been customary for purchasers from Maoris to make reserves for the natives. If the purchasers desired to appear honest such reserves were absolutely essential; for Mr. E. J. Wakefield told the House in 1873 that the claims of the New Zealand Company, with those of private purchasers, amounted to 13,000,000 acres more than were comprised in the islands of New Zealand. The “tenths” which the New Zealand Company allotted would have left to the Maoris 5,000,000 acres, if under the circumstances such a quantity could be found for them. Other instructive remarks were elicited in 1873. Mr. Sheehan stated that he “could name scores of instances in which the land had mostly gone in paying for the survey and recovering the survey fees.” Against one block surveyed for about £25 there was a judgment obtained for £120, and it was about to be “sold by public auction to satisfy the surveyor, and to pay the expenses attendant on enforcing his claim.” Wi Tako Ngatata said that the prevailing difference between the Pakeha and the Maori was that the Pakeha had for thirty years always tried to rob the Maori; and Dr. Pollen, who represented the government, declared: “I have myself seen natives hovering about the streets of Auckland who owned an estate of 30,000 acres against which there was a surveyor's charge of some £150 or £200, and I have known that estate sold for one shilling an acre to pay the surveyors. The unfortunate proprietors left the town without a sixpence in their pockets, feeling that their estate had been unjustly and ruthlessly sacrificed.”

Dr. Pollen illustrated the manner in which Maoris were made “victims of licensed interpreters, land-sharks, and lawyers.” There was a block of 48,000 acres of land, between Napier and Taupo, with natural boundaries so complete as to require only three or four miles of fencing to enclose it:

“That land was let, or purported to be let, by the native owners, for what did the council think? £18 a year!—48,000 acres of land for £18 a year! In the document which purported to be the lease there was a covenant inserted to the effect that at the termination of the lease the natives should pay to the lessee compensation for every kind of improvement he might have effected upon it during the term of the lease. What did that mean but absolute confiscation of the land. But there was more to be said about this particular transaction. The clause which he had just referred to in the deed was ruled over with a black pigment of some kind, as if it were meant to be an erasure. There was not the usual memorandum in the margin, showing that the erasure had been effected at the time the deed was signed; there was nothing to show when or how it was done. The whole affair seemed very remarkable. It struck him that the colour of the ink was unusual, and he took the document into a survey-office, and having asked one of the draftsmen what was the character of the ink, he took a sponge and showed that it was quite possible to wipe out the erasure by simply washing it over. That came within his knowledge in his capacity as commissioner. It was an extreme case, but it illustrated the system of fraud, under the authority of the law, the natives had been subjected to for years.”

Such were the acts that goaded the Maoris. These were the resources of civilization which made them appeal across the ocean to the Queen for some impartial judge to stand between them and Governor Browne's advisers, who hurried him into the Waitara war.

It was impossible that in any assembly containing English gentlemen redress should not be sought for such grievances. Sir William Martin was at hand to strive for justice. Mr. McLean declared in debate that he was about to add clauses to the Native Reserves Bill which Sir W. Martin had suggested. Takamoana was not satisfied with the bill. It did not define the reserves. The Assembly was making many laws, so many indeed that the Maoris were not able to carry them all on their backs—they had better be provided with a cart to put them in—but he did not approve of a bill which did not explain clearly what it meant. After debates in which Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Fox took part, and Mr. Rolleston said that nothing new which was in the bill was good, Mr. McLean steered it safely through the Lower House. In the Council the two Maori members found friendly aid in the Standing Orders. Mr. Pharazyn pointed out the neglect of the order that bills relating to Maoris should be translated and printed. The Speaker could not allow the bill to be proceeded with unless on suspension of the Standing Orders. Wi Tako Ngatata asked Dr. Pollen not to be in a hurry, but to wait until the bill was translated and understood; and the second reading was deferred. When, subsequently, Dr. Pollen moved it, Wi Tako Ngatata asked:

“Why should our lands and our houses be taken care of? My house is my own; my coat is my own;—why should they be interfered with? Have you Europeans a similar law? I believe not. And this law is to apply only to the Maori… For what reason was I invited to this council? Why was there not a reserve put upon me? Let us have no such provision made for the Maoris. You tell us that we are equal to you… Do not enact that the Maoris shall be treated in one way and the Europeans in another. That is wrong. Now listen. It is thirty years since the European came here, and there is this difference between him and the Maori; that it was the European who had the desire to rob the native. My opinion of the bill is that it is wrong. I asked that it should be translated so that the tribes should be able to read it for themselves. These two things I cannot do. I cannot read English and I cannot understand it; and that is the reason my people have presented to you a petition upon the subject of printing bills in our language. I wish you to know that I am well-disposed towards you, as I now live amongst you. We have assisted the Europeans when we have been disregarded by our friends; and our property has been taken from us. We had no disturbances till these laws were introduced, and I am forced to believe with regard to this bill, that you are now tying us up with a rope, and placing us in the position of horses. You tie the Maoris to a post, and the commissioners are to come and take care of us. We have no affection for this… You know a great deal about legislation. You say our lands should be taken for the benefit of the natives; and our lands are taken, and our children are to be taught the English language. And after they come out of the schools what land are they to live upon? Are they to live upon the earth, or fly like the pigeon? What is the good of saying that the Maori children shall be educated in English? When you take the land from under them what is the good of education? Serious thoughts have oppressed me during the last few years. I have not seen any justice done by the Europeans lately… As to commissioners being appointed, that is something new. They are to be substitutes for the Queen. It is not right that somebody else should take care of my house and land. I can take care of them, and of my wife, and of my children too. It pains me much to see these laws passed… My people have seen this bill, and they say it will be like the time of Pharaoh when the yoke was placed upon the necks of the children of Israel. The same thing is being done now. Whilst we live we can ward off dangers, but when we are dead our children will be like the children of Israel. Our lands will all be in the hands of commissioners. What I have to say upon the subject is, that if you wish this bill to be read, I am quite agreeable that it shall be read—this day six months.”

Mokena Kohere seconded the amendment and briefly declared his agreement with Ngatata. Colonel Whitmore supported the chiefs. Mr. Mantell was “not surprised that the natives were opposed to this abominable measure.” He read to the Council some words spoken there ten years before:

“I was present when the treaty of Waitangi was made, and an attentive and an anxious listener to all that passed. I heard Her Majesty's representative arguing, explaining, promising to the natives, pledging the honour of the Queen and of the British people for the due observance of it; giving upon the honour of an English gentleman the broadest interpretation to the words in which the treaty was couched. The ink was scarcely dry on that treaty before the suspicions which had been temporarily allayed by the promises of the Governor were awakened with redoubled force; and I need scarcely remind the Council that from that time to this every action of ours affecting the natives has presented itself to their eyes, and has been capable of that interpretation, as showing that the one object and business of Europeans in New Zealand was to obtain possession of the lands of the natives, recte si possint, si non quocunque modo. Before we talk of the duties of the native to us we ought to be able to show that some of the duties which the Crown undertook to discharge to the native people have been so discharged. I ask any one to point out on the statutes of this colony any of those measures which might fairly be said to have fulfilled any of those obligations which devolved upon the Crown at that time.” “Those,” said Mr. Mantell, “are remarkable words. They come from an authority which even the honourable gentleman representing the government will not question—from the Honourable Dr. Pollen. I hope the time will come when we shall see him in a position to give utterance again, unfettered, to similar sentiments.”

Mr. Mantell denounced the clauses which gave power to Commissioners to extinguish native titles and vest land in Her Majesty as a reserve subject to the operation of the Act. He would be ashamed to give his assent to such iniquitous provisions. He entreated the Council to listen to the request of Wi Tako Ngatata. Mr. Waterhouse, on the other hand, urged that to throw out the bill would leave the existing law in force. Let them rather amend the bill. If they could not do so, he would join in opposing the third reading. Dr. Pollen did not attempt to answer his own words. He complimented the intelligence and ability of his “honourable friend, Ngatata,” and undertook to avail himself gratefully of assistance in amending the bill, which was read a second time and referred to a select committee, on which Dr. Pollen placed Ngatata. The committee amended the bill in such a manner that some who opposed the second reading voted in favour of the third, but Mr. Mantell and Mr. Pharazyn were hostile to the end. One amendment may be cited as a proof that Ngatata's appeal was not wholly in vain. “In every district created under this Act there shall be elected by the natives resident in the district from amongst themselves … three persons as Assistant Commissioners, who, together with the Native Reserves Commissioners, … shall form a Board of Direction for the administration of the native reserves in such district… The Native Reserves Commissioner shall from time to time … call a meeting of the Board, who shall by a majority of its members decide on all matters connected with native reserves in the district for which they are constituted, &c.” The Representatives agreed to the amendments made by the Council.

Mr. McLean was unable to carry a Native Councils Bill through the troubled waters of the session, and withdrew it in the Lower House, promising to introduce it afresh in 1874. A Native Grantees Bill was passed to remedy grievances suffered by native grantees under Crown grants. The bill afflicted their tenancy. Mr. Sewell and Mr. Hart discussed the legal bearings of the question from hostile points of view. Colonel Whitmore could not learn from their arguments how to decide, and advocated delay, though the session was almost at an end. Mr. Waterhouse derived as little help from the lawyers as Colonel Whitmore, but said “it was satisfactory that they had in the Council honourable members of the native race who had been successful in understanding the bill, and he would compliment the Council on the fact that the natives comprehended a bill that was beyond the comprehension of the rest of the Council.” Supported thus the bill was passed on the 1st October.

Taiaroa was unsuccessful in establishing the claims of the natives in the Middle Island. He obtained a committee which reported to the House on the antepenultimate day of the session. Mr. McLean opposed the adoption of the report. It might lead to “forfeiture of a large proportion of the public estate.” Mr. Rolleston and Mr. Fox objected also. Taiaroa had a word to say. Why did not Mr. McLean and Mr. Rolleston attend the committee of which they were members? There was no trouble likely to flow from adopting the report.

“It said that the government should, in the first place, consider the claims of the Maoris; and the appointment of commissioners, one by the government, and one by the natives, was only an alternative course,… promises had been left unfulfilled for the last 25 or 26 years; he would like to know why the member for Avon and the Native Minister who had been connected with the government had not caused those promises to be sooner fulfilled. It was on these promises that the land in the Middle Island was sold, and they ought therefore to be fulfilled… If these promises were not fulfilled he would be compelled to accuse the Europeans of having committed a great crime. He would be glad that the government should take the matter in hand; but if they did not there was a Parliament of greater magnitude than this in another part of the world to which the natives could have recourse.”

Mr. Sheehan formally moved the adoption of the report, but withdrew his motion on the assurance that the government would endeavour to settle the matter fairly during the recess.

The conduct of the “Waka Maori” newspaper, which was in 1877 to shake a government to its foundations, was discussed in 1873. On appeal from Mr. Stafford, Mr. Waterhouse had in Jan., 1873, promised that no partisan spirit should appear in it; and Mr. Mantell, to enable the public to watch the paper, carried a motion that for the future the “Waka Maori” should be printed in English and in Maori in parallel columns. The article complained of by Stafford was an indictment of himself, and a panegyric upon McLean.

The difficulty of coercing a Legislative Council has always provoked the indignation of the leader of the larger House, where to sustain his position, he must make promises which it is not in his power to keep while another House has a free voice. A glaring attempt (1861) to overwhelm a nominee Upper House in New South Wales by the sudden creation of members in order to carry a particular measure had been foiled by peculiar circumstances, which became known in New Zealand, and the members of the Council were on the alert to guard the rights of the people of which they were the depository. The busy brain of Mr. Vogel was equally vigilant, and the ministry devised a plan formed upon the model which in England had been condemned in the House of Lords stirred by the eloquence of the veteran Lord Lyndhurst. The day after the Assembly met, Dr. Pollen introduced a bill to provide that all persons summoned in future to the Council should hold their seats for a limited period instead of for life. The measure was heralded by the Governor's opening speech as one “to initiate a reconstruction of the Legislative Council.” A call of the Council was ordered. Mr. Waterhouse moved for a committee upon the best method of reconstructing the Council, and enlarged upon the necessity for a second Chamber and the best means of creating it. But the Council were disinclined to be led by him. They adjourned the debate until Dr. Pollen's Temporary Appointments Bill had been disposed of. Without debate it was rejected. Mr. Waterhouse's motion for a Select Committee on the Constitution of the Council fared no better.

Mr. Vogel increased the public burdens, by a new Loan Act, for public works and immigration, of two millions sterling; and by a General Purposes Loan Act for three-quarters of a million. Vain objections were made in both Houses. By the first of the bills power was given to the Governor to buy land in the North Island from the natives at a cost of £500,000. A portion of the province of Canterbury was in an anomalous state. The watershed on the west coast, which comprised the grandeur of Mount Cook and the lure of the Hokitika goldfields, had been in 1867 created the county of Westland. It had a county council, but that council had not legislative powers equal to those of the provinces. When it was created there had been an impression that provincial powers would be diminished, but in 1873 no steps in that direction had been taken. Mr. Vogel had always advocated provincial powers, and one of the charges which had driven him from office in 1872 was that he manoeuvred with the provinces to secure support in his immigration and public works policy. He brought in a “bill to constitute the county of Westland a province,” and it became law. On the 25th July a Provincial Council Powers Bill was read a second time. It removed some of the restrictions which the Constitution Act imposed on the provinces with regard to courts of judicature. It entrusted them inter alia with the control of valuation and assessment of property for rating purposes and other matters. Mr. Vogel believed that “a provincial council would be better able to look after and attend to local requirements than the general legislature.” One member protested against such a provincial policy. It would, he said, “be better to hand over everything to the provinces and let them take the management of the Land Acts, the Customs, and be separate States at once.” The bill passed the Representative Chamber, but was lost in the Council. With an Education Bill of a permissive character the government was hardly more fortunate. The industrious Vogel carried it through the House in spite of active opposition. It was declared to be suspiciously akin to a bill introduced two years previously by Mr. Fox, and found odious to the Otago province. Supported by many members, the bill passed through the Council with amendments. Messages and reasons were interchanged between the Houses at the close of the session, and the prorogation caused the bill to die in the hands of the representatives. It was difficult for the moving mind of the ministry to determine under what guise the control of the colony could best be retained. As a provincialist he had in 1865 got rid of Mr. Weld, and in 1873, as on former occasions, he bitterly complained that in 1865 he had only pulled chestnuts out of the fire for Mr. Stafford, who gave to the catspaw no fruit of its labours. Parties were so balanced that, fearing to offend either, he advocated a policy of equilibrium, with the natural result that neither was contented. Till a majority could be assured it was dangerous to declare too strongly for provincialism or centralism. In spite of taunts in both Houses about the phantom of equilibrium which eluded his embrace Mr. Vogel pursued the arts by which he maintained his ground.

But financial questions pressed for settlement. There were adverse critics of the manner in which the public works policy had been carried out, and it was expedient to shift responsibility for blunders to vicarious shoulders. A Provincial Loans Bill was introduced to relieve the central government of a portion of the burden, and to permit the provinces to raise loans for certain purposes. It was declared to be a government measure, and no exertion was spared to secure a majority. The house rang with imputations that secret influences were resorted to. Mr. Gillies, Mr. Header Wood, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rolleston, and others opposed the bill in vain. One supporter of it, Mr. Steward, candidly stated that if it had not been brought down as it was with an intimation that the fate of the government was involved, “it would have been immediately kicked out of the House.” Mr. Fox threw himself with vigour into the fray on the side of the government, and spoke with an air of authority which offended Mr. Fitzherbert, who intended to vote for the bill, though hostile to some of its details. Mr. Vogel wound up the debate. Other members always considered how their provinces would be affected by a measure. The government only thought of the welfare of the whole colony. In proportion to its resources New Zealand was not heavily burdened. Scanning the debts of European nations, he asserted that the colony compared favourably with any of them. He harped upon the virtues of Mr. McLean. “I feel absolutely certain that if the government had been in the hands of Mr. Stafford and his colleagues we should be meeting now not to devise schemes for prosperous settlement, but for carrying on a sanguinary war. We owe to the moderation of the Native Minister the fact that we have escaped war.” Mr. Reader Wood hinted that the Upper House would reject the bill, but Mr. Vogel considered that it would “have a large respect for the House composed of representatives of the people upon matters which more properly belonged to them than to a nominated Chamber.” When the bill went to the Council, Mr. Waterhouse condemned a clause which provided that notwithstanding any Loan Ordinance creating a liability, the provincial revenues should be subject to be dealt with as if no such liability had been created. Only the special security described in the ordinance was to be held pledged. Such a clause was unparalleled in the annals of any legislature. Provision for a loan was coupled with provision for its repudiation. Mr. Waterhouse affirmed that in the end the colony must become liable. By 19 votes against 12 the bill was thrown out. When the decision was known, the government found its supporters almost unanimous in deprecating a struggle with the Legislative Council. Mr. Vogel yielded; but took up his parable against the offending body. He denounced their presumption in talking of finance, and the Speaker, Sir F. D. Bell, being appealed to by Mr. Stafford, ruled that the word “presumption” was unjustifiable, and that the Council had an undoubted right to deal with questions brought before them. Mr. Vogel tempered his remarks; but said the crisis was grave, and the government would be justified in using all strictly constitutional means to secure obedience to the behests of the elected Chamber. But the government did not contemplate the “swamping” of the Upper House by creating new members. He proposed to open a door for penitent members. The ancillary Provincial Loan Bills were before the Assembly. He would modify them. Perhaps the Council, which objected to give a general power to the provinces to borrow on specified securities, would not object to modified bills dealing with specific cases. Hawke's Bay, Marlborough, Taranaki, Wellington, Otago, Nelson, and Auckland Loan Empowering Bills were proceeded with so rapidly that they reached the Council on the 25th Sept., on which day that body was considering the Native Lands Bill. Mr. Pharazyn implored members “to save the honour of New Zealand by voting against the bills.” Mr. Bonar quoted a speech in which Mr. Vogel had formerly denounced the wrong which would be done by adopting any such principle as that contained in them. Unaided in debate, Dr. Pollen found only 5 members to vote with him against 23. All the bills were thrown out. On the 29th Sept., Mr. Vogel said that there might be a prorogation, but the government believed that the Council would in a new session reject measures as summarily and ignominiously as in the current one. The Appropriation Bill could not be used for tacking purposes, because special legislation would be required to provide security in land. “There is no doubt that the victory lies with the Council at present. It has set itself against the wishes of this House, and has thrown out the measures which this House has passed by large majorities. To those who ask, Are we to succumb to such action? —are we to allow the people to be governed by the nominee branch of the Legislature?—the reply is, that without very extreme action no other course is open at present.” The government would consider the subject during the recess. When the Appropriation Bill was before the House, Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. T. B. Gillies animadverted upon the conduct of the government. The former declared that no prime minister ever more flagrantly violated constitutional usage than Mr. Vogel, when he suggested that members should endeavour to stir up men's minds against the Legislative Council; and when, instead of sending measures to that body boldly, he tampered with individual members of it in order to ascertain how they would vote upon certain propositions. Mr. Vogel had, moreover, promised to propose to borrow money for the works desired, on the credit of the colony, pari passu with a measure for a property-tax. The promise solemnly made had not been redeemed. The breach of faith had humiliated the House. The Council had the honour of sincerity. The House was, by its leader, made to appear dishonest. Mr. Vogel's reply did not traverse the charge thus made, but attacked Mr. Fitzherbert on various pleas, and enumerated the measures which did credit to the session. The government would not resign because a nominee House chose to throw out any of its measures. Mr. T. B. Gillies gave a different summary of the session. He spoke of the miserable outcome of the large promises of the government. He declared, in conclusion, that “a system of log-rolling was the mode by which the government endeavoured to maintain its position.” Strongly against his wishes, he had been convinced that provincial institutions ought to pass away. They had once done good; but corrupted as they had been, and applied (as by the government in the Provincial Loans Empowering Bill) to a use which would have rendered government by log-rolling the only possible government, he must thenceforward be ranked as an uncompromising opponent of provincial institutions. These words were significant. The colonists had clung to their provinces in spite of many inconveniences. They had maintained their Provincial Councils, and had made provincial laws in spite of obstructive incongruities, which the veto of the Governor on provincial enactments was able to temper, but not to remove. Others besides Mr. Gillies thought that if their provincial machinery could be wielded injuriously, it would be better to abandon it. Intercommunication between New Zealand provinces and ports had become more easy. Railways were being constructed. Larger population had brought into use more powerful vessels to supply daily needs. Journeys which once occupied weeks could be performed in a few days, or even hours. The knell of the provincial system was rung when leading men began to think it was perverted to sinister uses. Like all institutions, it might have friends staunch to the last; but when they who were of its own house distrusted its capacity for good, there could be little hope to avert its doom, though few could foretell what hand would deal the final blow.

The growth of commerce in the South Seas gave the colonies weight in matters connected with postal and telegraphic services. An intercolonial conference was held in Sydney in 1873, and separate postal lines by way of Suez to Melbourne, and by Torres Straits to Queensland, as well as the continuance of the line through America to New Zealand, were recommended. Intercolonial commercial reciprocity was discussed. The representatives of New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, and Western Australia advocated “a common tariff based on the principles of free trade, and a Customs union” between the colonies. The representatives of Victoria, Queensland, and New Zealand (Vogel and Reynolds), opposed them. Earl Kimberley gratified the discordant conference as well as he could. An Australian Colonies Duties Act was passed by the Imperial Parliament in 1873. It defined the word “country” as meaning “any country or place except Australian colonies and the colony of New Zealand.” It empowered the colonial legislatures severally to remit or impose duties on articles exported intercolonially, with a proviso that, for such purpose, “no new duty shall be imposed upon, and no existing duty shall be remitted as to, the importation into any of the Australasian colonies of any article, the produce of any particular country, which shall not be equally imposed upon, or remitted as to, the importation into such colony of the like article, the produce or manufacture of any other country.” Two things were clear to all students of political events. One, that in thus classing Great Britain as a foreign nation, the bulk of the colonists had taken no part, and that in the abstract they would have been opposed to it; the other, that when their political leaders for the time being had made the demand it was acquiesced in without inquiry by the colonial public, and would probably have been supported vigorously if those leaders had had occasion to appeal for popular sympathy. Public sentiment will make common cause with its own creatures, even when public reason disapproves of their conduct.

The contract for carrying mails by way of San Francisco, in which Mr. Fox had taken so much pride, did not prove prosperous. Irregularities in delivery had not saved the contractors from pecuniary loss. Penalties had been enforced, but more were due, and on the request of Mr. Vogel the Representatives declared that they need not be exacted.

An angry debate arose in the House with regard to Dr. Featherston, the agent-general in London. In moving the second reading of a bill to attract a better class of immigrants to the colony by a remission of £20 in the value of land to each adult member of a family, Mr. Vogel hinted that the relations of the government with Dr. Featherston were unsatisfactory. A private member followed with a violent diatribe against that gentleman, and many members resented an attack upon an absent man. The government, in deference to the more manly instincts of the House, consented to produce a despatch, which had ungenerously been alluded to by the government, but had not been laid on the table. The storm passed away, and the bill, which had been the innocent cause of it, became law.

The difficulty of obtaining from immigrants a repayment of any portion of the cost of their passage money was put before the Assembly in a petition for relief. The railway contractors had undertaken to import labourers. The contractors took promissory notes from the immigrants for repayment, but could not recover the money. They averred that if they sued the defaulters they were compelled to pay ten shillings a week for the maintenance of each in gaol. The same inevitable difficulty had existed elsewhere. Gibbon Wakefield had warned a committee of the House of Commons, in 1836, that all conditions partaking of the nature of a promise to do something after the obtaining of land would become dead letters. On the scale which the New Zealand loan works involved, the contractors averred that their loss from deserters was nearly £40,000. It was urged that the government which imported immigrants ought to re-imburse the contractors. A select committee reported adversely to the claim, and deprecated the production of the evidence taken. Mr. Fitzherbert moved that it be printed. The House had been generous to the defaulting contractors for the postal service, because it had benefited the colony. The country had gained 2000 immigrants by the railway contractors. Justice demanded the application of the same principle of leniency in both cases. In the existing state of the House the subject created confusion, and a debate upon it was abruptly broken by Mr. Fox, who called attention to the presence of strangers.

Colonies have always been full of activity and apparent prosperity when immigration has poured in upon them. A simultaneous expenditure of many millions sterling on public works made New Zealand resound like a bee-hive with the hum of workers. The revenue sprang from about £1,300,000 in 1871 to more than £2,700,000 in 1873. The ordinary revenue of 1873 was in excess of the total revenue of 1871, and the territorial almost equalled the combined revenues of the former year. Mr. Vogel conceived the idea that a handbook ought to apprise the world of the progress of the colony. He announced (15th Sept., 1873) that a pamphlet would be issued describing the resources of New Zealand. It appeared in 1875. Vogel was editor. Fox, once his master but now his pupil, described the early settlement. Donald McLean told of the native race. Superintendents of provinces lent their names. Dr. Hector, the government geologist, described the climate and the mineral and agricultural resources. Though published in London in 1875 the book was printed in New Zealand in 1874. “It has been printed here” (Vogel wrote to Dr. Featherston) “solely for the sake of enabling the editing to be effected with greater facility. I have decided that the book shall be printed and published in England… I suggest for inquiry whether it might not be well to incur the cost of stereotyping the work.” Embellished by photographs and maps, and “edited by Julius Vogel, C.M.G.,” at a cost of more than £2000, the work found an unappreciating public in the colony, but served as an advertisement in more senses than one; and its editor attained the honours which he coveted. He became, in 1875, a Knight of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. He wrote to Dr. Featherston

On one occasion Dr. Featherston significantly replied: “I still hold that the course which I adopted, in the case referred to, was the only one that any gentleman would, under similar circumstances, have pursued towards another.”—N.Z.P.P. 1874; D. 3, p. 52.

in London, as Masaniello might have written after discarding his fisherman's dress. Even when the agent's arrangements prospered he was told that he deserved no credit, but that if he had obeyed orders sooner success would have been earlier attained. On one occasion (24th Nov., 1873), Vogel imputed corruption to the emigration officers appointed under the Passengers Acts in England. “I positively instruct you (Dr. Featherston) that you place no reliance whatever in the examination of the officers of the commissioners.” The commissioners asked for an explanation, but Vogel's progresses made it inconvenient to furnish one. In April, 1875, he wrote in London to the Secretary of State that “his letter was of a confidential character and its publication was a mistake.” After his return to the colony he would decide whether to furnish proof of the truth of his statements or to withdraw them. The Governor wrote from New Zealand (Jan., 1875), that search had been made, but nothing found, to account for Mr. Vogel's accusations. There were signs that the colonists were becoming weary of the idol the had set up. But the prosecution of the financial schemes could hardly be withdrawn from Mr. Vogel. Its supporters thought that it could best be done justice to by its author. Its opponents thought it right that he should have a fair trial, and that if it should produce disaster the workman and the work should be condemned together. Already there were rumours that the successful adventurer was, after all, only making New Zealand a stepping-stone to London, and that if he could secure a position there, either on the Stock Exchange or as Agent-General for New Zealand, he would flit from the colony with the plumage obtained at her cost. In dismissing the General Assembly, Sir J. Fergusson congratulated it on the measures passed.

In 1868, the House had agreed that inquiry should be made with a view to preserve the forests of the colony. In 1870, a Joint Committee recommended that the government should encourage the planting of forests, and the agency of the provinces was chosen as the best means of promoting the object. In 1871, a bill, devised in the Canterbury Province, was introduced by Mr. Hall. It provided that every one who, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor-in-Council, planted one or more acres with timber trees, should be entitled to a grant of two acres of waste land for each planted acre. The provisions of the bill were made applicable to any province on due requisition from the province to the Governor. The province of Canterbury was not inactive. It established nurseries, distributed plants, and voted money to encourage plantations. Nevertheless, the waste of public forests proceeded with alarming rapidity, and in 1873 a private member moved that the Governor be requested to appoint a commission on the subject. The Government admitted its importance, but opposed the appointment of a commission. They would consider the matter. New Zealand was on this question like other colonies. In all, the governments allowed the riches of the woods to be remorselessly squandered or destroyed. In all, some colonists, wiser than their rulers, implored that something might be done to arrest the waste, which was never arrested. For a nominal fee anyone obtained license to cut down and sell the growth of ages without being required to plant successors to the forests swept away. Prophesies of deterioration of climate and failure of harvests did not move the destroyers. The gold-seeker, whose occupation was to prey upon the carcase of the colony, found imitators. It was deemed harsh and unpopular to prevent waste. A Select Committee on colonial industries (in 1873) suggested that the provinces should be invited to consider how best “the wasteful destruction of the forests of the colony” could be prevented. The rate of the waste was approximately shown by Dr. Hector. There had been in New Zealand in 1830, 20,370,000 acres of forest land; in 1868, 15,276,000; and in 1873 there were only 12,130,000. Four millions of forest land in the Auckland province had dwindled to less than one million and a quarter.

When the session of 1873 was at an end, Dr. Pollen communicated with the provinces. Earl Kimberley sent official reports on the Ceylon forests, and fervid appeals from Dr. Hooker (Director of the Royal Gardens at Kew), who dreaded disasters in Ceylon. From Australian colonies, where the subject had been more or less languidly taken up; from England; from India, where conservators of forests had made valuable researches; from Germany, whither some of those conservators had travelled to observe the careful system pursued by skilled Forstmeisters, information was received. It might be well to narrate here the legislation resorted to in 1874 upon the subject were it not the fact that it led to unexpected consequences.

While it was popular to do so, Mr. Vogel supported provincialism. When the elements of public opinion seemed to be in a state of fusion, he watched for signs of the new form into which that opinion would crystallize. While the result was uncertain he was a votary of equilibrium. As soon as there were indications of the manner in which the divided particles would coalesce his mind was made up. It might perhaps be said that his conversion into an ardent centralist was unworthy, but it mattered not what might be said if only the manoeuvre should succeed. A people willing to be deceived can only be enlightened if the deceiver be dull. If the New Zealand atoms were about to crystallize, Mr. Vogel would be among the first, and would become conspicuous in the new order of things. He would make his defence as remarkable as his apostasy. If upbraided for abandoning his principles he could rebut the charge as “much ado about nothing”; and could truly affirm that when he said he would die for provincialism, he did not think he would live to destroy it. Before obtaining office he had published a pamphlet to prove that the English national debt might be paid off if England would borrow money and lend it to the colonies at an advance of half percent, on the English rate of interest. The colonies would fatten, and at the same time would pay off the mothercountry's debt in a hundred years.

It was fortunate that Dr. Featherston in stimulating emigration from Germany to New Zealand had employed German agents only. The English chargé d'affaires at Berlin reported in 1873 that the Prussian government, to discourage emigration, had resolved to expel all emigration agents or sub-agents not of German nationality. Not content with providing emigration to New Zealand, the ministry devised a plan of annexation of islands in the Pacific Ocean. Sir G. Grey had during his first government urged that England ought to assert dominion over many of the island groups. In 1871, an emissary was sent to the Navigator Islands to report to the New Zealand government upon their capabilities. In 1873, Mr. Vogel “respectfully submitted that a policy or line of conduct should be decided on, not alone in connection with one or two clusters of islands, but applicable to all Polynesia.” In Feb., 1874, more precise propositions were made. Mr. Vogel thought that New Zealand might “earn for reluctant Great Britain—without committing her to responsibilities she fears—a grand Island Dominion.” A company was to be formed. A man who had been arranging preliminaries for a bank at Fiji had furnished the idea of founding a trading company which, like the East India Company, was to acquire ascendancy; although, unlike that company, it could procure no monopoly. The projector thought that Mr. Vogel might be useful in “floating the company.” Mr. Vogel suggested that a commercial company should be formed, and that New Zealand should give a guarantee of 5 per cent, on the share capital (£1,000,000 sterling) for fifty years. New Zealand was to be the centre of operations. Factories were to be established there, and steamers were to ply with their products to all the islands. The company was not to ship goods to the islands except from New Zealand, and on all goods shipped to them “other than the produce or manufacture of New Zealand” the company was to pay a royalty of 7 ½ per cent. The government was to appoint a managing director in London and another in New Zealand. How the company could contend with the outer world which had no royalty to pay upon trade was not explained. Like the Mississippi system of Law, the New Zealand scheme was to shower benefits at home and abroad. The islands were to be “one dominion, with New Zealand the centre of government.” The scheme was submitted to the Governor in Nov., 1873. In Feb., 1874, promoters had been found for “The New Zealand and Polynesian Company,” and Mr. Frederick Whitaker negotiated for it with Mr. Vogel. He objected to the royalty on shipments, and Mr. Vogel accepted, instead, a provision impounding profits to repay advances made by the government. The outer world, unfortunately for the scheme, was still free. Voluminous papers on the capabilities of the islands were laid before the Assembly in 1874, but the Governor's opening speech only said that “the civilization, settlement, commerce, and forms of government of the islands present problems of great interest and importance to this colony.” At the close of the session, Mr. Vogel, in reply to a question, stated that he “believed that instructions had been received to reserve the bill if it had passed.”

In 1876, a Mr. Phillips petitioned for compensation for having made known to Vogel the Polynesian scheme. In 1873, Phillips saw Sir James Fergusson, and Vogel told Phillips afterwards that the “quieter he should be with regard to his plans the better.” In 1874, Vogel told Phillips that he intended to carry out the scheme himself, and would not require help from Phillips. “Under a promise of compensation of £2000 the petitioner reluctantly resigned” his plan to the government, and Vogel in that year told the House that Phillips was “entitled to substantial compensation.” A Select Committee examined the rival projectors, who cross-examined one another. The Committee reported that Phillips had given information to Vogel, and that he should receive £150 for it, and a like sum for his other expenses.

But the ministry submitted no bill to the Assembly, and the England of 1874 escaped the temptation of France in 1718. Lord Kimberley gave a significant hint to Sir J. Fergusson, when Mr. Vogel's financial statement (of 1873) reached England. Passages which asserted that the Imperial government were concluded in an “undisclosed guarantee” for colonial loans, and that “the Governor being an Imperial servant, the Imperial government would be responsible if their nominee did not respect the priority which the law established,” were pointed out as totally unwarrantable, and the Governor was enjoined to give a copy of the despatch to his advisers.

After the session of 1873, disturbance about land was apprehended between a section of the Ngatiraukawa and Muaupoko tribes. McLean resorted to the telegraph, and the Governor reported that the influence of Rangihiwinui was effective in averting war. It was arranged that the case should be reheard by the Native Land Court. Released from anxiety, Sir J. Fergusson visited Canterbury, Otago, and Westland. His published despatches were neither so numerous nor voluminous as those of his predecessors. The Waitangi treaty, the Wairau affray, the wars of Heke and of Rangihaeata had given exceptional interest to New Zealand, and Parliament had been fully supplied with information. With the triumphs of Sir G. Grey curiosity languished, and was only revived by the rape of the Waitara block, when again volumes of blue-books were produced. The Waikato war and the wars in memorandum carried on by Sir G. Grey exhausted curiosity and patience, and Sir G. Bowen with discursive pen vainly strove as special correspondent with Downing Street to stimulate curiosity. Those who knew anything about New Zealand were satisfied that so long as Donald McLean was Native Minister there would be no native war. Those who knew nothing wished to know no more. Though Sir J. Fergusson contracted the limits of his correspondence he apprised the Colonial Office of his movements. In March, April, and May, 1874, he visited the east coast and the Waikato district, travelling without unusual escort from Cambridge to Rotorua. He reported with sadness the evident decline of Maori morality. “I wish,” he said, “that some systematic effort were made to fit the children of chiefs by higher education for their proper work among their people, and even for taking a part in the future government and business of the country. In spite of the comparative failure of some former attempts, I hope, through private association if not by the action of government, to set on foot some definite organization for this purpose.” The very hope thus expressed breathes sweetly among the dusty records of New Zealand story.

Early in July the General Assembly met at Wellington. In that month Earl Carnarvon wrote that on his recommendation Her Majesty had promoted Donald McLean to be Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George.

Chapter XVIII. 1874—1877. Session of 1874.

Sir James Fergusson summoned the Parliament on the 3rd July, 1874. The subjects pressing for legislation were the creation and conservation of forests, and the “guarding against difficulties which might arise from continued differences of opinion between the two branches of the Legislature.” The mover of the address in the Council asserted that that body by throwing out the Provincial Loans Bill of 1873 had earned the gratitude of all thoughtful men. Dr. Pollen's bill to amend the Constitution was jejune. When the Houses differed, the Governor was to have power to summon them to a joint meeting at which the disputed measure was to be voted upon. The Representatives were 78 in number, the Council had 45 names on its roll. Constitutional questions were to be adjusted by transfer of numbers, as a man might adjust scales by taking from one and adding to the other. Dr. Pollen vainly deprecated the destruction which fell upon the bill. Mr. Waterhouse early in the session brought before the Council (9th July) the question of confiscated lands. McLean was known to wield the powers exercised by the government under the New Zealand Settlements Act. Many persons muttered that such powers ought not to be under one man's control. The envious insinuated that they might be abused, if not by direct corruption, by giving facilities for purchases by members or friends of the government. Mr. Waterhouse brought no charge against the Native Minister, but urged that if the Assembly would not entrust provincial councils with control over the confiscated lands, still less should it be delegated to one person. The Council carried a motion declaring that the question ought to be regulated by Act of the Assembly and not by orders “made at the will of the government of the day.” The Governor replied that so important a subject could not be duly considered during the session, but that his advisers would consider it during the recess. Mr. Waterhouse also took up the subject of the “indebtedness of the colony.” Seventeen millions sterling, at which he computed it, might be too great a burden. The Native f Lands Act of 1873 had justified the fears of some of its opponents. Mr. Fenton, the chief judge of the Land, Court, with his brethren Messrs. Munro, Maning, Eogan, and Smith, had drawn up weighty objections to the Act. The clause which required a judge to make a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether an application accorded with the wishes of ostensible owners of land, seemed “of all things most likely to shake the confidence of the natives in the justice and impartiality of the Court (which has never hitherto been doubted); to impede its action; and to: jeopardize the peace of the country.” Moreover, the emissaries of the Maori king and others might make objections and assert claims which no judge could disregard. “Thus in process of time few claims would survive the preliminary inquiry.” They subjected the Act to careful criticism, but expressed no opinion on its general policy. The fact that they had sent a report to the government became known, but for a time Vogel refused to produce it. When it was obtained, the Committee on Native Affairs made suggestions founded on the judge's remarks. McLean adopted many suggestions, and an amending bill, in a shape which left large discretion to the judges, passed both Houses at the close of the session. One important provision was made. The concurrence of at least one native assessor with the judge was required to justify any decision or judgment. Mr. Mantell presented a petition from Maoris in favour of this provision. Under the existing law the assent of an assessor was not necessary. “We ask you to amend this, so that the assessor or assessors may have authority, when in court, equal to that of the European judges. Let no one be greater or less than the other, lest the judgment be wrong.”

Taiaroa renewed his motion for a Select Committee on “the unfulfilled promises to natives in the Middle Island.” “Let not members be annoyed at his importunity. It was not his fault: it was the fault of the government in delaying the question.” Mr. Vogel procured a postponement, and although Mr. Fox admitted that there were “unfulfilled promises,” the committee was refused. On a later day Taiaroa asked whether the Native Minister would agree to arbitration, but McLean declined. Mr. Mackay, Cominissioner of Native Reserves, reported that the claims of the Ngaitahu tribe, in the Middle Island, were “good on all three grounds,”—1. Hereditary. 2. Conquest. 3. Occupation or possession. Their ancestors had conquered the territory 300 years ago, and the tribe had continuously occupied the land from the time of the conquest. “I trust,” Mr. Mackay wrote, “it will be understood that in advocating the cause of the natives I am not actuated by feelings of sentimentalism.” Mr. Macandrew, in opposing the committee moved for by Taiaroa, said that Taiaroa's resolution might “cover a claim for 2,000,000 acres in the Middle Island.” Mr. Vogel thought “the House was not in a position to come to the conclusion that there were unfulfilled promises.” Mr. Mackay had reported that they were “not entered in the deeds of purchase, as full reliance at the time was placed in the honour of the Crown that they would be fulfilled to the letter.” Mr. Vogel could not find them in the bond. He knew as well as other members how indignantly Mr. Mantell had discarded service under the local government because it would not fulfil its pledges, but his mind was exercised upon another matter—the advisability of turning from provincialism to centralism!

A bill “to provide for the establishment of State forests and for the application of the revenues derivable therefrom,” was the solvent of the problem. He spoke for hours.

“The investment of £1 a year in creating forests would,” he said (14th July), “in thirty-five years give back many many times £100.” Old sinking funds were now proved delusive; but the growth and value of forests was indubitable. “The government came to the conclusion that if the provinces would allow three per cent. of the whole of their land to be taken and set apart as forest-land, we would propose to Parliament to release the provinces from the payment of the principal cost of their railways—that is, would relieve them from the payment of the one per cent. sinking fund they now pay … if the amount its railways will cost is reckoned up, and the total of one per cent. sinking fund upon that amount is estimated, the exchange which is ottered will he found to be very profitable to the province… As far as can be done by bill we put upon the State forests the charge of repaying the public debt of the colony incurred for the construction of railways.”

Mr. Stafford in supporting the bill exposed the manœuvres of Mr. Vogel, who replied: “The feeling with which the bill has been received in the House and the approval it has met with throughout the country have led the government most earnestly to desire that the bill should become law during the present session.” Mr. Fitzherbert in a trenchant speech attacked the bill. Under the modest guise of three per cent. of provincial lands it grasped 2,000,000 acres, and those, if chosen as doubtless they would be, the best land in provinces. The real intent of the bill was to take land indirectly which could not be taken directly. It had nothing to do with forestry, concerning which Mr. Vogel had culled from encyclopaedias to confuse the common sense of the House. As to paying off the colonial debt by its means the idea was absurd, and redounded neither to the credit of the ministry nor of the colony. Mr. Rolleston told how Canterbury had in four years distributed 65,000 trees for planting, and was further promoting the good work. In 1874, the province had appropriated £13,000 to it; whereas Mr. Vogel's bill only contemplated an expenditure of £10,000 in the year throughout all the provinces. Mr. Rolleston was prepared to discuss the question of abolishing the provinces at any time, on its merits, but not when under cover of a beneficial object they were insidiously assailed. Mr. Vogel complained of the bitterness of Mr. Fitzherbert's speech… “When we are told that the establishment of State forests in the North Island is inconsistent with the maintenance of provincialism, it seems to me there can be but one reply:—Abolish the provinces in the North Island.” There was throughout the island a feeling of real abhorrence to provincial institutions. “I state fearlessly that such is the fact. There is no one who has done more than I have to stem that feeling.” It was plain that having discovered the public feelings, Mr. Vogel would sacrifice his own, or what he represented as his own when he had misunderstood those of the public. But he was accommodating. He would cut down the Forests Bill. He would “remove all the provisions as to the acquirement of land.” “The State forests should be such land as the General Assembly should determine, and such as the superintendents and provincial councils should request the Governor to set apart.”

Two days afterwards Mr. Vogel notified to the House that the government had received assurances from many members, and believed, that a large majority were anxious to abolish the provinces in the North Island, the capital being maintained at Wellington, and the compact of 1856 between provincial claims and the general government being recognized in any Act to be passed. The government would not ask the Assembly to give effect to their proposals in the current session. They did not think it fair to the country to take it by surprise on such a subject. Other members, however, gave notices of motion, and the determination of the government was revoked in six days. Mr. Vogel announced (12th Aug.) that he would, on the 13th, propose that the provincial form of government in the North Island should be abolished; and that in the measure giving effect to the same there should also be included a provision declaring Wellington the seat of government, and continuing the localization of the land revenue in accordance with what was known as the compact of 1856. If the House should not agree to these resolutions, “of course, the government would pass into the hands of those who hold other views.” On the 13th, Mr. Vogel confessed that the debate on the State Forests Bill had brought to light facts which forced the government to adopt their new policy. He admitted that he had at one time strenuously supported separation of the North Island. But the provision of funds for carrying on settlement made changes desirable. He “recognized the widely-spread feeling in the House that it is not desirable these exceptional assistances—not to use the term ‘sops'—should be continued.” But a field would be still left for the power of the purse. Aid might be given to road boards clustered round a central board, as was the case with the Timarn system in the Canterbury district. Something of that kind might replace the provinces of Auckland, Hawke's Bay, Wellington, and Taranaki. It was probable that the superintendent

Mr. Williamson. He was in the House, and spoke vigorously against Mr. Vogel's resolutions.

of “the great province of Auckland would object.” Mr. Yogel would make a life-provision for that honourable gentleman, who had devoted a lifetime in serving the province. The compact of 185G he would respect, because “any attempt to depart from it would be simply dishonest, and, besides, would be to the last degree impolitic.” The government having been questioned on the subject, would “accept any provision the Middle Island may think necessary to make it most clearly understood that the land revenue of the Middle Island shall be applicable to Middle Island purposes, and that the land revenue of each province of the Middle Island shall be applicable to the purposes of that province.” The provinces were distrustful, for Mr. Vogel declared: “There is in the great provinces of Otago and Canterbury a feverish impatience manifested to put apart land, or to sell it, so as to place it beyond the reach of the colony.” He emphatically denied that his resolutions were “an attack upon the Middle Island land fund.” He believed that t'le general government could do provincial work better and more cheaply than the provincial legislatures were doing it, and there would be great gain in the removal of the provincial opposition displayed in the North Island against the immigration and public works policy of the government. He declared that no personal ambition prompted him to a change of opinions which might forfeit the confidence of many political allies. Another minister then rose. Mr. O'Rorke, member for Onehunga, Secretary for Lands and Minister for Immigration, startled the House by disclaiming all complicity with Vogel's proposals, for which, if he were to vote, he would “deserve to be branded as a base political traitor.” … “I obtained admission to this House on certain principles, and I do not feel that I am at liberty to fling them to the winds, either for the sake of office, or to suit my own caprice.” With more words of like import Mr. O'Rorke disclaimed any personal motives, and left the astonished House. Mr. Vogel, rising to explain, was interrupted on the point of order, but being allowed by the Speaker to make a personal explanation, was arrested by that functionary when he proceeded to reveal a discussion in the Cabinet. The pith of his statements was that Mr. O'Rorke had opposed the resolution from the first, but that Mr. Vogel was unaware that he intended to retire from the government, or to speak in the language which the House had heard. Mr. O'Rorke lost no time in handing his resignation to the Governor. Major Atkinson (member for Egmont), who was about to succeed to the office vacated by Mr. O'Rorke, cast in his lot with those who would abolish the provinces. Mr. Thomson, member for Clutha, asked why there had been no hint in the Governor's speech of such vital change as Mr. Vogel now proposed. “The stormy eloquence of the honourable member for the Hutt” (Mr. Fitzherbert), in debate on the Forest Bill had engendered the new idea, “not a fortnight ago,” in the excited Treasurer. Mr. Reid, quoting from a speech delivered in 1868 the words, “You cannot have a greater curse in such a country as this than that the general government should be constantly educating the people to dissatisfaction with provincial institutions,” was challenged to name the speaker. He answered: “I intended to do so, but I will do it now. It is the honourable the Premier whom I am now quoting, whose opinions will have great weight in this House. He goes on to say: ‘you may take away the constitution, but you cannot give to the people another which will earn so much of their respect and veneration… We have lived under it. We love it. We shall never get another which we shall love as we have loved this one. We will stand by and preserve that which we have.”'

By metaphysical aid it would almost seem that Mr. Vogel, while keeping a shop in Victoria, transported his affections elsewhere. Mr. Macandrew declared that if the resolutions should be carried “no interest in the State would be safe against the caprice or neediness of the government of the day.” Mr. Montgomery, from Akaroa, foresaw that to settle the Northern Island an enormous debt would be created which the revenues of the Middle Island would be seized upon to meet. Mr. Sheehan declared that a fit of spleen against Mr. Fitzherbert had exposed the fact that New Zealand was “suffering from personal government in one of its veiy worst aspects.” A constitution was to be uprooted because Mr. Vogel was irritated, and members were meek enough to do his bidding. Mr. Williamson, for whom Mr. Vogel had promised to make permanent provision, declared that the people of Auckland would return to the next Assembly no man who would support Vogel's revolutionary proposals. On the 20th Aug., the foregone conclusion was duly recorded by a division in the House. Vogel had not given notice of his resolutions until he had ascertained that he could command a majority, and Stafford had been the manager behind the scenes. Taiaroa thought general government more likely than a provincial government to be just. “I myself had a case which I brought forward. It was discussed in the different Parliaments of New Zealand, and they could not settle it, neither could any court in the colony settle it; but when I laid the matter before the Privy Council then the Superintendent agreed to pay.” By 41 votes against 1G the resolution was carried.

Mr. Fitzherbert (24th Aug.), bowing to the decision arrived at, asked the House to resolve that the change should not be “made without first testing the opinion of the people through the constituencies,” and that the Governor should be asked to grant a dissolution for the purpose. Mr. Vogel denounced the dangerous doctrine that a special appeal to constituencies should precede a serious change in the law. Mr. Gladstone had stigmatized it as “ultra-democratic—more than democratic—anarchical,” and rightly so. But where, as in New Zealand, there were several provinces with separate legislatures, the objections to such a doctrine were fatal in the abstract. To appeal from halls of counsel to the hustings has indeed the appearance of appealing from Philip sober to Philip drunk, and in New Zealand there were several Philips to be consulted. Vogel had the courage of his position, though as he had so newly assumed it, it could not be said that he had the courage of his opinions. He moved an amendment recommending that the provincial government in the North Island should be followed by “an inexpensive but more thorough form of local government, under which the island should be divided into districts and sub-districts, endowed with substantial revenues, and the residents therein be enabled to take a larger and more direct share in the management of local affairs and the expenditure of local revenues than is at present the case.” “Endowment with substantial revenues” was a tempting bait, but the term was vague. Who was to decide upon the substance? Stafford supported Vogel's amendment, and Mr. Fitzherbert demolished Vogel's speech. He pointed out that already success had stirred the government to wider schemes, and that the altered tone of the Treasurer in moving his amendment implied that abolition of southern provinces would follow speedily. Mr. Fox confessed his conversion from ardent “provincialism” to centralism. Mr. Johnston, member for Manawatu, candidly said: “Now that the Premier undertakes to endow each district with substantial revenues my doubts vanish. I confess that I do not see where the money is to come from, but inasmuch as passing this resolution commits the House to a certain extent to find it from somewhere, I will vote for it.” The “sop” system admitted by Mr. Vogel as to time past was triumphant in the anticipations of the Johnstons of the House, and by 45 votes against 20 Mr. Vogel's amendment was carried. Mr. Swaiison vainly moved that the amending bill should be circulated “at least two months before the next meeting of Parliament.” So far as the existing House was concerned provincialism in the North was doomed, but the southern majority did not foresee that the measure they were meting to the North Island would be forced upon themselves.

After such proofs of strength the government carried their bill to amend the Native Lands Act of 1873. A bill to authorize advances for provincial public works was more successful than the Provincial Loans Bill of the previous session. Lands in the provinces were to form the security, and superintendents of provinces were authorized to agree with the Treasurer upon terms of repayment. A Railways Bill, appropriating money and empowering the government to purchase from the provincial authorities certain existing lines in Otago and Canterbury passed the Lower House, but was lost in the Council. On the same day which saw the Railways Bill rejected by the Council Mr. Murray moved in the House—” That in the opinion of this House the nomination of tenants of the Crown to seats in the Legislative Council is highly objectionable and inconsistent with the independence of Parliament.” In New Zealand, as in Australia, the pastoral occupation of the country was the avocation of some of the most intelligent settlers. The original theory was merety to occupy temporarily until a more permanent form of settlement might become as necessary as it was natural, and freehold would be substituted for the lease or license held by the tenants of the Crown. This was part of Gibbon Wakefield's plans. He argued that the annual grass crop could properly be so availed of—the government holding the power to sell land at a fitting time. How that theory was unwisely departed from need not be here discussed. Mr. Murray's motion implied that there was danger lest servile submission should pervade the Council. But he moved it at a time when the Council had given proofs of independence. His grievance was the rejection of Land Bills; and when he said that “interested persons who never ought to have voted” had thrown them out, the Speaker called him to order. Jealous of the honour of the whole Parliament rather than of the aggrandizement of the House of which he was Speaker, Sir F. Dillon Bell added that he had consulted the Speaker of the Council, and if “his colleague” had considered the motion an improper interference with the Council, he (Sir F. D. Bell) would have removed it from the Order paper. The motion was withdrawn. When the Appropriation Bill had passed in the Lower House, Mr. Vogel moved the second reading of a second Railways Bill divested of the provisions on account of which the Council had rejected the first. It was passed through both Houses without a division. An attempt was made to authorize, by resolution, negotiations to effect a purchase, at Otago, contemplated in a defeated bill. Mr. Vogel opposed it, and the Speaker pronounced that it was “not in accordance with Parliamentary practice for the government to carry out by resolution what it had failed to carry out by bill.” But the Otago province was supposed to be weeping at the door. Mr. Vogel “felt that it was a very hard thing that Otago, which required money for the construction of branch railways, should go away from the Assembly without any money in its pocket, while other provinces went away with plenty,” and an Otago Provincial Public Works Advances Bill, to enable the Government to advance £60,000 for railways, on terms to be agreed upon, was passed. An Immigration and Public Works Bill was passed to give effect to provisions of the Loan Bill. It dealt with the purchase of land from the natives, for which £700,000 had been authorized at various times. Friends of the Maoris declaimed against artifices resorted to in obtaining their lands; and Captain Fraser declared that in the Middle Island, where temptation was not applied by colonists covetous of land, “the Maoris had abjured drinking altogether.” “How would the Europeans have got the land in Hawke's Bay if the Maoris had not been encouraged to drink? He paused for a reply,”—but none was vouchsafed. “Gross injustice had been done to the whole Maori race, and he would never cease to express his opinion on that subject.” The question of payment of members of the Assembly out of the public funds was examined by a committee, Mr. Rolleston's contention, that the subject ought to be dealt with as a matter of principle by a bill, being ineffectual.

Sir J. Fergusson, having resigned office, introduced valedictory words in the prorogation speech (31st Aug.). He told the members that the session would be memorable for having rung the knell of the provinces in the North Island. He was advised to say that the decision was accompanied by ample proof that the land fund would, nevertheless, “as far as possible, be localized,” and not absorbed by the general government.

The Marquis of Normanby succeeded Sir J. Fergusson, but the latter had various acts to perform before demitting his authority. In place of the indignant Mr. O'Rorke, Major Atkinson, after the close of the session, became Minister of Immigration, and as Vogel wished to go to England to negotiate the new loan, Dr. Pollen became the leader during Vogel's absence, and on the 3rd Dec. the new Governor (the Marquis of Normanby) arrived. He received a petition from Sir G. Grey on the subject of appropriation of funds arising from the sale of lands. The petition urged that the Auckland province could justly ask for time to enable it to come to fair terms with regard to land revenues before vital changes should be made or sanctioned by the British Parliament. The Governor referred the petition to Dr. Pollen, who sneered at Sir G. Grey's statements. The Marquis transmitted the documents to the Earl of Carnarvon. Before any reply was received Sir G. Grey was elected member for Auckland City West, and on the death of Mr. Williamson, the electors conferred the office of Superintendent of the Province upon Sir G. Grey. His speeches were received with acclamation. It was sad, but not unnatural, that the treatment he had encountered from more than one Secretary of State had jaundiced his judgment, and he proposed that the Colonial Office should be set aside and that New Zealand “should have a Secretary of State of our own.” But he was facile and persuasive. Everything he said was applauded. Those who did not agree with his opinions admired his rhetoric.

In 1875, the meeting between the Maori king and Sir D. McLean, so anxiously sought by the latter, was brought about by the aid of Te Wheoro. McLean went to Alexandra (26th Jan.), and remained there while friendly chiefs conferred. Te Paea, the king's sister, had recently been buried, and Te Wheoro and other chiefs attended at Waitomo to take part in a “tangi.” On the 3rd of Feb. McLean was welcomed, and after formalities (a part of which was an interval of strict silence), Tawhiao said that his word was, “Let the Pakeha who are spread over the world return to the appointed place (probably Maungatawhiri, where General Cameron commenced the war and which the Maoris had called their boundary). If they return thither, I will follow and return to Waikato.” Tawhiao thus made the demand which his deputies had previously made. McLean replied that the abandonment of the territory confiscated in Waikato was not feasible, and Tawhiao said: “Don't suppose that this will be your last visit to us. Come again.” McLean proposed: 1st. That Tawhiao should exercise authority over tribes within his district. 2nd. That he should choose a council of chiefs to keep order and repress wrong. 3rd. That the New Zealand government should assist him. 4th. That the government should build a house for him at Kawhia and grant to him certain lands on the Waipa and Waikato rivers. Nothing was agreed to, but much was thought to have been accomplished. Tke Civil Commissioner, Mr. Kemp, who accompanied McLean, wrote that the meeting, “whether viewed politically or in connection with the welfare of the settlers, could not but be regarded as of paramount importance.”

Death was busy amongst the elder generation of Maoris. Mohi Tawhai, a companion-in-arms of Waka Nene against Heke, more than eighty years old, was mounting his horse after attending Divine Service and fell and died. He it was who was mainly instrumental in preventing Colonel Despard from repeating at Ruapekapeka the assault so disastrous under that officer at Ohaeawae.

“Life of Archdeacon Williams,” vol. ii., p. 120.

His services were not forgotten. At his funeral at Hokianga it was said that every respectable European in the district joined in paying respect. In Wanganui, Pehi and Tahana Turoa passed away. The resident magistrate reported that he should much miss Tahana, who as assessor and otherwise had always given him wise counsel. Tahana was owner of much land, and left a will which was duly proved in the Supreme Court. Officers reported from various districts a slight improvement in the condition of the Maoris. With less dissipation there was more intelligent industry amongst them.

Sir D. McLean busied himself in purchasing land. At Maketu he conferred with chiefs, and the result was an order to the Land Purchase Commissioners to discontinue negotiations in the Arawa territory. He communicated the result of his departmental labours to the Assembly. The land acquired, or under negotiation, under the Public Works and Immigration Acts was, in 1875:—

Purchased. Lease. Incomplete Purchase. Transactions. Lease. In Auckland 490,784 391,601 1,618,686 1,214,667 In Hawke's Bay 240,537 — 37,000 — In Wellington 429,702 — 1,202,026 307,835 In Taranaki 170,499 — 84,130 — 1,331,522 391,601 2,941,842 1,522,502

The prices paid averaged 2s. 5 1/4d. an acre. Money paid for completed and incomplete transactions was under control of the Native Department, and there were not wanting men who denounced the mystery in which Sir Donald McLean shrouded his proceedings. He urged the Assembly not to press him unduly, but to leave him to work out the problem “as the government may deem safe and advisable.”

Again it was reported that Te Kepa Rangihiwinui's advice had restrained the passions of his countrymen, who would have resorted to violence rather than to the law in the Wanganui district. At the Chatham Islands the Moriori race was said to be rapidly disappearing. Their peculiar dialect was spoken only by a few aged persons. The young were sickly. They presented a picture which might haunt the minds of their late masters. The Maoris might regard their own fate in that of their helots. The education of the chieftain class, to which Sir J. Fergusson had drawn attention, was little regarded. Two or three boys at the Grammar School at Auckland and one at the Wellington College were distinguished from about 1500 on school registers throughout the provinces. Out of £12,000 devoted to Maori education in the year nearly £2000 were native contributions.

Like his predecessors, the Marquis of Normanby journeyed throughout the provinces. He told the Secretary of State that, bold as had been the plunge into indebtedness, he believed the policy sound, “provided that it is not carried too far”—a safe prediction, which seemed to hint misgivings. The march of events had so completely carried questions affecting the Maoris into the hands of McLean that despatches rarely alluded to them.

The speech opening the Parliament in July, 1875, proved the truth of the contested prophecies of the opposition in 1874. The Assembly was to be invited to decide whether it might not be well to abolish provinces as well in the Middle Island as in the North. The meeting of Tawhiao with McLean was spoken of as a herald of future good. The negotiations of the new loan for £4,000,000 in London was declared successful. Mr. Vogel had not returned to the colony. His colleagues in negotiating the loan were Sir P. G. Julyan, Dr. Featherston, and Mr. Sargeaunt. He had differed from them. They thought it best to sell the debentures in two instalments. He desired to sell the whole at £94 to the house of Rothschild, giving a commission of 2 per cent. to Messrs. Rothschild for their aid in floating the loan,—they giving a guarantee for the immediate sale of three millions. Reluctantly the other agents yielded. The net price received, after deducting accrued interest, was £90 19s. 7d. Vogel became K.C.M.G. and remained in England for a time. The absence of the head of the ministry during a session was thought likely to give umbrage. He tendered his resignation in May, and his colleagues reconstructed their ranks in July. Dr. Pollen became their head. Vogel was Postmaster-General. Major Atkinson took the post of Treasurer. McLean was immovable. There was no sign of weakness in the reconstructed ministry, but the representatives unanimously replaced in the Chairmanship of Committees, Mr. O'Rorke, who had so indignantly severed his connection with Vogel in 1874. Sir D. McLean and Sir G. Grey were his proposer and seconder.

The question of abolishing the provinces was destined to distract the Assembly throughout the session. Not much was done with regard to native affairs. Taiaroa reminded Sir D. McLean that the government had promised in 1873 to place a native chief of the Middle Island in the Legislative Council. McLean admitted the promise but alleged that circumstances had prevented its fulfilment. The government would consider the matter.

Mr. Alexander Mackay, having compiled a statement of the lands purchased by Europeans in the Middle Island, Taiaroa moved (30th Sept.) that it be printed in Maori. McLean objected to the expense. But Wi Tako Ngatata in the Council carried a similar motion there. Taiaroa learned from the statement that the government had bought land in the Middle Island for about an eighth of a penny an acre. The chiefs of the north learned that they had obtained more money, but that it was sprinkled with blood. The Native Affairs Committee in the Lower House reported on the petition of Middle Island natives that a Commission ought to be appointed on the alleged unfulfilled promises in connection with land purchases. Taiaroa had fought his battle in the committee with the aid of counsel. Mr. Sheehan moved (6th Oct.) that the report be referred for “the favourable consideration of the government.” Taiaroa ran over the years in which he had vainly asked for justice as to the claims. He would still consent, as in a former year, that the government should nominate one commissioner, the Maoris another. Mr. Carrington desired that a portion of his evidence before the committee should be read. He had therein declared that, “having knowledge of the matter through meeting directors and gentlemen of the New Zealand Company in 1839 and 1840, prior to coming to the colony as the chief surveyor of the Plymouth Company of New Zealand,” he thought it right to make a statement. The value of his declaration may be shown in a brief extract: “The question as to one-tenth of the land being reserved for the natives in the inhabited districts, so far as my knowledge goes in this matter, had special reference to the North Island… Hence I never heard of its being contemplated by the New Zealand Company that a reservation of one-tenth of the land of the Middle Island should be set apart for its natives.” In the agreement of the company with Lord John Russell it was expressly stipulated that the reserves should be made everywhere, and in the instructions issued by the company to Colonel Wakefield before he sailed in the “Tory” in 1839—of which period Carrington claimed a knowledge—were these words: “You will take care to mention in every booka booka, or contract for land, that a proportion of the territory ceded, equal to one-tenth of the whole, will be reserved by the company, and held in trust by them for the future benefit of the chief families of the tribe.” Those instructions were published; Mr. J. J. Symonds in purchasing the Otago block expressly stipulated “on behalf of the natives for one-tenth of each description of allotment;” and the company was lauded for making reserves on such an imposing scale. The company was bound to hold the reserves in trust for the “chiefs, their families, tribes, and successors for ever;” and on surrender of the company's charters their obligations devolved, not only naturally, but by express stipulations, upon the Crown.

See p. 338, Vol. I., and notes pp. 264 and 364, Vol. I.

It is disheartening to read such a statement as that of Mr. Carrington. McLean having characterized Taiaroa's claims as extravagant, but admitted that he was “quite aware that unfulfilled promises existed,” the debate was adjourned. Mr. Macandrew moved an amendment (13th Oct.) declaring that there were no unfulfilled promises, but could not carry it. Mr. W. Kelly declared that “there no doubt remained many unfulfilled promises, and something should be done in the matter.” McLean had stipulated that a decision arrived at by the Native Land Court at Canterbury, which was ratified by “the Ngaitahu Reference Validation Act of 1868,” should not be challenged. The Act in question will be remembered as legalizing retrospectively an improper reference to the Native Lands Court. The field of justice was circumscribed, but it comprehended “schools, hospitals, and other advantages.” Even this Mr. Macandrew would have refused; and it was only agreed to by the members on the understanding that for final decision it must be again submitted to the House. McLean positively refused to “go behind 1868” (in which the Land Court had overruled the claims of Heremaia Mautai). Mr. Sheehan moved: “That this House regrets to hear of the scandalous and dishonest dealings of certain Europeans in the acquisition of native lands at Hawke's Bay, … and considers that such transactions are a stain upon the good name of the colony.” He animadverted upon the manner in which, after the Crown had waived the sole right of purchase, the natives had been inveigled by artful agents. He showed how signatures had been extorted from Maoris; how to relieve themselves from debts they had been under duress persuaded to sell their rights; how Henare Tomoana, who foiled Te Kooti, had in equipping Maoris to fight the Hau Haus incurred a debt of thousands of pounds, the cancelling of which was the engine brought to bear upon him to extort his signature; how Karaitiana Takamoana, the Maori member, half brother of Henare Tomoana and co-proprietor in the land, had moodily resisted and vainly besought the Native Minister to avert sale by such untoward methods. The freehold of the Heretaunga block, close to Hawke's Bay, comprising about 18,000 acres, illegally occupied by settlers before the government abandoned the exclusive right of purchase had, by the arts he described, passed into the hands of settlers. Mr. Ormond, member for Clive, was amongst the purchasers, and Mr. Sheehan complained that, in bargains for lands bought for Sir D. McLean himself, an agent had been employed, who, having been previously dismissed from the public service for embezzlement, had plied base arts against Maoris with whom he dealt. The Native Minister and Mr. Ormond replied at great length. Many members spoke. It was admitted that wrong had been done in many cases. Karaitiana Takamoana declared that if the House yielded to Sir D. McLean and stifled discussion, he would appeal to England. “Maoris prefer to be destroyed themselves rather than see their lands destroyed. Neither the Superintendent of Hawke's Bay (Ormond), nor the Native Minister (McLean), had a good name with the Maoris at Napier. If the House will not deal with the matter, the Maoris will go on until they lose their skins in the Supreme Court… If the House will not agree with this question there will be mischief in Hawke's Bay. The Maoris consider that treachery has been committed there.” Mr. Sheehan's motion was lost. Sir D. McLean met a motion of Sir G. Grey's by promising that, in future, agents should not be permitted to traffic privately for lands, but neither he nor the House would probe past transactions, and Sir G. Grey was defeated. With regard to a transaction at the Piako swamp the government had broken the law. The minimum upset price of land in the Auckland province was five shillings. A tract exceeding 70,000 acres had been parted with by private arrangement for a less sum than the legal minimum. McLean pleaded that the land could not have been sold at all unless by special arrangement, and that though Mr. Thomas Russell and his friends had paid less than the price fixed by law, they had been bound to make a road through the Piako swamp which would compensate the public, the rebate of half-a-crown per acre being the maximum allowance to be made to them for the cost of the road, in which case the price paid per acre would fall to half-a-crown an acre. McLean was able even by such an explanation to satisfy the House. His colleague, Dr. Pollen, brought in two bills in the Council—one to enable Mr. Russell to exchange some land for other waste land; the other to enable Mr. Whitaker to resign land claimed by him, and select an equal quantity elsewhere. Both bills were thrown out at different stages. A select committee recommended with sarcastic simplicity “that in all future transactions any alterations in the law that may be desirable should precede, and not follow the agreement for the purchase of land.” Sir D. McLean's committee in the Lower House was more lenient, but it declared that “dealings by private contract with the public landed estate are inexpedient, and they are glad to observe that the government have proposed to bring the confiscated lands under the operation of the ordinary waste lands laws of the colony.” The subject was not dead, however. The time within which Mr. Russell had been bound to pay had expired, but he had not paid. Dr. Pollen stated before a committee that unsettled native claims and the confused position of the confiscated boundary were obstacles to closing the transaction. He seemed to think the government had power to complete it. Mr. Whitaker's name was to appear prominently in connection with the Piako swamp. He had urged sweeping confiscations in 1864. Subsequently, in 1867, when superintendent of the province of Auckland, and also government agent at Auckland, he was appointed commissioner for the sale and disposition of the confiscated lands. His own claims were involved in one of the bills which Dr. Pollen strove in vain to induce the Council to pass. He had purchased the interest (dating from 1844) of other persons in land, of which about 18,000 acres had been awarded to him by Mr. F. Dillon Bell. But the natives had never surrendered their claim to about 14,000 acres of the block, and Whitaker abstained from taking steps which Dr. Pollen declared might have created a native disturbance. He had never taken possession. Maoris were in occupation. Mr. Mackay, Government Land Purchase Commissioner, reported that he could negotiate for the purchase of 200,000 acres if the 14,000 acres claimed by Whitaker were abandoned to the natives. Pollen's bill proposed to allow Whitaker to select elsewhere. The Council thought an undue advantage would thus be conferred. The casting vote of the Speaker crushed the bill for the time, but in after years the subject was revived. Meanwhile Sir D. McLean was harassed by the checks which he received. He passed in the Lower House a Confiscated Lands Bill, which it was hoped would enable the Piako swamp to be dealt with, but it broke down in the Council.

A debate took place (8th Sept.), which awoke kindly feelings. Mr. Williams moved an address to the Governor, praying that a sum might be put upon the estimates to maintain in “decent order the graves of the officers and men who fell during the wars with the natives.” He told how the Ngapuhi warriors, who under Heke and Kawiti at Ohaeawae slew English soldiers, had in after years built a church on the site of the fatal pah, and granted land as a sacred resting-place for the dead; how reverently they had assisted in placing the remains in hallowed ground, and joined in the burial service spoken in Maori by Archdeacon Clarke; how volleys were fired over the graves as fit for a soldier's farewell; and how the two races had joined in hand and heart throughout the ceremonial. Mr. Kelly, from Taranaki, suggested that honour should be paid to the gallant Maoris who had fallen at Mahoetahi and Huirangi. Sir D. McLean and Sir G. Grey chimed in with friendly voice. Katene and Parata welcomed the kindly feeling shown by the House. Parata said: “I speak not now only of those who fought for the Queen, but of all. There is no fighting now, and the time has come when the Legislature may pay equal honour to those who fought on both sides. Hearts which are now dark will be comforted when these things are done.”

It has been convenient to glance at Maori questions, but the battlefield of the session was the abolition of the provinces. Vogel was not in the House. McLean obtained leave of absence for him for the session, Mr. Rolleston remarking that the country would gain if the absence “were prolonged indefinitely.” Major Atkinson (6th Aug.) moved the second reading of the bill to abolish the provinces. It contained a clause for endowment of Road Boards, but the government, not knowing what form of government “those bodies would be desirous of assuming,” would “be prepared to make any alteration which honourable members representing those districts” might desire. Local rates and licenses were to be handed to cities and Road Boards. But for the title of the bill, which warred against the provincial ideas, by means of which Mr. Vogel had expelled Mr. Weld from office in 1865, there was no evidence of a desire to destroy local government; and through the endowment of Road Boards, the arts by which Vogel had manitained a majority in administering public loans, might be revived under another name. Gaols, harbours, police, lunatic asylums, and education were to be the care of the General Assembly. Major Atkinson admitted that in the past the distribution of public revenues had been iniquitous, had been indeed “a gigantic scramble on the floor of this House, or in the lobbies,” but he expected that annihilation of the provinces would purify the parliamentary air. Sir G. Grey opposed the bill in a speech, of which a member said, that, though it had not convinced, it was admirable for its eloquence. Mr. Reader Wood analyzed the financial aspect. “Pass this bill, and the last trace of the land fund of the colony will vanish like a streak of morning cloud; pass it, and you strike a blow at the credit of the colony under which it will reel again.” The House sat late night after night. Mr. Montgomery quoted the public complaint of Vogel, that instead of £8,000,000 sterling, only £6,500,000 had been spent on railways, the difference being “represented by the expedients to which we have had to submit in order to purchase support from the provinces.” “I can understand this regret,” said Mr. Montgomery, but “history will say that the government might have withstood unjust demands, that they should not have been afraid of losing their positions, that it was the lust of power that made them thus dispose of public property… They regret it, not for the wrong done, but for the amount of money it cost to do it.” Mr. Tribe said that because change was necessary he would vote for the second reading. “If I have the honour of a seat in this House next session I shall have to come down and take part in a scramble. I suppose I shall have to fight the battle and log-roll as well as I can.” Vogel's method of “purchasing support” had so dulled the moral sense of the House, that no exception was taken to this language. The government had a majority in the House, and the fame of the devices of the opposition spread beyond the bounds of New Zealand. On the 17th Aug., after long debate upon formalities, and further debate when points of order had been set aside, the House sat till daylight streamed in upon the Chamber. That night Mr. Rolleston denounced the bill. If it should pass, separation of the two islands would follow. The ministry was governed by Mr. Stafford, and who guided Mr. Stafford Mr. Rolleston could not tell. The House was asked to launch into chaos. If the bill should pass, the land laws of the provinces would soon be moulded on a uniform plan, and the land fund would be common revenue. He had but one hope; that the Council, which had already averted many mischiefs, would refuse to pass the bill. Mr. Bowen (Minister of Justice) admitted that Vogel had “given way to provincial pressure, as all Colonial Treasurers had to give way before him;” but he did not quote the opinion of any other Treasurer that the support was bought at a price. He affirmed that if the bill should not be passed “a scramble would take place within a year that would ruin the finances of the country.” Stafford threw his ægis over the men who had hurled him. from office in 1872. He disclaimed the post of guide to the ministry, but supported them. Mr. Fitzherbert ruthlessly showed (20th Aug.) how earnest had been the praise bestowed by Vogel and Fox in 1868 upon the provincial governments, which Vogel and his colleagues in 1875 faithlessly strove to destroy. Mr. Stafford was in 1856 a party to the compact to localize the land revenue. Then he acted in a provincial spirit. Now he “comes forward as the champion of centralism.” … “By all that is honest, by all that is respectable, by all that is honourable in political life, and by all precedents in countries where parliamentary government exists, I say most plainly that, as men of honour, maintaining the opinions which they came into office to support, the ministry should no longer be sitting on those benches. They were pledged by all that men hold sacred to vacate their seats. There is no term of opprobrium too strong for men who so abandon their principles. These are facts. I have proved them in the course of my speech.” The second reading of the bill was carried by 52 votes against 17. The struggle in committee was yet to be encountered, and the government announced (2nd Sept.) that to secure general support they would introduce ancillary bills—to divide the provinces into districts in which Boards of Works would be elected, and in which the balance of the land fund would be appropriated —and to create or confirm in each province Boards of Education in which existing reserves of lands for educational purposes would be vested. Sir G. Grey had already provoked ironical laughter by high-sounding allusions to the rights and liberties of man, especially of man in New Zealand, and he made a speech strangely compounded of such sentiments and of assertions that the New Zealand Assembly ought not to pass the bills without obtaining the sanction of the British Parliament. The government seemed determined to sit in silence until the opposition speakers might be exhausted. Mr. O'Rorke, before the committee sat, denounced the mode in which Vogel, having “floated into lucrative office” on the strength of provincial professions, “turned traitor to the cause which placed him in office.” The government remained silent, and victorious. But the defeated did not abandon the field. Every material for debate was seized upon. Public meetings were held at Auckland and elsewhere to strengthen the hands of the opposition, who were pertinacious in committee, and battled throughout a night. At six o'clock in the morning (10th Sept.) there was an adjournment until ten. All day long the battle—si rixa est ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum—was waged in the same manner. When the time arrived for the ordinary sitting of the House (10th Sept.) the mace was removed from under the table, and a debate on the imputed irregularity of procedure arose. At last progress was reported, and Sir D. McLean moved the adjournment of the House until the 14th Sept., in order that an arrangement might be made “to terminate the existing differences.”

On the 15th Sept. he announced the terms agreed upon. The bill was to be allowed to pass without unreasonable opposition in committee, the government agreeing that the date for bringing it into operation should be the day after the prorogation of the first session of the new Parliament. Sir G. Grey did not approve of the terms (made by Mr. Fitzherbert and others), but agreed to respect them. They were loyally adhered to. In dealing with the revenue derived from gold, Sir G. Grey made known his subjection to the mischievous delusion that the gold export duty was a class-tax. He compared it unfavourably with an export duty on wool. He spoke as if he were blind to the fact that though sheep depastured on Crown lands produce wool derived partly from the public property, they use only the annual grasses which nature rears again (the soil remaining public property); whereas the gold extracted by the miner has been taken from the State treasures for ever; and if no royalty by way of Customs duty or otherwise be charged, has been lost to the public.

The mode of dealing with the land fund was earnestly debated. The Speaker, Sir Dillon Bell, warned the House that to pass a certain clause would force the land fund into the general treasury. He shrunk from the “log-rolling” which he dreaded as inevitable if the local bodies should have funds placed at their disposal by the vote of the House. With few changes the bill was carried and was easily passed in the Council. A Local Government Bill was to have complemented that for the abolition of the provinces. But the government shrunk from proceeding with it. Read a first time on the 30th July, it was afterwards dropped. The ministry held in their hands, therefore, the strings with which they thought to move the minds of members, and to excite the hopes of constituencies. Pliability of the first, and contentment of the second, seemed yet in their control. The opposition vainly demanded that the new bill should be “made public at least one month before the next session.” A motion to that effect was defeated.

But the government could not always command a majority on all questions. A member of the ministry, Mr. Reynolds, introduced a bill to lower the qualification of electors. British-born or naturalized subjects, holding freeholds of £50 value, and certain leaseholders and householders of not less than £5 yearly value, as well as holders of miners’ rights, were already voters. Mr. Reynolds proposed to make the suffrage almost universal. Every resident for twelve months, except a Maori, was to be entitled to registration as an elector. Mr. Rolleston and others objected to the bill. Taiaroa asked: “What is the good of allowing people to vote having no qualification beyond simply living in New Zealand in a house for twelve months? Why if such votes were to be lawful should not Maories have them?” He read a clause in the Constitution Act which prevented infliction of disabilities or restrictions on natives. Parata and the other Maori members opposed the bill. Mr. Reynolds admitted that he could not blame them. “I am not at all astonished that they should be suspicious of me; for no doubt they have been reminded that I have stood alone on the floor of this House and objected to any Maori being admitted except under the usual franchise.” The bill was thrown out. Mr. Wake-field subsequently carried a Lodgers’ Franchise Bill in the Lower House, and it passed easily through the Council, where Mr. Waterhouse remarked that it might have the effect of averting the misfortune of universal suffrage.

A bill to raise the number of the Representatives to 84, exclusive of the Maori members, was carried through both Houses. An Act was passed (Immigration and Public Works Appropriation) which restricted the powers which the ministry had exercised over the expenditure of borrowed money. On the 21st Oct. the session, memorable for all dwellers in New Zealand, came to an end, and the agitation within was exchanged for that without the halls of legislation. Vogel did not return to New Zealand while the Assembly was sitting, but his correspondence on the loan was produced. There was, as usual, bitter animadversion on Dr. Featherston by Sir J. Vogel, who could not forgive the fact that the Crown agents, Sir P. G. Julyan and Mr. Sargeaunt, agreed with Dr. Featherston. He endeavoured to weaken the position of his colleagues by denying the accuracy of their statements, though aware (he wrote) “that you have the advantage of numbers.” Those who knew Dr. Featherston knew also that the advantage was not confined to numbers. Writing angrily about immigration to Dr. Featherston, Vogel communicated to him a telegram from New Zealand to the effect that one of Featherston's despatches was “intolerably disrespectful,” and would not be recorded; and he rudely set aside Featherston's disclaimer that there was no intention to be disrespectful. Simultaneously with making personal charges, the Treasurer, as if bent on extruding the obnoxious agent, dictated elaborate changes in the agent's department. With sad dignity Dr. Featherston defended himself by admitting that he had been compelled to write much that he would have wished unwritten, as, during the year—“there are not many charges that could be brought against the character of a public officer respecting which I have not had occasion to defend myself in replies to your despatches… It was my duty to my own character, it was my duty to the colony in whose service I have spent many and not useless or unhonoured years, not to leave such charges unanswered.” Frequently called upon in times of difficulty to serve the colony, he had ever received ungrudging acknowledgment of his services, and conscious of his rectitude he did not lose confidence that, notwithstanding temporary misconception, the labours of his department would yet be appreciated by the people of New Zealand. The followers of the novus homo of New Zealand could hardly read such a paper without compunction, but they did not free themselves from his yoke.

The position of members was found equivocal with regard to a Disqualification Act of 1870. Passed in a spasm of virtue, its provisions were found too cramping. One member complained that because in his capacity as Superintendent of Nelson he had been the nominal recipient of two small sums of money, his name was included in a return. In other cases land purchased from members by the government to facilitate negotiations with the Maoris was found to endanger seats. In both Houses there was a desire to remove doubts or disabilities, and a Bill to amend the Act, “and to indemnify certain members of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives from disabilities and penalties they may have incurred under that Act,” was rapidly passed.

The ministry had placed glowing accounts of progress before the Assembly. Borrowed millions had swollen the veins of traffic and puffed the hearts of traffickers. The male white population was 213,294. The miles of railway open at the close of the year were 542. The ordinary revenue exceeded £2,000,000. Nearly 40,000 immigrants had arrived in 1874. About 30,000 arrived in 1875. The export of wool had increased, and was valued at £3,398,000. The other exports were nearly £2,000,000 more, of which £1,500,000 were gold dug from the earth. The skeleton in the House was a debt exceeding £17,000,000 sterling. It could be veiled from view for a time. Material prosperity, not the happiness which springs from virtuous habits, is the idol of many political economists; and in their eyes New Zealand was the cynosure of colonies. She had outstripped them all in her debt.

Amidst the turmoil of the time, the shrieking of engines, the throb of electric wires, the din of Parliament—was heard in 1875 a plaintive cry from settlers who had arrived in New Zealand “prior to 1st January, 1848.” Naval and military settlers and volunteers had received grants of land. The pioneers would do the same. No special grant was applied for in the petition, but a witness thought that sixty acres would be a reasonable grant to each of the pioneers. The Committee on Petitions made no recommendations in their favour. The class which cares least for Pilgrim Fathers is that which immediately succeeds them. It tramples on their records with a wantonness which after-generations labour ceaselessly to undo. The iconoclasni of Niebuhr would have been out of place if the early Rorman annals had been complete; and the life and actions of Homer seem to have been as little cared for by his contemporaries as were those of Shakspeare by the bulk of Englishmen. If Shakspeare's partners had not printed his works soon after his death; if his dedications of his poems to the Earl of Southampton had not furnished unshakeable proof of his position among the best spirits of the time; if Milton's immortal praise had not hymned him while the sounds of his voice still lingered in the ears of his lovers; if Ben Jonson and a few others had not vouched for their knowledge of the man and of his works, there might, even though printing had then been invented, be a lack of evidence to resist the ridiculous fable that although Shakspeare lived he did not write Shakspeare's plays. It was not likely that the pioneers would find favour if their claims had been reasonable; and it could not be denied that their opportunities as firstcomers had, like their difficulties, been great. Many of them were still eminent amongst the successful. For the others new men cared nothing.

The Governor sent a special report upon the Act to abolish the provinces. When its provisions were analyzed an impartial observer might well think that the opposition to it had been based, if not upon distrust of its propounders, upon the subtle influences of sentiment. It enacted (§ 11) that contracts, &c., with provincial superintendents could be enforced against the Crown; guaranteed compensation (12) to displaced provincial officers; appropriated certain fees, &c. (14) to local boards and municipalities; appropriated (15) certain goldfields’ revenues locally (declaring them to be no longer land revenue!); charged the land fund (16 to 19) with all provincial encumbrances of principal and interest, surveys and annual payments to local governing bodies; and imposed on the consolidated fund the costs of police, gaols, harbours, and many charitable institutions. The provincial spirit breathed in the Act which slew the provincial bodies. It might safely be predicted that either the spirit would be exorcised in the future, or that the central government would lose credit and usefulness. The land fund would be a bone of contention.

In the end of 1875 the Governor dissolved the House, and elections were held immediately. In Otago and in Auckland some members who had voted for abolition were rejected; but in other parts of the colony the result was favourable to the ministry. Sir J. Vogel's return to the colony induced Dr. Pollen to resign the leadership, which the former reassumed. Before doing so he arranged with Dr. Pollen that a sum exceeding £4000 should be allowed to meet the expenses of his recent mission to England. He wrote: “I do not pretend to have been economical.” About a third of the sum had been agreed upon when the mission was undertaken, but no one seemed to think it necessary to respect the agreement. Sir D. McLean retained the office which had become his indefeasible right. To facilitate the formation of an Executive Council when the Governor visited Auckland, Mr. Swainson, who resided there, was retained as an Executive Councillor. His high character, his long acquaintance with New Zealand, and his services as Attorney-General in former times, rendered the compliment such as none would object to; but it was understood that he would have declined to accept it if political sympathies or services had been included in the acceptance. A succeeding ministry continued the arrangement.

The deference shown to Sir J. Vogel was manifested by postponing until his return the consideration of a circular despatch on the subject of island annexation. The horrors of abduction and brutality practised by white scoundrels in the Pacific, the retaliation by islanders who slew their best friend in revenge, the intercession of the colonies, and a sentiment of honour, had induced England to annex the Fiji Islands with the declared consent of the ruling chiefs. In 1874, Lord Carnarvon had inquired whether the Australasian colonies would join in contributing a small sum (in no case exceeding £4000) to maintain the Fiji civil establishment whose creation they had urged. The colonies did not agree. New South Wales was ready to share the burden with England. Queensland shrunk from all responsibility, although the “labour traffic” amongst the islands had contributed to her needs; New Zealand would not assist unless with a voice in administration. Victoria asked for more information, and suggested that no colony should be permitted to acquire privileges in Fiji from which any other “should be shut out.” The burden remained with England. In July, 1875, Lord Carnarvon asked whether any principle could be adopted by which colonies advocating annexation might in future meet a proportion of its costs. Pressure at the time was brought upon the Colonial Office to colonize a part of New Guinea. It was not until April, 1876, that his ministers enabled the Marquis of Normanby to reply to the circular, and the reply was more argumentative than precise. The Marquis himself was of opinion that, in future, England, if urged by a colony to annex islands, should arrange with the applying colony as to the terms of contribution to maintain the government to be established. Long before the New Zealand reply reached England the Earl of Carnarvon had decided not to take possession of New Guinea and other islands, the annexation of which had been proposed to him.

Among other objects to which Vogel devoted himself was the inscription of colonial stock. Mr. Westgarth, a colonist of Victoria, who had returned to London, had for some time striven unsuccessfully to obtain the registration of colonial securities and to make them passable or not passable to the bearer. The New Zealand negotiator was more fortunate. The Bank of England agreed to inscribe New Zealand stock. The Colonial Office undertook to consider the propriety of introducing a bill to facilitate such transactions for the Australasian colonies, by defining the stamp duties payable, and fixing the rates at which they might be compounded. Vogel left to Dr. Featherston and others the task of promoting the bill. It was not concluded when in June, 1876, resignation, speedily followed by death, removed Dr. Featherston from the scene in which he had borne contumely from the man who was to succeed, and who had been suspected of a design to supplant, him. The Colonial Stock Bill was passed in 1877, while Vogel was Agent-General for New Zealand. No Imperial guarantee, direct or indirect, was attached to the stock. By enabling colonies to convert bonds and debentures into registered stock it was held that business in colonial securities would be facilitated.

Reports from officers in native districts were in one sense encouraging. Major Mair reported that Tawhiao's advisers had “introduced a temperance movement” amongst his subjects, and that it “had already obtained a strong hold upon the natives.” Other officers reported favourably of the industrious habits of Maoris. Sir D. McLean, through the intervention of Te Wheoro, had a friendly interview with Tawhiao in May, 1876, at Kaipiha, not far from Alexandra, and in the king's territory. The Uriwera tribe were induced by a land purchase officer “to join for the first time in the sale of land.” Four blocks were purchased from them and from the Ngatikahungunu. The price was £12,610 for 157,000 acres, and Sir D. McLean congratulated the land purchase officer on his skill. By purchase and lease Sir Donald negotiated for 615,146 acres in the year ending in June, 1876, and he boasted that one-fifth of the North Island had been secured (6,284,250 acres) for £445,404 2s. 1d.

An attempt, sanctioned by the government, was made in 1876 to exclude Karaitiana Takamoana from the House, where he was a thorn in the side of McLean. A Maori election case deserves to be told. Karaitiana had often denounced McLean's methods of procuring land. With uncontrolled command of funds, McLean, by gifts and persuasions, had induced chiefs to consent to transactions which more jealous Maoris disapproved. Karaitiana declared that the government were violating the law. When the election for the Eastern Maori province was held (Jan., 1876), three other chiefs were nominated against him. He obtained the show of hands at Napier, and at the poll received 401 votes. His opponents received 376, 373 and 145 respectively. At one polling place, Kawa-kawa, no votes were taken, floods having detained the returning officer. A Maori was persuaded to petition against Karaitiana's election. The returning officer made a special return of the facts, but did not return that Karaitiana was elected. On the 16th June it was ordered that on the 27th the House should consider the appointment of a committee to try the petition. It was hoped that a combination of votes adverse to Karaitiana might exclude him if a new election should be ordered. Meantime, as Legislative votes were of importance, it was determined to keep him out of the House. A sharp debate about the sale of the Piako swamp to ministerial supporters had already intervened, and the government had been placed in a minority in opposing the suspension of the Standing Orders. Indisposition of the Maori petitioner having debarred his attendance, McLean moved the dismissal of the petition. A member pointed out that, if the petition were dismissed and no fresh writ could be issued, the Eastern Maori district would be unrepresented. Major Atkinson revealed that the government weapon had two edges. On dismissal of the petition a new writ might be issued, and thus he presumed the House “would comply with the object of the petitioner.” Taiaroa said that, pending inquiry, Karaitiana ought to take his seat. The fault was with “the government officers, who, perhaps, were vexed at what Karaitiana had said in the House.” Mr. Reader Wood suggested inquiry by a committee. Vogel, asserting that the government “had no feeling in the matter,” desired an adjournment to enable them to consider so “novel” a case. As two of his colleagues had proposed measures for dealing with it, the assertion carried little weight. A select committee was appointed. Mr. Curtis, member for Nelson city, was chairman, and a proposition that, pending a decision, Karaitiana should take his seat, was rejected. On the 4th July, without having heard any evidence, McLean carried in the committee a motion that as no member had been returned a fresh writ should be issued. An interim report to that effect was made to the House, and Vogel moved that the Governor be requested to issue a writ. Mr. Swanson asked for the evidence taken by the committee. Mr. Tole dissented from its report. McLean vied with Vogel in asserting the indifference of the government. The speediest way to confer their electoral rights on the Maoris was to issue a new writ. A member retorted that the speediest way wrould be to direct Karaitiana to take his seat. The Western Maori member, Nahe, though he would have preferred a different representative, thought it but fair that Karaitiana should at once take his seat.

Two years afterwards, Mr. Ormond, while endeavouring to disfranchise Maoris, unguardedly threw light upon the subject. The government hoped to reverse the first verdict of the electors with regard to Karaitiana. “The truth was” (Ormond said, 26th Sept., 1878) “that it was in consequence of the carelessness of that very returning officer (who looked upon himself as the government returning officer) that the candidate who was a supporter of the government was not returned.” How often a simulated story is refuted in after years when the removal of former difficulty loosens tongues, and memory cannot recall former sinuosities!

After much debate Mr. Stout (Dunedin city) moved that the interim report be referred back to the committee with instructions to report within a week whether any persons were prevented from voting, and whether if so the result of the election had been thereby altered. Vogel, fearing defeat, withdrew his motion. Mr. Stout's motion was carried. The committee took evidence. The tribal influences prevailing were shown in the returns produced. At Napier, Karaitiana, the Ngatikahungunu chief, polled 127 votes. His three opponents polled none. At Opotiki, Karaitiana polled one vote. One Arawa chief polled 64 there, another Arawa 105, and the Ngatiporou candidate 5. It was alleged that at the place where no poll was held the Ngatiporou, though lowest on the general returns, would have received enough votes to place him at the head. Contradictory evidence was received. Henare Tomoana, the foiler of Te Kooti, handed in a list of eighty who had intended to vote for his kinsman, Karaitiana, but were prevented. Mr. Tole moved that Karaitiana had been duly elected, and should be allowed to take his seat. Mr. Stafford moved that an additional poll should be taken at Kawa-kawa, and the votes be added to those already returned. Mr. Stafford's amendment (the third device to exclude Karaitiana) was rejected. Mr. Tole's proposition was carried, together with a paragraph that, though the evidence was conflicting, the committee were of opinion that the result would not have been altered if a poll had been taken at Kawa-kawa. Vogel, making a merit of necessity, announced that the government would not oppose the conclusions arrived at by the committee. The return was ordered to be amended, and on the 8th August Karaitiana took his seat, well understanding the efforts which had been made to exclude him. After such an electoral campaign, McLean could hardly wonder at Karaitiana's opposition. On one occasion the chief declared that he had known McLean from his youth, and “did not know that his works had been good.” … “The reserves made by the natives for themselves at the time he was Commissioner had been purchased by him. While he was minister, some of these lands were passed through the court, and he bought them. He had bought large blocks for himself… Through plunder he had gained his present position… It was through deceitful sales that he had got so much land.” … Karaitiana, distrustful of the government, threatened to go to England for the justice which was denied to him in the land of his forefathers. Meanwhile he supported Sir G. Grey, the accredited leader of the opposition.

War in New Zealand was transferred from camp to Council. The Governor's opening speech (June, 1876) invited the Parliament, in consequence of the abolition of the provinces, to give to towns and country districts a larger share of self-government than they had previously enjoyed. Counties were to be established, with “powers and revenues of an independent character, but with liberty to adopt concerted action with boroughs and road districts.” A Land Bill was promised. Before the government could proceed to business, an act, done by them before the meeting of the Houses, stopped their way. It will be remembered that a bill, under which Mr. Whitaker would have been enabled to make good a defective title at the Piako swamp, was lost in the Legislative Council in 1875. Mr. Whitaker was a power in the House. He had been frequently a minister. It was convenient to strengthen his friendship. Before the Parliament met, the government ventured upon a bold step. They published an Order-in-Council, making regulations for sale of the land at the Piako swamp to Messrs. Russell, Whitaker, and their associates. Before business was entered upon, Sir G. Grey obtained the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to move that the hand of the government be stayed until the House could discuss the Order-in-Council. When the motion to stay procedure was submitted, the government secured 29 supporters against a like number of opponents. Mr. Fitzherbert voted with the Noes, “that an opportunity might be given for further discussion.” (He had been elected Speaker on the motion of Sir J. Vogel, seconded by Sir G. Grey. Mr. O'Rorke was again Chairman of Committees.) The debates proved that Vogel had more than once discussed the subject with Mr. Russell when the Piako swamp was applied for (1873), but Vogel declared that to assert that he would favour Mr. Russell or others was beneath contempt. Yet favour had been shown. The Piako swamp was open for selection between 1866 and 1871. At the latter date, under fresh regulations, it ceased to be eligible. Nevertheless, in 1873, the selection at 5s. an acre was unlawfully permitted, with an arrangement that the government should contribute at the rate of 2s. 6d. per acre towards the cost of making a road. Even these terms were designated by Mr. Russell as “too hard;” and Sir D. McLean “considering the heavy outlay” to which the purchasers would be subjected “in roads and drains,” agreed “to accept the payment of 2s. 6d. per acre within two years.” Nor were these all the favours conferred. The block was about 82,000 acres. There was an adjacent block (Tawera) of 5370 acres of good land, and it was added to the Piako block without allowing the public to compete for it,—the government negotiating for its purchase with resident natives, so as to enable Mr. Russell and his friends to receive it. A member told the House that the Tawera block was itself worth all the money paid for the 87,370 acres. Such were the facts which furnished debates extending through many days. But the time was unpropitious for doing justice. The abolition of the provinces seemed to demand that the ministry which abolished them should complete the subsidiary arrangements; and at a meeting of his supporters, Sir J. Vogel coupled continuance of the government with support of the Piako transaction. The members submitted. He carried a motion (22nd June): “That this House will not interfere to prevent the issue in the ordinary course of the Crown grant for the Piako swamp.” It was not until the ministry was thus assured that an unopposed address, in reply to the Governor's speech, was carried. In the Council, in debate on the address, Vogel's former colleague, Mr. Waterhouse, quoted a speech in which Major Atkinson urged electors, if they “desired to secure their interests, to elect Mr. Bryce and Sir J. Vogel unopposed.” Another man wrote to them: “I have no hesitation in saying that a vote of at least £100,000 might be obtained next session for harbour works for Wanganui by the election of Sir J. Vogel for this district, &c.” “If that is not an attempt at bribery and corruption I do not know what is,” said Mr. Waterhouse. The Piako swamp difficulty engrossed Vogel's attention at the time; but when it was surmounted he called Mr. Water-house's attack “coarse and disgraceful.” He insinuated that the letter about the £100,000 was published to damage his election. He did not deny that Atkinson had expressed a hope that his colleague would be returned unopposed; but the Major was pure and the constituents were pure. Major Atkinson virtuously declared that he knew the constituency too well to make such an offer as Mr. Waterhouse had “dared to insinuate.”

Early in July, Vogel's financial statement was made. The gross public debt was stated to be £19,543,194. The annual charge exceeded £1,000,000 sterling. The general revenue was about £1,703,000; land revenue, £750,000; gold revenue, £85,000. To supplant the provinces, and distribute monies locally, districts to be called counties were to be created. The ministry were “still willing to give” to the counties the license fees collected within them; and “the subsidies payable by the legislation of last year, amounting to £2 to £1, we intend to equally divide between the road districts and the counties.” There would also be granted from the Consolidated Revenue 5s. for every pound raised by private subscriptions “for charitable” purposes. To make the grants possible, the upset price of land was to be changed. Wherever it was less than £2 an acre it would be raised. The government were about, by “a revolution in the system of native land purchasing,” to crown the edifice of New Zealand greatness. The formal resolution moved was to sanction the demand of increased price at all future sales of land, but the amount of increase was not defined. As might be expected, the finger of the government was dreaded. At Canterbury and Otago the provinces had always striven to conform to Wakefield's idea of a sufficient price. At Canterbury it was £2 an acre. At Otago it varied according to classification, reaching sometimes £2 5s. an acre. At Auckland first-class land was 15s. an acre; second-class, 10s.; third-class, 5s.;—and there were few buyers. Sir G. Grey pointed out that while devising a scheme to raise the upset price, the government had effected, in violation of the law, a sale of the Piako swamp at half-a-crown an acre. Mr. Whitaker blandly assured the House that he, as a purchaser, had no idea of the intentions of the government with regard to price. The Treasurer thought Sir G. Grey's “statement absurd;” and the House, having sanctioned the Piako transaction, could not do right without self-condemnation. Sir G. Grey was certain that “posterity would stamp with reprobation” the action of the ministry.

On the 13th July, a telegram announced the death of Dr. Featherston, the Agent-General, in London. Both Houses adjourned to mark their sense of the loss sustained. Vogel eulogized the dead, and, alluding to his insulting letters to Dr. Featherston, said they were “owing to the necessities of democratic institutions.” Sir G. Grey significantly said that Dr. Featherston always afforded “an example of high-mindedness,” and sought no advantages for himself at the expense of the country. Mr. Fitzherbert, in committee said:—“I have lost a friend, and the colony has lost a great man… His glory is that he died poor… He had ‘abundant opportunities’ to enrich himself.” There were some who coveted the opportunities rather than the high-mindedness which rejected them. There were others who suspected the covetous. Mr. Murray asked (21st July) whether the government would consult the House before appointing an Agent-General. Vogel said that “the Cabinet had not discussed the subject.” Mr. Murray moved that an opportunity should be afforded to the House of “considering any appointment which the government may purpose making of Agent-General.” Vogel gave an assurance “that the government would take the House into their confidence as soon as they had any confidence to give,” and Mr. Murray withdrew his motion. At a later date a member asked whether Vogel had been appointed, and the suspected appointee gave a similar reply, inconsistently adding that it was “impossible for the government to consider the making of such an appointment whilst there were resolutions under consideration which in effect challenged the position of the government.” One of the resolutions was moved by Mr. Whitaker, a beneficiary in the Piako swamp transaction. On the 1st Aug., he moved that the law by which the land fund was made provincial revenue ought to be revised. “All assets and liabilities of the several provinces should be assets and liabilities of the colony.” When Whitaker had been defeated, Sir G. Grey moved that the state of the colony required revision of its financial and constitutional arrangements,—that “the unity of the colony should be maintained,—and that there should be two local governments, one for each island.” Auckland was to be the seat of the local government of the North Island; Christchurch of the South; and Wellington was to remain the seat of the colonial government. Mr. Woolcock reminded the House that Vogel had in 1874 declared “that £1,500,000 had been diverted from its original purposes through the log-rolling pressure of provincialism. On that point I blame the present occupants of the ministerial benches, and I say to them now that it would have been far more dignified, and would have been far better for their own good name, if they had adhered more firmly to their policy and less closely to their seats on the benches.” Mr. Stout sarcastically showed that in 1870 Mr. Vogel lauded the Public Works and Immigration Acts because they tended to constitute “one province within each island.” “The greatest torture you could give him now would be to compel him to read his speeches in the past.” But victory remained with the tortured. It was while the case was undecided that Vogel said that the government could not consider the appointment of an Agent-General. When Takamoana supported the resolutions, Mr. Tole, who had urged that the chief should take his seat in the House pending an election inquiry, pointed triumphantly to the demeanour of the “gentleman whom it was sought by every possible means—by summary jurisdiction I may say—to oust from the seat in this House to which he was so justly entitled.”

A new member, Mr. Edward Wakefield, made an onslaught upon the government. He had been private secretary to Mr. Stafford. Though now arrayed against Stafford, it was not against him that his shafts were directed. On the contrary, it was to him he attributed the wholesome measure of abolition. He declared that he supported Sir G. Grey's resolutions as the complement to abolition. He attacked McLean as an incubus upon the country. He denied that McLean had secured peace. He denied that the prosperity of recent years was due to Vogel's policy. “I say distinctly, and I am prepared to prove, that the ministry which has virtually been the ministry of the present Premier since 1869, has been the most corrupt ministry that ever held office in this country.” Abolition was advocated by Stafford from the heart; by Vogel “to prolong his tenure of office.”

The resolutions in favour of reconsideration of financial and constitutional arrangements and of maintaining the unity of the colony were accepted. On the question “That there should be two local governments, one for each island,” the government successfully resisted. But they were weaker in the new than in the old House, and Vogel recognized the expediency of feathering his nest elsewhere. He announced (29th Aug.) that his colleagues had pressed him to accept the office of Agent-General, and that he had consented to do so for a brief period. At his suggestion Major Atkinson had been called upon to form a new ministry. Suspicions were excited. That there was foundation for them was exposed in 1878 by Mr. Stout, and was virtually confessed by Major Atkinson. The words spoken in 1878 throw vivid light upon the deeds of 1876. “Was it true,” asked Mr. Stout, “that Sir J. Vogel was to cease to be Agent-General, and that he was to get an enormous sum, something like £18,000, for inscribing the stock?” Major Atkinson denied. “The honourable gentleman cannot deny that it was proposed that Sir J. Vogel should get a percentage for inscribing the stock.” “Major A.— Hear, hear. As one of the agents. Mr. Stout.—Of course that was the agreement. He was to cease to be Agent-General; and a friend of the government (Mr. Stafford) … was to be rewarded for his protection of the government by being put into the position of Agent-General.” … Atkinson denied that there was any arrangement; but his catechist would not be foiled. “I admit,” he said, “that there was no bargain, but was it not intended if the government remained in office that Sir J. Vogel should cease to be Agent-General and that (Stafford) the friend and guide of the honourable gentleman was to be appointed in his stead? Major A.—If he wished it. Mr. Stout.—Exactly. If he wished it. And the honourable gentleman does not call that an arrangement. Major A.—An official offer had never been made. Mr. Stout.—It was arranged behind the scenes,

See p. 143.

and that is why we want a Disqualification Bill, because arrangements of this sort do not tend to the purity of Parliament.”

These things were studiously concealed when, with the potentiality of place in the eyes of Stafford, and commission on inscription of stock looming large in his own, the budding Agent-General of the hour addressed the House in 1876. With much truth and equal affectation of sorrow he affirmed that the land, “which would always remind him of the successes he had won,” would be left by him with great regret, but he felt he was pursuing the right course. Mr. Rolleston said that Vogel, employed on his return from England, in order to carry out the loan policy, was now, by grasping at a subordinate post, inflicting an unconstitutional wrong upon New Zealand. Mr. Waterhouse in the Council declared that just as a crucial period of the loan policy had been reached, and it was imperative to substitute a new form of government for that which had at Vogel's instigation been destroyed, Vogel, on a plea of ill-health, was slipping from his responsibilities. The plea of ill-health might be disregarded inasmuch as the office of Agent-General was engrossing and responsible. Moreover, no steps should have been taken to appoint him to that post while his unauthorized drawing of an advance of £4000 from the Agent-General in 1875 was unexplained to Parliament. The ministry formed under Major Atkinson on the 1st Sept. did not live a fortnight. Mr. Ormond was a member, and so was Mr. Whitaker, who had a few days before divided against the ministry on Sir G. Grey's separation resolutions, and was therefore hostile to the policy which Major Atkinson announced that the new ministry would maintain. Mr. Waterhouse (4th Sept.) showed that under a Disqualifications Act there could legally be only seven ministers sitting in Parliament, and that Mr. Whitaker (under the Attorney-General's Act 1866) was incapable, while Attorney-General, of being a minister or sitting in Parliament.

In the Lower House Major Atkinson had no sooner announced the formation of the ministry than Mr. Andrew asking the House to disapprove of the offer of the post of Agent-General to Vogel, reminded it that the Crown agents in London had requested that “their names might not in future be associated with that of Sir J. Vogel,” and contemptuously added that if the friends of the latter wished to set him up in business in London, it would be better to vote him “£3000 or even £4000, and have done with the matter.” The “previous question” averted sentence, but could not silence censure. One member denounced the appointment as “the most in famous job that ever disgraced the annals of the colony.” Mr. Reader Wood reminded the House of the insults cast by Vogel upon the unsullied Featherston—“evidently as it appears to me with the object of driving him to resign his office as Agent-General in order that he might accept that coveted position into which he has schemed himself at last.” Taiaroa was sorry that Vogel was going away before the public works he boasted of could be completed, and the loans definitely dealt with. He saw no harm in employing Vogel in England if he wanted employment, but he was by no means the only man of knowledge in New Zealand. “I think there are many other people here wiser than he… The government say he is the only man. Who knows whether he is? The colony has done him much honour. Let him be treated as Mordecai of old; let him be put upon a horse … let him be sent away from New Zealand.” Mr. Whitaker affected to be ignorant whether Vogel would accept the appointment under the conditions with which it would be clogged. Vogel raised his voice no more in the House. On the 16th August he had complained of the “foul-mouthed abuse” he had heard in the House, which made him “almost ashamed at times to be a member.”

His words were taken down, and he said the result was “eminently unsatisfactory” to him.

The censure was expunged, with others of like nature, in 1892.

On more than one occasion, and in more than one Australian colony, deliberative institutions have been abused by a resort to the physical force represented by bodily endurance. New Zealand became the scene of such a display after Major Atkinson's junction with Mr. Whitaker. The Disqualification Committee of the Council reported (8th Sept.) adversely to Mr. Whitaker's contention as to his position, and on the 12th the Council adopted the report. In the Lower House a committee was appointed (7th Sept.) to consider whether the law had been infringed by the ministry. Confronted by inquiry, Mr. Whitaker did not adhere to his first opinion. He introduced an Attorney-General's Bill to save his position. It was set down for the second reading (8th Sept.) but the government had not circulated it to members, and it was postponed. On the same night the government by a large majority carried a Waste Lands Bill, which extended the principle of deferred payments throughout the colony. On the 11th Sept. Major Atkinson moved the suspension of the Standing Orders, in order that he might force through all its stages a Civil List Bill then exhibited for the first time. Mr. Whitaker had (4th Sept.) invited Mr. Rees and Mr. Stout to test his opinion in the Court of Appeal, and Sir G. Grey put the law in motion to test the value of Whitaker's invitation. The Civil List Bill was an ample reply. Sir G. Grey assailed the ministry for breaking their pledge to test the matter in the courts. The ministerial whip retorted subsequently that Sir G. Grey was “a common informer,” for endeavouring to act upon the pledge. On the 12th Sept. Mr. Whitaker, whose position afforded the main butt for the missiles of the opposition, moved the second reading of the Civil List Bill. Mr. Stout answered him, the debate was adjourned, and the ministry sought to evade difficulties by a resignation of office by all except Major Atkinson, and the resumption of office by the limited number permitted by the law. The Disqualification Committee made an interim report (13th Sept.), not obscurely hinting that the ministerial position was unsound, and Major Atkinson promptly announced the fact that the resignations had been tendered. The House adjourned for a few hours, and reassembled again to hear from the distressed Premier that a further change had been found needful. He also had resigned and had been re-appointed, and the once-confident Whitaker, abandoning his position as Attorney-General, had become, temporarily, Postmaster.

Before the new state of affairs was discussed, Taiaroa moved the second reading of a Maori Representation Bill. He wished to give five members to the North Island and two to the Middle. The House generally sympathized with him, but Whitaker and Sir D. McLean urged that the bill should only be read a second time, and that the matter should then be left to the care of the government in the recess. Taiaroa reminded the House that the existing law would expire in the following year. In 1872, he and Katene had saved the Maoris from electoral extinction by an early visit to Sir G. Bowen. “If this matter be put off till next year, and a dissolution should occur before the end of the year, what will be the position of the Maori members? I suppose we shall be expected to go betimes in the morning and wake the Governor again.” Four Maori votes were of some consequence, and Taiaroa carried his bill. In committee the provision to increase the number of members was rejected by a majority of 15, Sir D. McLean voting against the increase. In the Council, Captain Fraser, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Holmes remarked, in passing the bill (27th Sept.), that the legislature had profited much by the intelligence of the Maori members. Captain Fraser said:—“The conduct of the Maoris in the Council would compare very favourably with that of the European members.” The European members in the Lower House were meanwhile presenting a strange spectacle to the Southern world. By 37 votes against 15, Mr. Montgomery carried (13th Sept.) the second reading of a bill to preclude the acceptance of paid offices by members. Throughout Thursday, Friday and Saturday, night and day, wordy war was continued on points of order and amendments in the House. The government having maintained their position, Major Atkinson introduced an irregular Indemnity Bill, which relieved the ministers from all expenses of the actions initiated after Whitaker invited Mr. Stout to test the question of disqualification in the courts of Law. The bill was passed. When Mr. Whitaker denounced the conduct of the opposition as disgraceful, Mr. Wakefield retorted that every honourable member must recollect the infinitely more disgraceful scene in 1868, when Sir J. Vogel was scheming to expel the Stafford ministry, and the House was made “a perfect pandemonium.” Favours secret and precious had converted the foes of 1868 into the co-mates of 1876.

Atkinson's new ministry was formed on the 13th Sept., and the Counties Bill was successfully proceeded with. Power was given to the Governor in Council to alter the boundaries of counties by proclamation. A scale of voting was fixed, by which persons rated at less than £50 were to have one vote; persons rated at £50 to £100 were to have two votes; those rated at from £100 to £150 were to have three votes; those rated at from £150 to £350 were to have four; and those rated at £350 and upwards were to have five votes. An analogous provision had been in operation in Victoria for many years in boroughs and shires. It did not extend to elections for either House of Parliament, nor was it proposed that it should do so in New Zealand. Strenuous efforts were made by a minority, including Sir G. Grey, to excise the provision from the bill. The third reading was made a vehicle for opposition to the abolition of provinces, to which the bill was ancillary; but there was a majority of 21 in its favour. Rates, tolls, fines, and other endowments were secured for the counties, and under a separate Financial Arrangements Act a portion of the land fund in each district was allotted to them. The Legislative Council objected to the borrowing powers conferred, and more than one free conference was held before mutual concessions secured a final agreement, and the bill became law. The same fate attended a Rating Bill. The Financial Arrangements Bill provided for subsidies to county councils, to road boards, and to river boards. A member complained that provincialism had been abolished only in name while its evils were kept alive; but the bill was passed.

It will not have been forgotten that when Vogel was Treasurer he declared that a million and a-half sterling devoted to railways had been diverted to provincial purposes, and represented the amount paid to purchase support in the provinces. The evil which he privately pampered and publicly bemoaned was kept in vigour by the measures of his successors. The fourth section of the Financial Arrangements Act having charged the land fund with interest on provincial debts and subsidies to county councils, road boards, and river boards, and various local wants—and the 13th section having commanded the consolidated fund to issue for five years to every borough council a sum equal to its general rate not exceeding one shilling in the pound, and to every county council and road board a “sum equal to the sum payable to such county or board out of the land fund”—the 15th section kept alive the purchasing power of the government by enabling the Treasurer to make temporary advances “to meet payments authorized by this or any other Act, before it is known to which of the accounts provided by section 4 the same are chargeable.” It was in vain that the opponents of the abolition scheme averred that the evils of the provincial system, if any, were stereotyped under another name, by the new law, while provincial independence and local government were destroyed. A Waste Lands Act (40 Vict., No. 51) defined the territories which were to become land districts throughout the colony, and substituted the word Governor throughout for the familiar term of Superintendents of the provinces. Sent to the Legislative Council a few days before the end of the session, the bill was amended, amid many complaints that more time had not been afforded for its consideration. After conference between the Houses, it was passed confessedly as a temporary measure. It did not abolish the existing differences in the upset price of land in various provinces, and left a legacy of trouble to a future session. The prophet of the age in burning words had denounced the gospel of mammonism which he saw, like a many-handed monster, crawling over Europe, and choking the nobler aspirations which from the truer heart of man teach that the end of government is “to guide men in the way wherein they should go, towards their true good in this life, the portal of infinite good in the life to come; to guide men in such way, and ourselves in such way, as the Maker of men, whose eye is upon us, will sanction at the great day.”

Carlyle, “Past and Present.”

That against which he raised his trumpet-voice in the old world was unchallenged in the new. To make well-ordered and to train for infinite happiness the dwellers in New Zealand was not the task to which its lawmakers were invited. To make the land clank with the multitudinous noises of labour, to swell its lists of exports and imports, to wrest from it its mineral wealth regardless of the ends to which it was to be applied—this was the highest hope of those to whose guidance the land was committed, and they were mainly enabled to perform it by the scrapers for gold who controlled elections in the populous south, which first sent Mr. Vogel to the halls of legislation. More money was required in 1876, and a new Loan Act (£1,000,000) was passed. The public debt at the end of the year exceeded £20,000,000 sterling. Sir G. Grey protested against the new loan on the grounds that Auckland “had not received anything like that share of the loans to which it was entitled,” and that the Abolition Act had been passed without fair appeal to the constituencies; but, as the House in which he spoke had been elected in the beginning of 1876, members paid little heed to him. In his wrath at the destruction of the provinces, whose cradle he had rocked, and at whose funeral obsequies he was so piteous a mourner, he embittered the enmities existing between himself and others. Nor was he scrupulous in the use of weapons. There is no greater danger to public order in a population injected in a random manner from abroad, rather than growing up as a community on the spot, than the plots of party leaders, who, failing to carry a measure, gratify their spleen by seeking to subvert the Constitution. In lands where law has broadened down from precedent to precedent, and where generation after generation has entwined with the love of country veneration for ancestry, the danger has culminated in rapine and disaster. In a colony where eager adventurers carve with strong hand their own way, they are, from the nature of things, procacious, and, when thwarted, turbulent. The responsibility and the sin are the greater in him who incites them, and Sir G. Grey must bear full blame for the steps he took to effect his objects. Only reverence for the principles of English common law preserves English colonists from dangers which men from other countries have found sufficient to debar them from founding prosperous communities; and that reverence Sir G. Grey did much to impair. If existing institutions would not bend to him, he would impeach them. Like angry Juno,

“Flectere si nequeo Superos Acheronta movebo.”

thwarted above, he turned to those below. On their passions he might play. The disease of democracy, an ignorant tyranny of numbers, might waft him into power. The base Cleon persuaded the select citizens of Athens, where all menial work was done by voteless slaves, to decree the destruction of all citizens of a Greek town, and the sale of their wives and children. What might not an eloquent demagogue hope to do when the mainstay of his power resided not in citizens of ancient lineage, but in the proletarii of the age, thousands of whom had swarmed to the shores of New Zealand to gather gold, and were endowed by the folly or arts of her politicians with as ample power over her happiness as the soberest of her sons? On the 21st Oct., Sir G. Grey having failed to carry a Manhood Suffrage Bill, brought in a bill to establish Triennial Parliaments.

Triennial Parliaments, unless they produce the same men for the most part, and thus show that a fresh election was not needed, are violent disturbances. They tend also to neutralize the efforts of the patriotic. In the first session of a new Parliament an appreciable proportion of new members has not acquired a fitness for its work. If the third session be also the last, their minds are unsettled by the approaching dissolution. There is but one session in which they can hope to be of use. They are driven or led to shun the function of representatives by accepting the meaner task of delegates. Thus only can they hope for a renewal of what they call public confidence, but feel in their hearts to be a negation of principle. Sir G. Grey averred that “public opinion changed so rapidly in colonial countries” that triennial parliaments would be an improvement. His bill was shelved by 32 votes against 22. His enemies decried him for the wild opinions which he advocated with the apparent desire to grasp power; and not in New Zealand alone there were many regrets that a man who had done good service to the State should strive to destroy the temple in which he was not allowed to act as high priest. To aim at constitutional changes for their own sake is one thing. But for a statesman sworn to obey the Constitution to aim at change in order to wreak his own will is another. It is the act of the discontented gambler, who, having been a loser, breaks up the tables. In this instance the laws had been for the most part framed by the loser. But he had many friends and admirers in New Zealand. His reputation, as to knowledge of Maoris and their language and laws, was superior to that of Donald McLean, who was no longer the accepted oracle that he had been when on each side of the House candidates for office were suppliants for his aid. Sir G. Grey was a power in the House with which McLean had no pretensions to cope, and men said that the Native Minister's life was embittered by the attacks made against him. The old man found defenders; but it was evident that his day had departed.

Sir G. Grey did not improve his own position by entering into controversy with the Marquis of Normanby. Forgetful of his own contests as a Governor, he threw obstacles in the way of the Marquis which should have been repugnant to a noble mind. Once he had wrestled, and not in vain, with the rash injustice of Earl Grey. He had resisted the clamour of Fox and others for popular institutions, which would have been wrested to the wreaking of wrongdoing upon the Maoris. Again, when Fox, wanting the heroic faculty himself, would not recognize the qualities which in the person of Te Oriori rebuked him, Sir G. Grey had occasion to feel how critical and galling the position of a Governor could be made, and how right it was that no man should run even the slightest risk of dragging into the arena of public debate the name of any Governor who was himself sensible of the impartial duty of his position. Yet he strove to embroil the Marquis of Normanby in the political discussions arising out of the abolition of the provinces.

A Taranaki land-claim bill deserves special mention because it throws light upon the methods by which Vogel and his colleagues carried their measures with the aid of Mr. Stafford. Mr. F. A. Carrington, Superintendent of the Taranaki province, was a member of the House. In August he moved for a committee upon what he called the Sartoris and Downe claims. Money had been paid for land selected at Taranaki under the supposition that the transactions of the New Zealand Company in 1840 could confer a title. Mr. Carrington, who had been employed at Taranaki, went to England in 1844, and importuned the New Zealand Company on behalf of his clients. He averred in 1876 that it was through his means that a clause in the Imperial Act 10 and 11 Victoria provided that “those lands whenever they were acquired should be the property of the parties who held the land orders.” The claims and liabilities of the company had fallen upon the government when the company expired. A local law (Land Order and Scrip Act 1856) appeared to Carrington to “deprive the parties of the land originally selected.” He interceded, and the Act was amended in 1858. The rape of the Waitara was in 1860. War and confiscation followed. But, according to Carrington's statement, when the booty had been seized the robbers disagreed about its distribution. In 1866 an Act was passed against which he appealed to the Secretary of State. Further steps were taken on the spot, and in 1872 Carrington, having obtained a seat in the House, was instrumental in the passing of the “Taranaki New Zealand Company's Land Claims Act 1872,” which authorized the valuation of the land (originally selected) by a commissioner. Blood-value was to be the reward, not of the land-order holders, but of the province. The land was valued, and Carrington “got the land orders. When he produced the land orders he was told that there was no land.” Such was his tale on the 17th Aug., 1876. He obtained a committee, which (4th Oct.) reported that the order-holders could best be satisfied by money awards, or by grants of land in other parts of the Taranaki province, howsoever acquired by the government.

Major Atkinson brought down a message from the Governor (26th Oct.), with a bill “to settle certain land claims in the province of Taranaki.” “It was proposed to set apart a block of land … and to allow the Waste Lands Board of Taranaki to fix the conditions and the price of the land which the claimants (represented by Carrington) were to take.” The Taranaki land fund was “very small,” and the bill, thus suddenly thrust upon the House on the eve of prorogation, proposed to recoup the province from the general revenue one-third of the amount of the award to the claimants in order that “the road passing by this land” might have a certain expenditure “upon it, in order to carry out the settlement of the country.” Major Atkinson said little to rouse suspicion. But a member from the south “did not see why the colony should be compelled to spend £6000 when the claim was entirely on the land fund of Taranaki.” Stafford rushed to the rescue. The demand was moderate. He trusted Mr. Reynolds would not persist in his opposition. But other members scented danger. One said the affair “looked very much like a job, as the Premier came from that province, that this money should be given to it at the expense of the rest of the colony.” Nevertheless, Atkinson carried the bill through all its stages on the same day. On Saturday, the 28th, it reached the Council, and Dr. Pollen moved the second reading immediately after the first. He dissented from the Act of 1872, and the award made under it, but considered that the honour of the colony was committed to the principles in the bill. Mr. Waterhouse had met Mr. Carrington in a lobby, and that gentleman had “assured him on his honour that it was all right.” Mr. Waterhouse was confident, nevertheless, that it was not right that, in such a bill, there should be a clause foreign to its title, and applying the sum of £6000 out of the public works account to the purpose of a road. The Governor could not assent to such a provision in such a bill. Some members thought that the claimants would be severely treated if they should be made to suffer because the fourth clause was irregular. The Speaker, remarking that the bill had only at that moment been put into his hands, thought that the tack of an appropriation clause made it necessary for the Council “either to reject the bill altogether or accept it.” Mr. Mantell declared that he would vote against the third reading of the bill unless the fourth clause should be excised in committee, and Dr. Pollen (the Colonial Secretary) considered it was competent for the Council to alter any of the clauses. The bill was read a second time, and the Council struck out the fourth clause. Mr. Mantell called the attention of the government to the fact that there was “a very painful rumour afloat,” that “some member of the Legislature was to receive fees for the passing of the bill.” On the same day Major Atkinson briefly moved that the Representatives agree to the amendment made by the Council. Sir G. Grey opposed the motion in order that “an honourable member who strongly supported the bill might make a statement.” Major Atkinson then explained that the government “in order to avoid conflict between the Houses” were willing to abandon the fourth clause, and would provide £6000 “out of the unauthorized expenditure,” the House being committed to the grant. Members were dissatisfied, and Mr. Carrington, being called upon, said he had a double duty. As superintendent he had to “look after the interests of the Taranaki province; as guardian in the case of Sartoris and Downe he was sworn (in the case of Downe)” to obtain justice for his clients. “He had received nothing from any one since he came to the colony for this particular work.” Such an explanation made matters worse. Sir G. Grey pressed his motion to disagree with the amendment, in order that full inquiry might be made. Mr. Carrington denied that his vote had efficacy except on the road question. It had “nothing to do with the Sartoris and Downe claim and award, which ought to have been paid” when made. Pressed further, he admitted that he had told one of the claimants that “he would not accept more than 10 per cent.” (The total award was nearly £18,000.) The speaker declared that “if the matter came to a division, he would ask Carrington to say distinctly whether he had a pecuniary interest in the matter or not.” The government was defeated. Mr. Carrington did not vote. A committee was appointed to prepare reasons for disagreement with the amendment. The committee could not agree. A debate about appointing a fresh committee was, on the motion of Mr. Whitaker adjourned, and though revived on the following day was put an end to by prorogation, which decided at the same time the fate of the bill.

There were many comments upon Mr. Carrington's position, and on the patronage afforded to him. In the session of 1877 he read documents to prove that his claims were righteous, and that he had made no contract for personal remuneration. He looked to “the House to put him right.” Mr. Stafford read a letter from England in confirmation of Carrington's statement. Subsequently Major Atkinson expressed a hope to settle during the session “these long outstanding claims.” Accordingly a bill was introduced, but it was killed by the fall of the ministry, whose successors deemed it desirable to satisfy the claimants with money rather than with land. On the 6th Dec., 1877, Sir G. Grey being Premier, the bill was discharged from the paper, and on the same day, without a division, £15,000 were voted for the “land claims of Sartoris, Downe, and others, final settlement.” When it was voted Carrington had become a supporter, for the time, of the new government, and Mr. G. McLean, a member of the expelled ministry, moved a reduction of the amount in order that Carrington might redeem his undertaking, that “nothing would induce him to take more than 10 per cent.”

On the 31st Oct., 1876, the wearied Houses were dismissed to their homes without the usual vice-regal speech.

After the colonies in the Pacific became self-governing, their public debts advanced with gigantic strides. In 1873 the New Zealand debt was little less than £11,000,000. In 1877 it exceeded £20,000,000, and there was little prospect that Treasurers would resist the pressure which, according to his own statement, had made one of them misappropriate a million and a half sterling. The payment of interest on the debt was not oppressive while trade was prosperous, but there were ominous signs that when more money might be needed there were partisans who would, to elude economy, raise funds by class legislation which would be but a thinly veiled act of plundering those who were, or were thought to be, rich.

1894. Sir H. Maine in his “Popular Government” (London, 1885) thus sanctioned the prediction (1883) of the text. “There are two kinds of bribery. It can be carried on by giving to expectant partisans places out of the taxes, or it may consist in the more direct process of legislating away the property of one class, and transferring it to another. It is this last which is likely to be the corruption of these latter days.” P. 106.

One or two facts as to the revenues of the provinces will explain the feverish excitement about provincial land funds, and at the same time furnish a striking proof that the colonization principles of Edward Gibbon Wakefield had borne best fruit where most faithfully adhered to. New Zealand contained nearly 68,000,000 of acres: of which, omitting fractions, there were 17,000,000 in Auckland, 13,000,000 in Otago, 8,000,000 in Canterbury, 7,000,000 in Nelson, and smaller quantities in the other provinces. It was undisputed that Canterbury had striven to adhere to Wakefield's principle of demanding a sufficient price for land:—sufficient, i.e., to bar the employed from becoming landowners until it was desirable for the general weal that they should do so, and to bar capitalists from acquiring large areas at insufficient prices. It was equally undeniable that, surrounded by provinces some of which offered land at a cheaper rate (and not remote from Australian colonies which did likewise) Canterbury was compelled to test Wakefield's theories under great disadvantage.

Yet Canterbury, out of her 8,693,000 had sold 2,300,000 acres for £3,608,000, while Auckland out of her 17,000,000 had for 2,144,000 acres received only £274,000.

Area.£
Cash received for land from foundation of colony to date of abolition of provinces, omitting fractions.
Acres sold.Auckland17,000,000274,0002,144,000Taranaki2,290,00023,00070,000Wellington7,000,000585,0001,640,000Nelson7,000,000424,0001,337,000Marlborough3,000,000176,000540,000Canterbury8,693,0003,608,0002,300,000Westland3,045,76051,09665,000Otago13,257,8081,787,0002,047,000Southland2,780,592760,000779,000Hawke's Bay3,050,000409,000991,000
It must be borne in mind that Marlborough, Southland, and Westland were created in 1859, 1861, and 1868. (Returns laid before New Zealand Legislative Council in 1876.)

Otago had striven to adhere to Wakefield's principles. She had received for little more than 2,000,000 acres £1,787,000. Joining together the results in Canterbury and Otago (including Southland) the comparison with other provinces is startling. Out of 11,915,393 acres sold, from the foundation of the colony till 31st Oct., 1876, for £8,101,859, the enormous proportion of £5,395,000 had been received by Canterbury and Otago for less than 4,500,000 acres. For about the same quantity of land as that sold by Auckland, Canterbury had received thirteen times as much money. And Canterbury was so prosperous that the hearts of Gibbon Wakefield's pupils might rejoice. It was not to be wondered at that the dwellers in Canterbury, while aiding to abolish the provinces, strove to retain for themselves the reaping of that which they had sown. It was perhaps impossible to see what was plain to unbiassed observers,—that no sense of justice would restrain the new central government from opening the purse which they had seized. Having combined with others to override the will of her neighbours, Canterbury was to learn that others would combine against her.

It could not be doubted that the special advantages secured for Canterbury by the sagacity of her founders and the exertions of her settlers would be swallowed up by the needs of a minister in search of money, assisted by craving representatives from other parts of New Zealand. The waste lands of the province to which peculiar value had been given by local laws, and which would under them have been applied for local needs, were to be clutched by others than the dwellers in the province. Raising the price of land elsewhere was likely to promote purchases in Canterbury, and to alienate rapidly the territory on which she had relied for her own aggrandizement, and to which her regulations had given exceptional value. It was little consolation to think that in after times the value of land in other districts might be enhanced, for that also would disappear, and then taxation would lay its hand upon the accumulations of the past to meet the demands (for interest and principal) of the millions, which, at the rate of about £1,000,000 a year, were being added to New Zealand debts. There was much to be said for the policy of centralizing the colonial administration on general grounds, although it was bitter for the provinces to receive their death-draught from the hands of him who gained confidence as their champion. Bitterer still would it be for the men of Canterbury to feel in after times that the safeguards on which they had relied to protect their local revenues would be rent asunder by the centralism they assisted to create. Their remedy was about to be sought under a ministry of which a Canterbury settler was the leader, and it consisted in a rough resort to single electorates of equal population, because at the time when the experiment was made Canterbury and Otago were more populous than other districts.

An event, of which the significance was felt beyond the confines of New Zealand, occurred during the recess. The man whose existence as Native Minister had made ministries possible passed away. A sufferer from rheumatic fever in bygone times, worn by anxiety, and harassed by the fierce light thrown upon his official position by unfriendly criticisms, Sir Donald McLean died in Jan., 1877. He had resigned office in December, and had entreated the Maoris to support the government in which his successor (Dr. Pollen) would pursue McLean's policy. He left devoted friends, Pakeha and Maori. The latter assembled to hold a tangi, or mourning celebration. The ancient war-dance, the imported funeral volleys, the orations by chiefs, the chants, and wailing of hundreds of natives, declared the grief of the tribes. Mr. Ormond addressed them, and Mr. Douglas McLean expressed his gratitude for the love shown to his father's memory. A grand war-dance closed the obsequies in honour of “the great Maori mystery-man.”

Dr. Pollen had an interview with Rewi, who agreed to discuss matters within his own territory, in order that he might stand on a good footing. The chief recurred to the burden of Tawhiao, “the return of the Waikato to their ancestral lands;” but Dr. Pollen adhered to the policy of Sir Donald McLean. The re-cession of the confiscated land was impossible, but the government would deal liberally with such of the tribe as might return and settle on unalienated reserves available for the purpose. Diplomacy was at a stand.

Litigation meanwhile raised hopes. The Hawke's Bay purchases had afforded opportunities to Mr. Sheehan. When all the legal talent at Hawke's Bay had been secured for the purchasers of the Heretaunga block, he had been invited from Auckland as the Maori advocate. At Napier he had, in 1873, appeared before a commission appointed under an Act of 1872 to inquire into the alienation of native lands. Judge (C. W.) Richmond presided. The Pakeha Maori, Mr. Maning, assisted, with two Maori commissioners, Hikairo and Te Wheoro. The report and evidence filled 256 pages of a New Zealand blue-book, and Judge Richmond feared that its mass would seem “as untractable as was the business with which we had to deal.” Fraud in transactions was the gravamen of the complaints of the Maoris. Inadequate consideration, pressure of old debts, the appropriation of “part of the purchase-money to pay off old scores for spirits” (at a time when it was illegal to allow such debts to be created), incompleteness of payments, secret gifts to procure signatures, deceptive acts on the part of interpreters, want of explanation and of legal advice, were some of the grounds on which Mr. Sheehan's clients impugned the Hawke's Bay purchases.

The European commissioners intimated early in the proceedings that they would not allow the payment of consideration in spirits to vitiate a transaction otherwise unexceptionable. In one case £370, or nearly 40 per cent, of the total, had been so paid. Mr. Justice Richmond reported:—

“This resolution of ours was adopted as members of a court of conscience expressly freed from the obligation of legal precedent. Whatever the law may say upon the matter, it appeared to us that it would be unconscientious on the part of a native who had received value in this shape to attempt to rip up the transaction… At all events, that the law allows repudiation cannot make repudiation honourable or right. On this ground we determined that the native vendor was, in foro conscientice, debarred from raising this objection.”

There was a flaw in this reasoning to which the judge made no allusion. The signatures of the vendors were signatures of those who had become Crown grantees to satisfy the New Zealand land laws. They were fiduciaries for their tribes, and were so deemed by the Maoris. By Judge Richmond's dictum, if a wily agent could obtain the signature of a drunken trustee the rights of innocent hundreds would in a court of conscience be set at nought. It would have been possible to punish an offending Maori trustee without defrauding the innocent. As Judge Richmond has occupied, deservedly, considerable space in New Zealand story, he may be permitted to explain the moral grounds of his dictum.

“That a breach of law should be remunerated by allowing one of the offenders to break a contract is an anomaly with which it is to be hoped that the native people will not be allowed to make practical acquaintance, as it would tend doubly to weaken their still feeble sense of legal and moral obligation. It would make the matter worse that to the Maori should belong all the pleasure and the profit,

“Resolute against a decision which might weaken the moral sense of a drunken Maori trustee, Judge Richmond gave legal effect to his unlawful acts, and in so doing rewarded the unlawful and immoral act of the debauching and corrupt Pakeha. To him the judge awarded the profit of the debauch. From the widow and orphan that award may have torn the means of living.”—Aureretanga, Ridgway, London, 1888.

while on the Pakeha would fall the whole penalty of wrong-doing. No worse lesson could be given to a people who have yet to learn that they must themselves bear the burden of their own follies and misdeeds, and not hope to shift it on other shoulders.”

No one denied that it was unlawful to include a charge for spirits in the accounts, and that many transactions were completed in public-houses.

Hikairo could not agree with his brother commissioners. He declared that the ten grantees were “chosen as trustees” by the majority of those interested in Heretaunga; they were not to sell. He challenged the inclusion of store and spirit debts in the price for the land, the undue pressure brought separately to bear on the trustees, “sometimes on the roads, sometimes in public-houses, sometimes in bedrooms, sometimes upon the sick. I do not think this was a proper way of making a sale of land.” He thought the interpreters, “acting only for the lessees and storekeepers,” had caused trouble; and it was elicited in cross-examination that they were to receive from the purchasers a special fee on the sale. On this point Judge Richmond sympathized with Hikairo. “The position was a false one… I cannot wonder at the distrust of the interpreters displayed by the native vendors… The interpreter who translates and explains the contract or conveyance ought to be absolutely neutral… His private business may send him to serve a writ sued out by the purchaser to compel specific performance… Something very like this occurred in the case of Heretaunga.” Nevertheless the judge thought that the interpreters had at Heretaunga acted uprightly; although the double functions assumed by them would have “strongly affected his mind”

“What would have been the result of his ‘mind being affected’ did not appear.”—Aureretanga, p. 151.

if he had doubted whether the sellers knew what they were doing. He did not close his report without admitting that simple as were the requirements that the native ownership should be ascertained, and the general consent to its extinction secured—“they have been disregarded in the existing law as practically administered.” He recommended alterations in the law in which he substantially agreed with suggestions made by Sir W. Martin and Dr. Shortland. They had also advised a very crucial check upon fraud, viz., that all purchase-money for native land should be paid into court; but the Commission thought such a provision unnecessary if other improvements should be made in the law.

In the evidence tendered to the Commission, Mr. Ormond was shown to have been one of the purchasers of the Heretaunga block. He was at the time Government Agent and Superintendent at Hawke's Bay. When he persuaded Henare Tomoana to enter upon a campaign against Te Kooti, Ormond had induced a man named Sutton to stay proceedings against H. Tomoana, and Sutton adroitly obtained judgment by default against Tomoana behind his back in the matter of a writ. It was after consultation with Tanner, the lessee, that Ormond obtained suspension

Mr. Ormond's evidence before the Heretaunga Commission.

of the proceedings against Tomoana. Various devices were resorted to by Sutton and others to procure signatures to deeds of sale. Originally the Heretaunga block had been leased for 21 years, and the lessees inserted improvement clauses the tendency of which might incommode the Maori owners if they should wish to re-enter into possession. But more rapid improvement was desired. There had been an invalid lease in the first instance. Another was made after the Crown grantees were constituted in 1867. In 1869, various trains were laid to extort their consent to a sale. With grantees who were drunkards little difficulty was apprehended. One of them, Kawatini, was persuaded, without consultation with the others, to convey his interest to a butcher, who served Tanner, the lessee, with notice to pay to the butcher Kawatini's proportion of the Heretaunga rents. Tanner (to bar expensive proceedings, though at first he had slighted Parker's position on the ground that a grantee could not sell without consent of the others) employed a solicitor (Nov., 1869) to watch for him an action in the Supreme Court, which Kawatini (said to have been seldom sober at the time) had been induced to bring against Parker. The case was discontinued by consent. It was arranged that the friendly Tanner should buy Kawatini's interest; and an equally friendly solicitor, Cuff, kindly examined the accounts with Kawatini. “I see an entry (Cuff deposed) ‘Attending on Waaka (Kawatini) and going through accounts.’ I went through the accounts with Waaka several times.” The result was that Tanner secured the signature of the drunken grantee to the sale of the Heretaunga block. The evidence filled nearly 300 pages. Two will exhibit some of its peculiarities. Mr. Ormond admitted that an additional sum was paid after the execution of the deed. “We took advice and were advised to pay it.” Some of the grantees were to receive annuities. One of them was Pahoro. Asked if it was ever proposed to give him an annuity, Ormond replied in the negative, adding: “It would only have been an additional drunk in the course of the year.” Asked by the chairman (C. W. Richmond) if the after-payment was understood to be a secret matter, Ormond replied: “No. My understanding was that we had to pay a bribe to secure his co-operation, and the simple question in my mind was whether it was worth doing so or not.”

Hawke's Bay Native Lands Alienation Commission. Napier: 1873.

According to Mr. Ormond public opinion had been so far educated that it was unnecessary to conceal what was understood to be a bribe in obtaining signatures of trustees who were fiduciaries for their tribe. Amongst devices to obtain signatures of the grantees was paying sums of money for them, in order to make them debtors to the plotters. Mr. Sutton was asked if he paid away a large sum shortly after an arrangement about Pahoro's and Paramena's claims. He said: “£250 for a steam-threshing machine. I suspect it had been bought previously with Paramena's money.” “Then” (said counsel) “he had the satisfaction of paying for it twice over?” “I believe so,” responded the knowing Sutton. “Why did you retain Pahora's money instead of paying it over?” “He has never asked for it. He has come to me for sums of £5 or £10, which I have always paid when he has been sober.” “Then you are still in his debt?” said the chairman. “There is a small balance of £40 or £50 still.” “Is he aware of this?” “I believe he is—as much as a man can be aware who is almost constantly drunk.” One Davie, an hotelkeeper, was in the habit of dealing with Paramena. The negotiators resorted to him. The interpreter whom they employed told Davie that it was desired to obtain an order from Paramena. Davie went to Paramena with the interpreter. “It was useless to ask Paramena for so small an order as £30, as I could get that sum from him at any time… He had settled with me only a week or two before. I had no doubt he would pay when I asked. I was unwilling to go at all, thinking it was coming rather sharp on him.” Forty pounds was the amount fixed upon. Paramena was unwilling “to receive money on account of Heretaunga,” but the interpreter overcame his scruples and he signed. The order was drawn on Williams, one of the purchasers, but he did not pay it. Davie asked Williams twice and Orrmond once for payment. When Ormond was reluctant to pay Davie said: “If he would not give me a cheque I would tear up the note. He then gave me a cheque.” The careful Sutton, according to Paramena's evidence, obtained a power of attorney from Paramena, and when the latter was asked to sign the conveyance he did so, saying: “There is nothing for me to do but to sign. I am always signing. I am not desirous to sell.” Tanner asked him in court if he raised any objection to the terms of the document, and he replied: “No; because you said it would be useless for me to oppose it.” Pahoro said that when the agent went to him to procure his consent at a public-house, “we drank a good deal. There were twenty persons drunk.” The interpreters employed by the purchasers were promised (irrespective of their authorized fees) a bonus of £300 if the purchase should be negotiated. The chairman (Judge Richmond) condemned such a procedure. “As soon as an interpreter takes a lump sum for his success, he necessarily becomes a negotiator. The notion that a mere interpreter can have a client is monstrous. With perfect propriety the government regulations afterwards prohibited negotiation by interpreters.” Nevertheless the procedure was not allowed by the chairman to invalidate the transaction before him.

How one chief, to escape the importunity of Tanner and the interpreter, hid himself in a willowtree one day and in a loft on the next, but finding that others were receiving money he also submitted and signed, and how he was told that the £1000 he became entitled to thereby was swallowed up in paying his previous debts—may be read by the curious in the report of the inquiry.

The Maori assessors vainly objected to sanction the arts employed against their countrymen. A licensed interpreter having asked permission to correct his evidence, Hikairo said: “You appear to correct your statement a great many times; is this the last?” and the conscious witness replied: “I hope so.”

Unsuccessful before the commission, Mr. Sheehan's clients resorted to the Supreme Court. The arts by which purchases had been made in the first instance were freely used to protect them. Mr. Sheehan told the House in 1877 that a Maori girl, eight years old, was induced to “sign a deed of mortgage to secure payment of certain sums of money,” and that an interpreter endorsed the deed, with a “solemn declaration that he had explained the deed, and that the child fully understood it.” This, he said, “is only one of scores—absolute scores—” of the Hawke's Bay transactions. The report of the Heretaunga Commission reproached by its recommendations the practices which it had not condemned. It advised that the power of selling land under mortgage should be abolished, together with that of selling land under a Supreme Court judgment; and that costs against natives in cases against Europeans should be forbidden. It admitted that the absence of legal advice “would in an English Court of Equity be a very serious objection;” and Sir D. McLean, in 1873, introduced a bill to remedy the defects pointed out. The weakness of the original transactions was patent; and, to shelter them, the purchasers resorted to strange devices. It was hoped that want of money would bar the prosecution of actions. But self-interest was strong, and many transactions defied justification. To secure a title, where the original purchase-money was about £2000, one set of conspirators paid no less than £17,500. Numerous cases were pending when the General Assembly met in July, 1877.

In September, 1877, Mr. Rees moved that a committee be appointed to inquire into all dealings with native lands by landed proprietors in Hawke's Bay. Mr. Ormond, the Minister for Public Works, in reply, quoted the words of the Chairman of the Commission, exculpating him from any blame with regard to the Heretaunga purchase. He assailed the “organization in Hawke's Bay … known as the Repudiation Association,” which stirred the Maoris to ill deeds. He rashly charged Sir G. Grey with having, while Governor, striven to become one of a company to acquire from the natives, in 1867, an estate of more than a quarter of a million acres, near Lake Taupo. Sir G. Grey demanded inquiry. Ormond promised to produce convincing letters, and when the House expected compliance it was found that Whitaker (the Attorney-General), custodian of certain letters, declined to produce them without permission from two persons, although he had allowed Ormond to base charges upon the letters, and to say that they would be produced. In debate, one of the members of the company alluded to by Ormond declared that Sir G. Grey “had no more connection with the partnership, no connection meanwhile with the negotiations, paid no money,” and no more interfered with the matter than the Speaker “or anybody else in this House not belonging to the company.” Whitaker himself was found to have been one of the company. Unable to prove their charges, the ministry endeavoured to shelve the subject by means of the “previous question.” In debate, a member proved that the company spoken of by Ormond never intended to buy an acre of land. Ormond retorted: “I said ‘acquiring’ country, which I knew just as well then as I do now referred to leasing and not purchasing.”

The effect of such proceedings was to damage the reputation of the ministry. But members were unwilling to see Sir G. Grey, the foe of abolition, placed in power. The ghost of provincialism still stalked in the land. The government secured a majority by 41 votes against 34. But subsequent events weakened their position. Ormond's and Whitaker's speeches were found to have been significantly altered. Their speeches, revised by themselves, contained no allusion to the “purchase” of land imputed to Sir G. Grey. The letters asked for were produced by their writer, Mr. H. R. Russell, who declared that Ormond's statement that Sir G. Grey used his position as Governor in the transaction was “absolutely and entirely false, and without a shadow of foundation.”

Taiaroa said: “I am much ashamed of the mannier in which this debate has been carried on. I can only think that the words of King David were right,—All men are liars.”

The engineers had been “hoist with their own petard.” On the 2nd Oct., the letters and Mr. H. R. Russell's statement were laid on the table by the Speaker. On the 8th, the select committee submitted to the House in parallel columns Mr. Ormond's speech as first reported and as altered by him. On the 10th, the ministry was declared by 42 votes to 38 not to possess the confidence of the House.

Some of their measures deserve mention. Taxation had troubled them. The Treasurer made his financial statement on the 31st July. He proposed to raise a loan of £2,000,000, but not to interfere with the incidence or character of taxation. On the 3rd Aug., one of his supporters (Mr. Woolcock) moved that “the time has arrived when a change in the incidence of taxation has become necessary…” Mr. Whitaker having in the meantime brought a Native Land Court Bill into the House, Mr. Woolcock's proposal was discussed on the 17th Aug. On that day Mr. Bowen (Minister of Justice) suggested an amendment, accepting the principle of Mr. Woolcock's proposition, with the proviso that “the financial propositions of the government next session should embody it.” The motion that the Speaker do leave the chair having been negatived, Sir G. Grey moved—That the system of taxation should “immediately be altered,” with a view to lighten the Customs duties and impose burdens upon income and property. His desire was to put “an acreage tax upon all landed property.” Mr. Macandrew supported him. There was a succession of amendments, but on the 23rd Aug. it was resolved in words proposed by Major Atkinson, with alterations accepted from Sir G. Grey, that “the incidence of taxation should be so adjusted as to impose on property and income a fair share of the general burdens entailed on the colony, and thereby afford means for the reduction of taxes on necessaries; and that the financial proposals of the government next session should embody this principle.” Sir J. Vogel's successors were at last brought face to face with the result of purchasing support in the provinces, and of abolishing the provinces at the risk of confiscating the land resources of one district and employing them for the behoof of another. Probable reprieve to another session had been gained; but the dread of politicians—an abstract resolution—was to haunt the ministry if they should obtain a recess. Scarcely had the equivocal haven of postponement been reached when Mr. Reader Wood barbed the darts of the huntsmen afresh by moving that, as the government could not equalize their receipts and expenditure “without interfering with the appropriation of the land fund made by the 16th section of the Abolition of Provinces Acts 1875, the land fund should be at once made part of the ordinary revenue, and appropriated annually by this House.”

The Abolitionists of the Middle Island were alarmed. Mr. Reynolds, so ready to blow to thin air all treaties or compacts with Maoris, rose in disgust. The Compact of 1856, the Abolition of 1875, the Financial Arrangement of 1876, would be broken by “even entertaining for a moment any alteration of those laws… If the southern part of the colony is goaded by such motions (as Mr. Reader Wood's) there is sufficient moral strength to make any government of the colony impossible.” A member retorted that Reynolds must have been simple if he had failed to see that the natural consequence of abolition would be that which he now deplored, and which was foretold by many members of the House. There were acrimonious debates. A month elapsed before it was determined whether the House would gratify the government by going into committee of supply. Mr. Fox, who had recently returned from England, shielded them when he could. Mr. Stafford did the same. An Education Bill which the government passed in mutilated form in 1877 may be mentioned here in order to disconnect it from the confused proceedings of the session of 1877. The proposals of 1873 had been abortive. Mr. Bowen, the Minister of Justice, proposed in 1877 to establish school districts, local boards, and a capitation fee of 10s. for each child, in consideration of which all school fees were to be remitted. The State was to contribute about £3 10s. for each child. He thought it unwise by making education gratuitous to sap the moral responsibility of parents. The compulsory clauses of the bill were to be carried out by the local committees. He wished the Bible to be read in the schools, and startled some members by citing a passage in which Professor Huxley hymned its praise as noblest and purest English “woven into the life of all that is best and noblest in English history… By the study of what other book could children be so much humanized and made to feel that each figure in that vast historical procession fills, like themselves, but a momentary space in the interval between two eternities, and earns the blessings and curses of all time, according to its effect to do good and hate evil, even as they also are earning payment for their work?” The bill provided that there should be Bible-reading at the opening of the school. From such reading parents could withhold their children. The bill was generally well received. Dr. Wallis “supposed the time would never come when a minister would be so atheistic as to take all the school-books and erase the name of God from them.”

Strangely enough, what Dr. Wallis considered impossible was soon afterwards recommended in Victoria by a Minister of Education. For an account of the preaching of St. Paul at the Areopagus, the government substituted a treatise on Manchester and bags of cotton.

On the 3rd Sept. the second reading was carried. The clause empowering local committees to levy capitation fees was struck out. The reading of history was opposed by six members, of whom Mr. Stout was one; and it was determined that no child should be taught history if his parents or guardians objected. The provisions by which Mr. Bowen hoped to leave religion in honour in the schools, without enforcing instruction upon conscientious absentees, were all struck from the bill. In the Council, Dr. Pollen carried the second reading without a division, but he and his colleagues had ceased to hold office during the later stages of the bill. The Council restored the provision for reading the Bible and made other alterations, but the more important were subsequently abandoned.

Protests were recorded in the Council against the bill because it “failed to provide for any recognition of the Christian religion or even of the Supreme Being.” Mr. Hall and Mr. Menzies protested that “such a law is not only absolutely wrong, but is opposed to the general wishes of the people of New Zealand.”

An amendment, making the voting for school committees cumulative, was agreed to by the Representatives. There were in both Houses some qualms about relieving parents of the solemn duty of contributing, when possessed of means, to educate their children, but the profaned name of liberality was appealed to, and it was resolved, in defiance of reason and experience, that, because it was to be compulsory, education must be free. There was no other subject on which such a fallacy was allowed to prevail, but it is popular to dispense money. The exchequer was to be robbed with clean hands. The bribe to parents blinded them to their demoralization. No member had the hardihood to point out that many things are compulsory which are not free—that a man is compelled by law not to starve his child's body, and is bound by solemn considerations not to starve the mind. Nay, more—the law steps in in numerous cases to compel, without providing funds for the compelled. It is not wonderful that the study of logic has been found repulsive to the bulk of mankind. Men are creatures possessed of reason with a violent repugnance to use it. Sir G. Grey was not ashamed to lend his abilities to the prevailing fallacy.

There was one measure, of which Whitaker the Attorney-General was sponsor, which deserves notice. He declared, “that the object should be, not only to have the surplus land dealt with, but to put the whole under a Crown title, whether retained by the natives or not, because it is of the greatest importance that the native title should be extinguished as speedily as possible.” Such had ever been the object of Whitaker and his congeners. By law or by war they had striven to attain it. By confiscation of the joint rights of tribes they had attained it in Waikato. Mr. Whitaker declared that speculators were an ill-used race. Even in dying the Maori would give trouble, and—

“Unfortunately, in different districts they are dying out very fast. There may be … as many as seventy … owners in a certificate of title or a Crown grant, as the case may be, and by the time the purchaser gets perhaps the signatures of twenty some of the other owners may die. The consequence is that the purchaser has to go to the Native Land Court and get successors appointed. By the time these successors are appointed other natives will be dead. All this renders the land in point of fact inalienable.”

Such was Mr. Whitaker's wail. Unhappy Maoris! Not even their death could gratify the foe who professed to be their friend. Unhappy Whitaker! Even from the tomb of a victim rose the ghost of obstruction to the one thing needful—swift and utter annihilation of the rights guaranteed by the treaty of Waitangi. His moan was not prompted by the indelicate malice of wit. It was part of a plain plodding speech which lasted an hour and a-half, and purported to contain facts. He had circulated his bill before the House met, and hoped for success for a measure which he described as “not pretentious.” How ill such a term defined the bill was seen in one clause, which kept alive a retrospective provision of a former Act (proposed to be repealed), which enacted that the Maori grantees “shall be, and shall be deemed to have been, tenants in common and joint tenants.” In other words, it was sought to destroy in terms the co-extensive and joint tribal perpetual tenure guaranteed by the Queen. But blots were seen in the bill. Dr. Wallis showed that one clause enabled the government to stay any trial or legal proceeding at any stage. “What a strange tampering with courts of justice have we in that section!” Dr. Wallis said that a provision that, after seizure of land, the government might release it, seemed to aim at “rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies.” Mr. Bunny declared that “a more pernicious bill was never brought before the Assembly. It would subject the Maoris to a few rich men.” Mr. Ballance “did not believe that the House ought to legislate upon what he might call a basis of immorality.” The Maori member, Nahe, disapproved of the bill. His countrymen condemned it. “Clauses 83 to 87 took away the land of the Maoris.” Taiaroa declared that the government had not explained the real objects of the bill.

“I propose to call it another Land Bill to take away the land of the Maoris—that is, to plunder them of their land… The bill provides that the assessor may sit with the judge, but he has no authority in the decision. Of what use is it to place men in such a powerless position? … It is provided that the government, or some capitalist, may advance money for survey of lands; but if the Maori has no money to repay the cost of survey, the land is to be seized and kept till he can pay the cost. If he cannot pay, the land is to be taken. This is but a method of mortgaging to make our lands pass away from us.”

Mr. Rees, calling to mind the time when Henare Tomoana raised troops and foiled Te Kooti, said the government had not reimbursed a sixth part of the cost incurred by Henare. “I tell you this, as it ought to be made matter of history.” The chief and his brother, having contracted debts, were threatened with imprisonment unless they signed conveyances of land. “Under such pressure these men who saved the country from the rebel natives actually signed the deeds.” Was not Mr. Ormond (a minister) now part owner of the property so acquired? One Maori described the bill as a “monster called the new government Land Bill; and oh! Maoris! regard the teeth of this monster, and see how you like them.” The debate was adjourned (7th Aug.), while yet the government was strong in the House. On the 14th Aug., Major Atkinson moved that the order of the day to resume the debate on the Native Land Court Bill be discharged. The government would withdraw the bill and would consult with the natives during the recess. Mr. Gisborne invited attention to the insidious clauses in Whitaker's bill which Taiaroa had assailed, and which enabled a speculator to lend money for survey purposes, taking security and becoming mortgagee in anticipation so that without his consent a Maori could not obtain a certificate of title. He believed in his “heart that Sir D. McLean would sooner have cut off his right hand than have allowed it to affix his approval to this bill.” Captain Russell, a ministerial supporter, with strange simplicity observed that it was natural for Maoris to oppose the bill, “because the 35th clause distinctly takes away the ‘mana' from the chiefs.” He averred that the “supposed unscrupulous swindlers in Hawke's Bay never robbed the natives to the extent the government did.” He designated the Maori as belonging, according to Judge (C. W.) Richmond, to “an age prior to morality.” He “considered Henare Tomoana one of the most accomplished liars it had been his misfortune to listen to,” and sat down as he quoted the words in which Shakespeare makes Iago descant on the blessings “of a good name.” The borrowed eloquence roused Henare Tomoana's half-brother, Takamoana, who (16th Aug.) read a petition concurred with by 3050 Maoris. It complained:—

“1. That in the bill too much power is given to the Governor. 2. Too much is given to the judges. 3. The entire absence of power in the native assessor. 4. The authorizing one man to apply for investigation of title to land. 5. Authorizing one man to sell or lease land. (We do not like these provisions. It would only be right if done by the majority in the grant.) 6. Authorizing one man to subdivide land. This is not right; the application should be from the majority. 7. Authorizing children to sell land. This is not right. Authorizing married women to sell or lease land. This is not right. This law does not exist among Europeans. If you authorize your children and your married women to sell their lands, then only will it be right to let this become law for the Maoris. 8. Authorizing people to mortgage. This must not be. We have suffered very greatly indeed through mortgages. 9. We have fully seen the evils of these clauses, viz., 12, 17, 18, 35, 38, 40, 41, 47 to 56, 58, 63 to 72, 77 to 87, 95 to 98, 110 to 112, 113 to 116, and 120:—all of them. And we pray that the investigation of titles to Maori lands should be by the chiefs and men of knowledge of the Maoris.”

Takamoana read the petition, “on account of the speeches made by Sutton and Captain Russell.” The natives had been robbed of their land “through the law and under the law.” Captain Russell called Henare Tomoana a liar, but gave no reason for doing so. Henare's evidence was confirmed by others, but nevertheless it was not believed. “Who had got justice from the Hawke's Bay Commission?” Nahe, the Western (Maori) member, said: “In every year the government upsets its own laws. I conclude therefore that they must be bad, seeing that the ministers bring them in, and then throw them out.” If they were just they would not need to be discarded. “I suspect that the Europeans are not so expert at legislation as I once supposed. Though they may seem to have great legal talent, it appears they do not know how to make permanent laws, and it would be well for the Maoris to make an experiment in drafting bills. I think they would make quite as good a bill as the Europeans can.” Tawhiti, the Maori member of the ministry, advocated the withdrawal of the bill and consultation of all natives as to a new one. Mr. Bryce said that members were in error who supposed that Maoris would be irritated if prevented from selling land. The fact was otherwise. “At present they entertain a suspicion that every one is trying to grab their land.” The bill was withdrawn.

It may be mentioned cursorily that a virulent article in a newspaper published at Oamaru induced Mr. Whitaker to move (16th Aug.) that it was “a breach of privilege.” The whole of it “was absolutely false.” It suggested that Whitaker's Native Land Bill ought to be entitled a bill to further enrich at the expense of the colony the Attorney-General and his colleagues in land speculations. The printer was ordered to appear at the bar. When he appeared he averred that the article complained of was written in compliance with duty. It was desirable to check the growth of land-monopolies. He quoted speeches of members which were as denunciatory as the article. He was sorry to come into collision with the House in doing his duty, and should it be held that he had “acted with indiscretion” he was prepared to submit to the judgment. It was resolved that “the Attorney-General be instructed to pro secute … for a libel on a member of this House in his place in Parliament; and in the event of the verdict on the trial being for the defendant, or should the jury disagree, all costs incurred on behalf of the defendant should be defrayed by the government as between attorney and client.” Mr. Whitaker said in the debate, “I feel this, that either Mr. Jones ought to be placed in gaol, or I should be turned out of this Parliament.” When the trial took place Mr. Whitaker was out of office. His counsel resorted to dilatory pleas—but in vain. The counsel for Jones called no witnesses. The jury found a verdict for the defendant. Whitaker, having failed to put Jones in gaol, retained his seat in the House, and the taxpayers of New Zealand paid the costs.

CHAPTER XIX. 1877—1881. THE “WAKA MAORI” NEWSPAPER.

Mr. Ormond's refuted charges against Sir G. Grey cooled the friendship of some ministerial supporters. A newspaper was to furnish the weapon with which the ministry was to be slain. Mr. H. R. Russell, a member of the Council, had brought an action against the “Waka Maori” newspaper (edited by the government). The action was pending when the Houses met, and Mr. Whitaker said (1st Aug.) that the plaintiff would probably pay the costs. On the 2nd a member moved that it was unconstitutional for a ministry to use influence in defending one citizen against another, and that the carrying on of the “Waka Maori,” after its dole had been struck from the estimates, was “highly reprehensible.” Mr. Whitaker thought that while an action was pending the subject ought not to be discussed in Parliament, and an interrupted debate was not resumed until the end of September. Meanwhile the law officers advised that a “plea of justification could be maintained” against the prosecutor. Mr. H. R. Russell, however, gained a verdict for £500. Mr. Larnach, member for Dunedin city, gave notice that he would move: “That this House disapproves of the action of the government in continuing to publish the “Waka Maori” newspaper at the public expense in defiance of the vote of this House, and in allowing its columns to be used for the publication of libellous matter.” The government accepted the challenge. Mr. Whitaker denied that the government had disobeyed the wish of the House. The “Waka Maori” had ceased to exist when condemned, but many chiefs had petitioned for it, and it was decided to carry it on,—“a number of gentlemen guaranteeing to subscribe towards the cost.” Dr. Pollen, who succeeded McLean as Native Minister, had supervised the publication, which was continued until July, 1877, when Parliament assembled. Stafford and Fox still clung to the remnants of the ministry which the latter had constructed to do Vogel's pleasure, and to which the former gave his adhesion when Vogel determined to abandon his provincial pledges and support abolition. Mr. Rolleston marked his sense of the occasion by alleging wider issues than the existence of a newspaper:—

“We find Sir J. Vogel with a considerable number, of the present ministers buying support to what I consider to be a most wicked and foolish change in the constitution of the colony by giving three distinct pledges. The first was that the counties should have substantial endowments and higher powers of local self-government. The second was that the compact of 1856 should be carried out in its entirety, or that there should be what is now termed localization of the land revenue… Well, we have now in power the same ministry, or at any rate a ministry which is generally looked upon as representing the abolition policy, and these gentlemen have entirely falsified those pledges and promises. The subsidies have been taken in support of charitable institutions. The localization of the land fund is being gradually refined away by the Colonial Treasurer, and a gross fraud has been perpetrated upon the province of Canterbury in taking, upon no principle of justice, a portion of the fund it has in hand.

Mr. Stafford, in defending himself, explained the secret of his sudden conjunction with Vogel in destroying the provinces. Studholme was entrusted by Stafford with the task of “sounding” Vogel and the government supporters. Stafford undertook to sound the opposition. Thus was the abolition scheme secretly ascertained to be safe, and thus were Vogel's arts transferred from one camp to another by the counting of heads. Denying that he had licked the hand that smote him, Mr. Stafford claimed to have made marionettes of the actors who strutted on the ministerial stage. Of the secret negotiation by which he was, “if he wished,” to become Agent-General if Vogel could secure a commission on conversion of New Zealand stock, Mr. Stafford said nothing.1

Vide supra, p. 111.

It will be remembered that a needless insult to Donald McLean shook Stafford in his place in 1869. He now adverted to it as “an unfortunate difference,” which made Mr. Ormond adhere to McLean. Mr. Stout criticized the “humbling confession” in which Mr. Stafford acted so ignominious a part. Mr. Murray reminded Stafford that he had “played into the hands of a government which he formerly denounced as corrupt.” Mr. Ballance inveighed against the manner in which ministries maintained their position. “When honourable members are taken over from the opposition—its distinguished members, its debaters— by such a course you destroy all reasonable hope of any constitutional opposition being formed… This is at the root of all the demoralization and obstruction that have taken place in this House.” On the 1st of October Mr. Larnach's proposition was rejected by 42 votes against 33.

It was on the 2nd October that Mr. H. R. Russell declared that Ormond's statement about Sir G. Grey's conduct in the Lake Taupo affairs was “absolutely and entirely false.” On the same day Sir G. Grey moved that the reporter's proofs of the debate on the Hawke's Bay land purchases be laid on the table. Major Atkinson saw danger to “the character and privileges of every member” in Sir G. Grey's proposition. Fox agreed with Atkinson. On the production of Ormond's alterations (of his reported speech) Mr. Larnach moved a direct vote of want of confidence. There were rumours that the opposition hoped to persuade Sir W. Fitzherbert to quit the Speaker's chair and form a ministry. Mr. Larnach in a few words charged the government with mal-administration, and by 42 votes against 38 the ministry at last received its deathblow. Like those animals of low type of which the different organs can perform functions when an animating principle no longer pervades the whole, it had occupied the post of power under many mutilated forms, but had at last exhausted its resources. Mr. Larnach did not obtain the co-operation of the Speaker. It was rumoured that Sir W. Fitzherbert could find no precedent, for the step he was asked to take, and considered it unbecoming, unless in response to an unanimous or almost unanimous desire of members.

Sir G. Grey was appealed to, and (13th Oct.) he, Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macandrew, and Mr. Sheehan, became members of the Executive Council. On the 15th, Mr. T. W. Fisher joined the new band. Sir G. Grey was the leader, Mr. Larnach was Treasurer, Mr. Sheehan was Native Minister. Colonel Whitmore on the 18th became Colonial Secretary, and explained the ministerial policy in the Council. The ministry accepted the abolition of the provincial system as an accomplished fact, and hoped “to localize a certain portion of the land fund.” In the Council, where men did not toil to make or to mar ministries, Colonel Whitmore's statements were received without dissent, and public business was proceeded with. It was otherwise in the Representative House. The tentacles which had been riven from place were sore, and the creatures to which they belonged were waving their invertebrate members in search of the places of old attachment. Five days after Col. Whitmore joined the ministry Major Atkinson said that he would move that the “House has no conrfidence in the government.” Sir G. Grey asked the representatives to allow “one clear day” to the government, so that they might make themselves “masters of the subjects” to be discussed, and on the 26th October, Major Atkinson conducted the assault. He denounced Sir G. Grey's accession to power as a surprise. “It is perfectly certain and beyond dispute, that more gentlemen voted against the late government than the actual majority which displaced them, who would not so have voted if they had believed that the honourable gentleman would succeed to power.” Sir G. Grey, after declaiming upon the abstract advantages which would accrue to the colony, if not to the human race, by giving him an opportunity of applying his principles, and after declaring, with an eye to the votes of Middle Island members, that he would have scorned to plunder the revenues of Canterbury and Otago as the Atkinson ministry had plundered them, said: “Honourable members may try to ostracize me… but every effort they make in that direction … will only endear me more to the people of this colony, and will ensure my speedy return to office if I am now driven from it.”

There was a singular solution of continuity in the House. Mr. Reynolds, who stepped in to the rescue of the new government, had voted to retain the Atkinson ministry in office. Mr. Gisborne, who had voted with the majority which expelled Atkinson, supported Atkinson's proposition to expel Grey. Mr. Curtis said that with about ten other members who had also voted against Atkinson he had agreed to support Atkinson's motion. The “middle party” to which they belonged having swung too far in one direction, was resolved to show a balancing power by swinging equally far in another. Mr. Fox attacked Sir G. Grey. A baser policy than his “was never heard of, and it must result in inevitable ruin though it may lead to the temporary elevation of a demagogue.” Mr. Ballance pointed out that if there was one member who should sympathize with Sir G. Grey in advocacy of provincialism, Mr. Fox was the man. How long had Fox advocated abolition? He had been the staunchest of provincialists. “In 1874 he was a provincialist; in 1874 Sir J. Vogel converted him in a single night, and now he stands forward as an ardent centralist.” Taiaroa grimly told the House that the site of the capital consorted with the wavering opinions of members. “It is a very good thing that the meetings of this Parliament are held in Wellington, because it is a windy place, and we hear the wind blowing about here every day. I liken the wind to the speeches of members. The winds blow from all quarters. So it is with the votes of honourable gentlemen; they are given this way to-day, and that to-morrow —and another way the next day.” Let the government have trial for a year. Day after day the debate was adjourned. On the 1st Nov., Mr. Stout interrupted it by raising a question of privilege. The ministry had asked the Governor to call Mr. J. N. Wilson to the Upper House. The Marquis of Normanby declined to make the appointment “pending the decision of the Assembly” as to the support of the ministry by “a majority of the House were Mr. Stout averred that the privileges of the House were involved. The manoeuvre was successful. A select committee, of which the Speaker was chairman, reported that notice by the Crown of a matter in agitation in Parliament was an infringement of constitutional privilege, and Mr. Travers, in moving the adoption of the report, wished that an address to the Governor should state that the infringement was inadvertent. The resolution was adopted by 33 votes against 19. Fox, Atkinson, Ormond, and Whitaker were in the minority. The Governor without delay responded that as soon as he might receive the advice of his ministers he would forward his reply to the address. Meanwhile the debate on Atkinson's motion was resumed. On the 6th Nov., the member who had moved the adjournment did not respond to the Speaker's call, the question was put, and voices were given. A member rose to speak, but the Speaker interposed on the ground that as the ayes and the noes had been called for, the debate was at an end. Three ex-ministers, Atkinson, Reid and McLean, strove to arrest the putting of the question, but the Speaker was not brow-beaten, and 39 voters eyed their opponents from each side of the House. To give “a further opportunity for the House to know its mind,” the Speaker gave his casting vote with the Noes. Atkinson attempted to move that “as the government has not a majority it should immediately resign.” There was much debate on points of order, and eventually the word “that” remained on the paper.

Escaped from the snare of the fowler, the gasping government, eagerly watched, proceeded with business. The fact that in the struggle temporarily postponed, several. members who had voted (8th Oct.) to expel Atkinson had within one month abandoned Grey, lent a dramatic interest; to the scene, which was heightened by other members, who, having striven to arrest Atkinson's fall, now deserted his standard for that of Grey. Atkinson canvassed so eagerly that Mr. Sheehan said in the House that if it had not been openly announced that Atkinson was leader, he would have “looked upon him as the principal opposition whip.” On the 8th November, Atkinson moved the postponement of the orders of the day with the view of proceeding with the remnant of the “want of confidence motion.” Mr. O'Rorke (chairman of committees) versed in Parliamentary lore, promptly pointed out that, by the standing orders, on the resumption of the chair by the Speaker at half-past seven (as was the actual case) it was the “duty of the Speaker to direct the clerk to read the orders of the day without any question being put.” Atkinson endeavoured to dispute. Before the Speaker gave his ruling, Sir G. Grey laid on the table the Governor's reply to the address of the Council on the moot question of privilege. An eager debate ensued as to the time which should be fixed for discussing the reply.2

Mr. Travers piteously complained that he (who had moved the appointment of the Privilege Committee) had been used as a red-herring “dragged across the trail” to divert the House. It was “contemptible.” Mr. Barff asked the Speaker if Travers was justified in calling himself a “redherring,” Travers replied: “I am justified in calling myself what I like, but I do not know what I should call the honourable gentleman if I spoke my mind.”

By 34 votes against 32 it was resolved to postpone the consideration of the Governor's message until the 12th, and the intervening days were deemed sufficient for his purpose by Atkinson, who had already asked for precedence for the want of confidence question. The Speaker then gave his ruling on the point raised by Mr. O'Rorke. Clearly, unless by general agreement to waive it, the course prescribed by the standing orders must be followed. Atkinson's proposition was out of order. The discomfited Atkinson gave notice that he would on the morrow move: “That this House has now no confidence in the government;” but he failed to obtain an opportunity.3

1894. The points of order appealed to were mentioned in the first edition of this work, but need not be repeated.

The privilege question of which Mr. Travers complained was peculiar. The ministry advised the Governor to inform the House that his infringement of privilege was unintentional, and might be beneficial in establishing a precedent to be avoided. The Marquis requested them to reconsider their advice. They were constitutionally responsible to Parliament for his acts, not he. If his memorandum about Mr. Wilson contained any breach of privilege, it was a confidential document, and they were bound by their oaths to point out the fact to the Governor, who would “readily have reconsidered the answer he had given.” The presentation of the memorandum to Parliament was “solely on the advice of Sir G. Grey in writing, and therefore ministers were solely responsible.” The ministry, in reply, admitted responsibility for “acts done on their advice.” Out of respect for him they “refrained from offering further advice” when their advice had been “twice rejected.” They respectfully pointed out that the presentation of the memorandum, made by their advice, was not styled by the House a breach of privilege. They suggested a message in the following words: “The Governor has received the resolution of the House of Representatives, by which he is informed that he has inadvertently committed a breach of the privileges of that House. The House is constitutionally guardian of its own privileges. The Governor having now called Mr. Wilson to the Legislative Council in accordance with his promise to his advisers, does not think it will answer any useful purpose to discuss the question any further, but he will transmit the papers to the Secretary of State for the colonies.”

The Marquis did not choose to condemn himself in the language of others. He did not accept the limitation of responsibility claimed for themselves by the ministry, “because if the act of the Governor is such that the government cannot accept or defend it, it is their duty to resign, in order that the Governor may be able, if he can, to form a government who would support his views, in which case he would have of course, to justify his conduct to the Secretary of State, to whom alone he is responsible.” In Mr. Wilson's case the Marquis concurred in thinking that the ministry were not called upon to resign, but they accepted and were responsible for the Governor's act, and the question should then have been at rest unless they pressed further advice upon him. But the constitutional principle which he contended for—that ministers, so long as they retain office, are alone responsible to Parliament for the acts of the Governor—was of such vital importance to the colony and to the position of a Governor that he would be recreant to his duty if he “did not try to the utmost of his power to have the matter finally and definitely settled.” He was ready to assume that the ministry did not see that his memorandum could be construed as a breach of privilege when they asked for its production. He would be sorry to impute to them “any intention of entrapping him.” He saw so little “necessity for producing the memorandum that he was on the point of refusing his consent, and only refrained from doing so because he did not like for the second time to refuse their advice.” A question of privilege was immediately raised. “The government by whose advice the papers were published, and who are his constitutional defenders in the House, either took part against him, or remained in silence, and refused him their assistance. The Governor was condemned unheard… Criminals received more consideration. He would forward all the papers to England, and begged Sir G. Grey to understand that he looked upon the matter as “political, not personal.” The ministry replied that if the law were such that while a vote of want of confidence was pending the Governor could decline advice it would only “be necessary to raise successive votes of want of confidence in the government to enable the Governor to act for long periods of time without responsible advisers.” They protested against a reference to the Secretary of State, whom they designated as an “external authority.” They had nothing to add to their former advice. The Governor said that the Secretary of State was “the only constitutional channel through whom the commands of the Crown are conveyed,” and as he at any rate felt “bound to obey the command of Her Majesty,” he would submit the case, and would lay the papers before the House. In a message to the House he repeated his constitutional reason for not accepting their resolution, but assured them that “nothing was further from his intention than in any way to trench upon their privileges.”

The first debate on the Governor's message has been mentioned. On its resumption on the 12th, it was obvious that not the Governor — not the constitution of New Zealand—but the prospect of retaining or storming the ministerial benches actuated most of the speakers. After long discussion, the adjournment of the House was agreed to after midnight, and the privilege question was shelved.4

The Governor's despatch to the Secretary of State was published (June, 1878) in the colony with the reply of the Earl of Carnarvon unhesitatingly approving the Governor's construction of the duties constitutionally imposed upon him.

On the 14th Nov. Sir G. Grey formulated a demand for a dissolution, but the Governor thought there was no evidence in favour of Sir G. Grey's opinion that an appeal to the electors would secure a large working majority for the ministry. As far as the Governor was aware no supply had been granted, and though such a condition involved no difficulty in England, because Parliament there “uniformly voted the supplies necessary for an appeal to the country,” in the colonies the case was otherwise. He reminded Sir G. Grey that in October he had said that if a dissolution were accorded to him he would dissolve with or without supply. The Marquis could not grant a dissolution. If, however, Sir G. Grey could satisfy him that three months’ supply had been granted, he would be “happy to reconsider his determination.” Sir G. Grey admitted that he might have said that if “duty demanded it, he would dissolve without supply,” but urged that throughout his conversation he “unfalteringly maintained that it was in his belief impossible that such a case as the Governor put could arise” in New Zealand. The Governor regretted “that there should be the slightest discrepancy between the impression left” on his mind and on that of Sir G. Grey, and was, “of course, quite ready to admit that he must have misunderstood what Sir G. Grey said. Notwithstanding this, he must still adhere to the decision he has expressed as regards a dissolution.”

Loose language is often used, about the prerogative which summons and dissolves Parliaments, and the ministry thought the Governor mistaken in deeming the power of dissolution “a prerogative of the Crown” in New Zealand. It was derived from the Constitution Act. Ministers claimed for themselves and for the people the same constitutional rights which existed in England, and maintained their right to a dissolution, unfettered by any condition with regard to supply. In a separate memorandum, Sir G. Grey argued that the Governor's expressed “desire to secure a government, no matter how constituted,” commanding the confidence of a majority in the House, would be destructive of the principle of party government deliberately adopted by the people. The Marquis briefly replied that the Constitution Act, without mention of an Executive Council, empowered the Governor to dissolve, and that his commission from the Queen delegated to him the Royal powers of summoning, proroguing, and dissolving the legislative body. He could not admit that ministers had the unqualified rights they claimed. They (21st Nov.) “felt it their duty to point out the mistakes into which they cannot but think the Governor has fallen.” They discussed the abstract ideas of a Privy Council, a Cabinet, and an Executive Council. The Governor respectfully but distinctly declined for the future “to enter into any controversy or discussion of a general or abstract character regarding his constitutional position, his responsibilities, or his duties.” On all occasions he would give most attentive and favourable consideration to any particular matter on which he might receive advice. Ministers, of course, had an undoubted right to complain of any act they might think “illegal, unconstitutional, or wrong,” and he would at all times forward such complaints to England with any necessary explanation. The ministry (who had just been permitted to go into Committee on Supply) answered (23rd Nov.) that they had regarded the questions raised as practical, not abstract, points, the maintenance of which was essential to the welfare of the colony.

By one of those involutions which entangle men's reasoning faculties when self-interests are at stake, the ministers thought, or affected to think, that the prerogative of the Crown in dismissing representatives of the people was really one of the rights of the representatives. The Governor was hardly called upon to controvert such allegations. Meanwhile Mr. Sheehan (15th Nov.) had made a statement on native affairs which was well received. The Treasurer's financial statement (20th Nov.) was also applauded. The ministry waxed bolder. They pressed the Governor (26th Nov.) to waive his objections to a dissolution. Delay added greatly to their difficulties. He courteously but firmly held his ground. He was at all times willing to consider the subject under any new light thrown upon it, but could not, under existing circumstances, alter his decision. An unreserving promise to dissolve would put undue pressure upon Parliament, which he felt bound to avoid.

The ministry–threaded their way through the parliamentary labyrinth, adroitly shunning the blow which Atkinson longed to deliver. Their Financial Arrangements Bill was so commended by Sir G. Grey's eloquence (3rd Dec.) as to command 41 votes against 13. Twenty members paired. Atkinson voted for the bill, while three of his recent colleagues, McLean, Bowen, and Reid, opposed it. The majority of the House had plainly determined to support the policy of the new men during the current session. On the 6th Dec. the ministry again pressed the Governor for power to dissolve. On the same day he declined to accord it. Frequent dissolutions, tending, in the words of the great Sir Robert Peel, to blunt the edge of “a great instrument in the hands of the Crown,” were to be avoided. The Marquis did not wish to deny that in matters not affecting Imperial interests ministers had similar rights to those of English ministers, but did “not believe that under similar circumstances a minister in England would ask for a dissolution.”5

The Marquis of Normanby's conduct is dwelt upon at some length, because it furnishes proof that the allegation that Governors in colonies have not such duties to perform as demand political sagacity, is a shallow one.

It is proper to notice the result of the discussions between the Marquis and his advisers. As to the calling of Mr. Wilson to the Legislative Council, Lord Carnarvon commended the Governor's conduct. As to the dissolution of the Assembly, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, who (4th Feb., 1878) succeeded Lord Carnarvon, supported the Marquis. A Governor “ought to pay the greatest attention” to the representations of his advisers, “but if he should feel bound to take the responsibility of not following his ministers’ recommendations, there can, I apprehend, be no doubt that both law and practice empower him to do so.” Sir G. Grey's views seemed “unduly to limit the prerogative of the Crown.” There was a further important point on which it would have been difficult for even the weakest functionary to fail to support the Governor. When the session was about to end, leaving Sir G. Grey in power (10th Dec.), he advised that a Land Bill, then ready for the Royal Assent, should not be assented to. Introduced by the Atkinson government in August, it was in committee when the government fell. On the 15th Oct. Sir G. Grey included it in a list of bills which his ministry would take up. In committee there were divisions in which Whitaker and Taiaroa were found voting with Atkinson and Reynolds, against Larnach and Stout. There was a division (19th Nov.) in which Atkinson, with the aid of Stafford, Whitaker, Rolleston, and others, foiled by one vote a proposition made by Stout and supported by Sir G. Grey. Col. Whitmore, the Colonial Secretary, took charge of the bill in the Council, and it was passed with amendments with some of which the Representatives declined to concur. Reasons were prepared by Messrs. Stout, Ballance, and Reid for insisting on certain provisions. Stout and Ballance were supporters of Sir G. Grey. The House adopted the reasons. The Council waived some amendments, but eventually asked for a free conference, which was held. A report from the conference was adopted by both Houses, and the bill thus hammered on the anvil awaited only (in the words of Lord Hale) the Royal Assent to give it “the complement and perfection of a law.” Conceived by the Atkinson ministry, duly produced in the House, adopted by Sir G. Grey and his colleagues, the subject of conference between the two Houses—the bill might be looked on as the genuine offspring of the New Zealand Assembly. Yet Sir G. Grey strove to strangle it. There was an Executive Council meeting at half-past twelve o'clock on the day fixed for prorogation at half-past two. Many members of the Legislature had gone to their homes. At that meeting Sir G. Grey advised the Governor to refuse to assent to the bill. The Governor declined to withhold his assent. The Clerk of the Parliaments, after the Executive Council meeting was concluded, carried several bills to the Governor, who observed that, with regard to the Land Bill, Sir G. Grey had not attached his name to the customary formal recommendation for assent. The Marquis determined neither to veto the bill nor to assent to it in an unusual manner. The hour of prorogation drew near. The Speaker arrived with the Appropriation Bill. That lever of the House of Commons against the Crown became an instrument in the hands of the Crown to foil the strange device of a colonial minister bent upon frustrating the action of the two Houses and foiling the Governor. The Marquis requested the Speaker to retain the Appropriation Bill, while Mr. Macandrew, a minister, took a memorandum from the Marquis to Sir G. Grey. After some delay Mr. Macandrew obtained from Sir G. Grey the usual recommendation, and the bill was signed by the Governor. Sir M. Hicks Beach laconically said: “I approve the action taken by you in declining under the circumstances which you record to refuse your assent to the Land Act of the last session of the New Zealand Parliament.”

When the approval of the Secretary of State reached him the Governor communicated it to his ministers. Sir G. Grey railed at the Secretary of State as an “exterior authority” unknown to New Zealand law. He declared, in terms which the difference between the Lord Stanley of 1843 and the Duke of Newcastle of 1860 ought to have made it impossible for him to use, that it had “long been universally admitted that in the Colonial Department the real power vests in the permanent Under-Secretary.” With much subtlety he spun webs of words. He declared that the Governor was making his ministers not advisers but servants, when he submitted constitutional questions to the Secretary of State without their advice, and then commanded the correspondence to be published. He would not consent that his conduct in relation to the Assembly or to the Governor should be submitted to the Secretary of State, whose decision upon it he would not “recognize or accept.” He would not discuss New Zealand questions “with any officer who is outside the Constitution, or who has no responsibility in the matter, or who has no lawful right to interfere with it.”

So far as subsequent misdoing could justify former illusage, Sir G. Grey laboured to indemnify the Duke of Newcastle and Earls Carnarvon and Granville for the past. He had complained that they would not do their duty. He now contended that a Secretary of State had no duty to do. The Marquis declined to discuss the “position or authority” of a Secretary of State. Such an argument was “too serious to the future interests of the colony to be dealt with in a correspondence of this kind.” He remarked that Sir G. Grey had in 1876 invoked the authority of the Secretary of State with regard to the abolition of the provinces. He was ready to admit that correspondence which in any way might commit ministers “should be done by their advice and at their instigation.” But the Governor had asked the Secretary of State for a decision on his own action. A Governor had “certain rights and duties to perform.” He “was as much a part of the Constitution as either branch of the Legislature.” “While he had no wish to trench in the slightest degree upon the rights and privileges of the other branches of the Constitution, he is bound to preserve intact those which have been entrusted to his care by his Sovereign. Should the Governor exceed his powers or commit any action to which exception can justly be taken an appeal is at all times open to the Secretary of State; but the Governor cannot admit his responsibility to any other authority.” Sir G. Grey retorted that the Secretary of State “was the constitutional adviser, not the mouthpiece of the Sovereign,” but did not show how the Crown prerogatives could be exercised without a channel of communication. The Governor declined to make any remarks upon Sir G. Grey's paper, on the ground that “no public advantage could be derived by a prolongation of the correspondence.” The despatches were published in the “New Zealand Gazette” in June, 1878.

The financial proposals of the government secured its position, to the disgust of those supporters of abolition who had hoped that local revenues would be locally appropriated after “local habitation and name” had become an “airy nothing” under the treatment of Atkinson and Vogel. They had been warned in vain. They were now punished. The Grey government had no difficulty in showing that the provincial land funds had been so encroached upon by their predecessors that “the idea that a large proportion was available for localization was a delusion.” The government would by law appropriate locally 20 per cent, of the land revenue in each provincial district, and would ask parliament to pass a land law fixing uniform prices throughout the colony. They would ask for a new loan of £4,000,000 rather than increase taxation; but would consider that subject in the recess. They found a deficiency of more than, £700,000 on the 30th June, and would endeavour “to secure a state of equilibrium.” Such was Mr. Larnach's statement (19th Nov.). Major Atkinson disputed it. The short sight of those representatives from Otago, and Canterbury, who had thought to procure abolition of provinces without loss of provincial funds, was apparent The two provinces which, by partial adherence to Gibbon Wakefield's principles, had accumulated wealth, were about to be plundered by their professing friends. The first serious defection from the opposition was on the 22nd Nov. Mr. Gisborne, thinking the Grey ministry “a standing menace to the unity of the colony,” had been hostile to it. The financial propositions justified him in opposing it no longer. Mr. Ormond had made charges against Sir’ G. Grey which the House compelled him to withdraw; yet; even he, pleased with the prospect of plundering the Middle Island, announced that he would support the government in “generalization of the land fund, and, when that was carried,” strive to eject them. The Financial Arrangements Bill which dissolved the opposition was read a second time (3rd Dec.), Sir G. Grey, in the absence of the Treasurer, commending it to the House. It was broadly stated in a newspaper that as Canterbury had divided land revenues amounting to more than three-quarters of a million sterling amongst its local bodies in a part of the year “it was high time to make a change, but of course Canterbury does not like it.” Atkinson, the promoter of abolition, though he spoke against the ministry, voted for the bill. Grey, the opponent of abolition, thus consummated it when in office. The men of Canterbury, who had been potent in procuring abolition, in vain deplored its consequences. By 41 votes to 13 the second reading was carried. It made the land fund throughout New Zealand a part of the consolidated fund. It enacted that out of the latter there should be paid to each county a sum equal to 20 per cent, of the land revenue accruing in such county. Mr. Fox was absent when the death-blow of his “compact of 1856” was thus dealt. When the bill went to the Legist lative Council, Mr. Hall, who had been Fox's colleague in 1856, was unable to restrain his feelings. The measure constituted (he said) “a breach of the compact solemnly entered into between one portion of the colony and another” in 1856. In Canterbury, by selling 2,331,000 acres on Gibbon Wakefield's principles, £3,671,000 had been obr tained. In Otago, in similar manner, for about 2,000,000 of acres, £1,807,000; while, by neglect of those principles, Auckland, for 2,144,000 acres, had obtained only £274,000. Was it fair to rob the south of the profit of its prudent management? Mr. Hall might as well have questioned with the wolf. The Council passed the bill. A Crown Land Sales Bill regulated the price of land throughout New Zealand. Lands taken under free selection were in no case to be obtained at a less price than £2 an acre. The upset price at auction was not to be less than £1 an acre. The bill which Sir G. Grey wished the Governor, to disallow swept away fifty-six provincial and general Acts. It classified all lands as town, suburban, or rural. The first were to be sold by auction at not less than £30; the second in like manner at not less than £3 an acre. Rural lands were not to be sold in larger quantities than 320 acres, nor in less than 20. Land would be taken on deferred payments in proclaimed areas. The New Zealand government thus avoided the profligacy by which in portions of Australia the selection of land was converted into an engine for robbing the public treasury, and for levying blackmail upon pastoral tenants of the Crown. The New Zealand legislature avoided another evil created by the land laws of New South Wales (1861) and Victoria (1862), where, if more applicants than one selected the same site, the land agent was to determine by lot the fate of the site. If there were more applications than one for-the same allotment on the same day in New Zealand the land was to be put up to auction, at which the bidding was limited to the applicants-Corruption or favouritism could thus be excluded, while the public might derive benefit from anincreased price. The old provincial arrangements were not altogether abandoned. The ten new land districts were bound to certain conditions embodied in the Act. Sir G. Grey and his ardent admirers contended that unddue advantages were conferred on pastoral lessees of Crown lands; but the rent of runs was to be determined by the Land Board of the district within a range fixed in the Act—the board, and not the lessee, determining the carrying capacity of the run.

A Government Native Land Purchases Act deserves mention. In August Major Atkinson withdrew his Native Land Court Bill, intimating that a bill would be introduced to stop all private dealings with native lands “until after the close of the next session of Parliament.” He brought in the bill (6th Sept.), but it did not reach a second reading. Its author expressed his regret when, after his ministry fell, the bill was by the order of the House discharged from the paper (28th Nov.) on the motion of the new native minister, Mr. Sheehan, who declared that “sinking all party feeling, forgetting all past differences, it would be unfair to deny that to Sir D. McLean we are largely indebted for the fact that from 1869 up to the present time we have been at peace with the native people… I hold that on entering upon the immigration and public works policy it would have been an act of suicide to have provoked or sought for a native disturbance.” There were few natives not loyal to the Queen. Less than 3000 Maori men were “in the king country,” and though Maori women could fight, the fact that “we have 25,000 or 30,000 loyal natives on our side showed that the chances of a native outbreak are simply nil.” He deemed the £3,200,000 already spent by the colony in putting down native disturbances as “simply thrown away.” He approved the policy of teaching the English language to the Maoris, which McLean had encouraged; and proposed to increase the sum, £11,000, placed on the estimates of the year. He did not approve the manner in which land purchases from Maoris had been effected by the government. The official return of land negotiated for (after 1870), was —freehold, 4,613,000 acres; leasehold, 1,540,000—but “of the freehold transactions only 1,967,000 acres have been completed” … and “at least in regard to one-third of (them) it will be found that the titles are invalid, and it will require more money to be paid away and other acts. to be done in order to make those titles good.” He proposed that nafiye chiefs should ascertain the native titles, and that the European judges should be “simply for legal purposes only.” He regretted the abandonment of the pre-emptive right of the Crown in 1862, but the step could not be retraced. He wished to raise the number of Maori members in the House from four to seven, hoping that after some years, “by the operation of a suitable land law and by the conversion of native titles to a freehold tenure under Crown grant, we could call upon them to give up all special representation of the race and to vote as Europeans do.” With regard to the dual vote which Maoris would exercise, he stated that it was almost inoperative—such votes being “not more than 5 per cent. of the whole,” although the proportion of Maoris to Europeans was very much larger. He took credit for the influence of Sir G. Grey, which had elicited friendly missives from Tawhiao. His statement was favourably received. He introduced a bill “to amend the Native Land Act 1873,” which passed through both Houses without discussion. One of its provisions may have been necessary, but it was capable of being rendered oppressive. The Act so easily passed enabled the Land Court to award costs, provided for their recovery, and gave the court power to order a deposit as security for costs, and to refuse to proceed with a case, or “hear any person who does not comply with such order.” The Native Minister was empowered “at any time” to obtain from the court a determination of the “interest in any block of land., acquired by or on behalf of Her Majesty,” and all lands declared by an order of the court to have been acquired were, from the date of the order, to be “absolutely vested in her said Majesty.” Whether the Maoris in the Legislature could have qualified the measure by guarding the rights of their countrymen unwilling to submit joint tribal rights to the court it is impossible to say. Perhaps they trusted that Sir G. Grey and Mr, Sheehan would not abuse or strain the law. The chief, Rangihiwinui, and others, petitioned for postponement of the bill in vain.

In the course of the session the sum of £5000 in final settlement of native claims on account of the Dunedin Prince's Street reserve was voted as already described.6

See Vol. II, p, 409.

It is necessary to watch occurrences in the New Zealand Parliament as regards the condition of the Maoris. It is also desirable to scan the increase of the colonial debt. The new South Sea scheme for which Mr. Vogel at last obtained a favourable hearing differed from his earlier proposals. He had once suggested means by which to astonish the world and handle hundreds of millions of pounds sterling. With the trifling difference of half per cent. between the borrowing and lending rates the national debt of England could be paid off by an agency under Mr. Vogel. If half per cent. would do so much for England, what might not twice that amount do for Vogel? Warned by experience, the men in power declined to promote a project suspiciously related to that of the scrivener Blount.

After floating into office, Mr. Vogel, in 1874, propounded a scheme by which, if the provinces would yield 3 per cent. of their land to be afforested, he would be able to release them from their railway obligations. By an excise of 3 per cent. upon provincial lands, the modern alchemist would convert into untold wealth the possibilities of growth of trees, although, under the colonial rule, the ancient forests were being wasted at a rate which created alarm lest even in that ocean-cradled land sterility should be brought about by diminishing the moisture of the atmosphere. Schemes for enrichment abound at all times. It was but in the 18th century that Cagliostro received money to arrest the foot of time. Schemers of every kind crave the handling of other men's wealth. The straightforward rogue advertises now, as in 1720, that if ready money deposits be sent to his office as earnest, and a few hundred pounds be remitted at a future time, untold wealth will accrue to his dupes. After a few days or weeks he decamps with the remittances of those who had, at the most, less wit than cash. The South Sea Bubble and the Pacific Islands’ schemes were framed on a different model. Shareholders were not to be robbed. In the handling of money the promoters would perforce find that some adhered to their palms, if only as a business percentage. There is, however, an indestructible commodity on which rests the security of nations, and the hope and the pride of their people. On land all usurers will lend. The Public Works and Immigration Scheme, based upon that principle, had poured many millions into New Zealand, and waifs of the stream had attached themselves, or had been attached, to its propounder. There was occasional demur; but a glamour of assumed public good cast a mist over the eyes of men in general, and they were grateful. In 1876 the House had refused to vote the sum proposed for Sir J. Vogel by the Atkinson government. In 1877, a few members, more careful of New Zealand than of him, disputed the propriety of awarding a sum far exceeding the amount stipulated for when Vogel had undertaken his last mission to England. There was a sharp debate, but the money was voted. Though Vogel's personal applications might disappear from the Treasury the fruit of his labours was to be more enduring. Abolition of provinces had increased colonial burdens. Both Atkinson and Grey were compelled to deal with the financial problem. The day had not yet arrived when capital would be openly borrowed or encroached upon to meet demands for interest; but the policy of “purchasing the support of the provinces” had made many mouths gape. Only more loans could enable the appetite to be gratified. In July, Major Atkinson had announced that he would ask for a loan of £2,000,000. There was an invested sinking fund which he proposed to respect. The gross debt in December, 1876, had been almost £19,000,000 sterling. Mr. Larnach in November declared that there was a deficit in revenue of more than £700,000, and proposed to ask for a loan of £4,000,000, and do away with a multiplicity of local loans by creating one consolidated colonial debt. Major Atkinson impugned the accuracy of Larnach's calculations.

The Loan Bill was read a second time (5th Dec.) without a division, but after discussion the loan was limited to £2,500,000, of which £300,000 were to discharge provincial claims; £800,000 to redeem guaranteed debentures; and £1,400,000 to carry on public works and immigration. No provision was made for a sinking fund, although the maximum rate of interest was fixed at six per cent. The Legislative Council accepted the bill. In committee on a Consolidated Stock Bill the Speaker, Sir W. Fitzherbert, departed from his usual custom, and seriously addressed the House. As agent for the colony, in 1867, in negotiating a large loan, he was entitled to speak with authority, and was heard with respect. In the loan negotiated by him, one per cent. was devoted annually to the cancellation of the stock. Earnestly he implored the House not to damage future prospects by grasping at deceitful present gain. To convert securities from other forms into one compact responsibility was good; but in so doing, to absorb the provision (by way of sinking fund) already accumulated to about a million and a-quarter sterling, was fraught with danger, and would alarm the dealers in New Zealand stock. “Heretofore we have evaded our stern duties; in an uncourageous spirit we have shut our eyes to them… If we do not act prudently our credit will fall.” No one attempted to reply, and on the following day, without discussion, by 38 votes against 13 the principle of the bill was sanctioned. In public and in private life there is no subject on which men's consciences are more elastic than on one which holds out hope of immediate gain, although it may lead to distant disaster; and there is such a weakness as unconscious gambling. The Immigration and Public Works Appropriation Bill of 1877, though dealing with millions of money, caused no debate in the Lower House. In the Council, the Speaker, Sir J. L. C. Richardson, on putting the question of the second reading (8th Dec.) pointed out that the privileges of the House had been infringed by clauses which authorized certain acts to be done by the corporation of the Thames county, and vested certain property in that body. He assumed that the infringement was unintentional, and suggested that a message should be sent to the other House, to the effect that the Council would waive their objection to the insertion of the clauses, “in the full belief that it was not the intention of the House of Representatives to annex clauses to one of their bills of supply, the matter of which is foreign to and different from the true matter of such Bill of Aid or Supply.”

Colonel Whitmore, on behalf of the government, assured the Council that there was no intention to infringe their privileges. Mr. Hart and Mr. Mantell thought it would be desirable to guard privilege against invasion; and Sir F. D. Bell (a former speaker of the Lower House) thanked Sir J. Richardson for his watchfulness and Colonel Whitmore for the manner in which he had met it. Sir Dillon Bell raised a warning voice against the extravagance with which, in the Appropriation Bill and the bill under discussion, votes were “crowded on to the supplementary estimates at the last moment, in utter disregard of the certain fact that we have not money to pay them.” Nothing would “save the country from insolvency unless the government of the day, let them be who they will, sternly set down their foot against this madness.” The New Zealand Legislature seems to have shrunk from seriously considering the question of payment of its members, originally sanctioned merely to reimburse members for the difficult task of journeying to the seat of government when means of conveyance were rarely to be procured. In 1877 Mr. Stevens (from Christchurch) moved a reduction in the item, which was called “honorarium;” but he found little support. The session ended on the 10th December. The members were dispersed with irritated feelings. The men of Canterbury who had supported abolition felt the iron in their souls when the prophesied seizure of their provincial land fund became an unwelcome fact. The extension of the pastoral leases in Canterbury roused the wrath of Sir G. Grey. His reputation served to procure a friendly interview, in January, with Tawhiao, and his bitterest foes acquiesced in the belief that, as regarded the Maoris, his influence might prove useful. At Wellington he addressed the electors, by invitation, and harangued them on the policy which he fondly said would make them happy, and give the world assurance of beatitude unknown on earth before. Taxation was to be imposed on all holdings exceeding 350 acres. Universal suffrage and equal electoral districts were to convert ignorance in the halls of legislation into supreme wisdom. All would be well if the people would support Sir G. Grey.

At an election of a member to supply the place of Mr. Reader Wood at Parnell, an Auckland suburb, a supporter of the government was elected without opposition, and the high hopes of the Vogel party that in 1878 they would easily drive Sir G. Grey from office began to wane. Nevertheless Major Atkinson, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Bowen, and Mr. McLean, recently expelled from office, addressed their constituents with success. The endeavour of Sir G. Grey to strangle the Land Bill furnished a weapon which they were not slow to use. He, in the meantime, addressed crowded audiences at Westland, Canterbury, and Otago. At Christchurch, Mr. Rolleston and others vainly endeavoured to check the tide. The local magnates were howled at, and Sir G. Grey was received with acclamation. After a triumphal progress he returned to the North Island to meet again the Maori King. The ministry received an addition to its ranks in the person of Mr. Stout, who became Attorney-General. Two representatives from the Otago district still held office with Sir G. Grey, although Mr. Larnach, the Treasurer, resigned his position and went to England, bearing powers to represent New Zealand in negotiating the new loan. Mr. Ballance succeeded Mr. Larnach as Treasurer. Mr. Stafford had left the colony. The star of Sir G. Grey seemed for the time in the ascendant, and the failure of the prosecution of Jones for libel against Whitaker seemed to show that outside as well as within the walls of Parliament the Atkinson ministry was condemned.

Long as the peace between Pakeha and Maori had endured, there were fears that, at any moment, a rankling sense of injustice, a superstitious confidence in a leader, and carelessness about consequences, if not absolute love of fighting, might bring about a Maori rising. A man named Moffatt was tried in 1877 for unlawfully manufacturing gunpowder, which it was said the Maoris were secretly accumulating. The resident magistrate at Wanganui reported (May, 1877) that at Mokau, Waikato, and Tuhua, the man had long been traitorously supplying powder and repairing firearms. Two chiefs took umbrage at Moffatt's conduct towards them, and executed a warrant for his arrest. He was tried before Judge (C. W.) Richmond. Evidence to support some serious charges was defective, but a conviction, on the ground of manufacturing unlawfully, was followed by the maximum penalty—imprisonment for two years—the judge telling the prisoner that hanging would not have been too severe a punishment for his murderous crime of supplying a semi-barbarous and merciless foe with means for rapine and destruction of unoffending settlers.

There was a cloud at Parihaka. The great block of land declared to be, with reservations, confiscated by proclamation at Taranaki in 1865 comprised all the coast line of the Cape Egmont promontory from Waitotara on the south to the White Cliffs on the north. Within it there were patches held by Maoris under English tenure. The government had pledged itself to make reserves for Maori uses, but had not made them. Even awards made to the natives by the Compensation Court in 1866 had not been carried out. Content with his practical autocracy in native affairs, Sir D. McLean, in 1872, permitted the scattered natives to return, with the public sanction, to their old homes. “I think it would be politically undesirable, and I fear practically impossible, to attempt to prevent their occupying the country north of Waingongoro, the confiscation of that country having been abandoned by the government so long as they behave themselves and keep the compact about not crossing Waingongoro.” These words (written by one of his staff) were officially approved by McLean in 1872; and the Waimate Plains were included within the territory over which confiscation was thus treated as abandoned. So completely did McLean recognize the resumption of their land by the Maoris, that he entered with them into formal deeds of cession and sale by them of lands within the confiscated block.7

In accordance with “arrangements” made by McLean, lauded by the Governor, and sanctioned by the Secretary of State. Vide supra, p. 39.

The Ngatiruanui tribe originally held the coast from near Opunake to Waitotara. The fertile Waimate Plains were part of their heritage. It has been seen that although the joint tribal rights ought naturally, by accretion, to have devolved upon the unoffending, if by treason or otherwise any deminutio capitis had been incurred by any outlawed persons, the colonial government had not adopted the wise suggestion of Mr. Cardwell to take by cession, and not by confiscation, lands required in order to punish Maoris who had taken up arms against injustice and had been worsted in the field. The proclamations of the colonial government, nevertheless, invited the rebellious Maoris to come in, and land was promised in those proclamations to those who would do so. Even to Titokowaru, Sir D. McLean had declared that if he would be peaceful he would not be molested, and he had settled at Okaiawa, near the scene of his exploits at Te Ngutu-o-te-Manu. But he was not now the accepted prophet of the people. Te Whiti was their guide. Month by month—year by year—he convened meetings and harangued his countrymen with an eloquence of which they did not tire, though he sometimes spoke for hours. Mr. Parris, the agent employed in 1859 to create war at the Waitara, reported (1872):—

“The general character of Te Whiti's influence is altogether in favour of peace, and I think that if he be prudently dealt with it will continue so, as it corresponds with the essentially peaceful and amiable nature of this singular man… His total want of sympathy with, and indeed his scorn for, our action of progress, and the absence of all desire for money, or anything that we have to offer him, renders it difficult if not hopeless to obtain any active aid from him in facilitating the work of colonization.”

He had acquired “predominating influence,” not only over his people at Taranaki, but in far distant tribes. Thus said Mr. Parris. Te Whiti was described as being in 1879 about 50 years of age, as having clear intelligent eyes quickly flashing, a well-chiselled nose, almost European features, which in repose appeared Spanish, and a muscular frame of fine fibre, symmetrical like his hands. His voice was powerful and clear, and as he stood

“erect and bareheaded, it could be heard all through the village, now thrilling with passion, anon replete with scorn, and then plaintive in entreaty. He revels in mystery, and for copiousness of language and imagery, for gracefulness of action, modulation of voice, for selfpossession, and command of his audience, Te Whiti certainly ranks high as an orator. To the usual (Maori) metaphor, he adds all that can be gleaned from Scripture. His memory in private conversatio with visitors shows that he is well informed on both ancient and private history.”8

Reports of eye-witnesses.

The colonists wondered whether he was mad or cunning; whether under the cloak of prophecy he was secretly organizing resistance, or was the dupe of the enthusiasm which asserted that he was inspired. His figurative speech fomented doubt. He spoke as if in him the Deity uttered oracles,

“When I speak of the land, the survey, the ploughmen, and such small matters” (Te Whiti said), “the pencils of the reporters fly with the speed of the wind, but when I speak of the words of the Spirit, they say this is the dream of a madman! They are so greedy for gain that nothing seems to concern them except it be in some way connected with accumulation of wealth. The dealer who gains wealth by short weights and vile goods, and by the numerous modes of picking and stealing known to the initiated—the men who steal the land of the Maori, and acquire flocks of sheep and herds of cattle—the men who would snatch the bread out of the mouths of the widows and the fatherless, and become rich by so doing, are all looked upon as respectable persons of property, while the humble seeker after truth is passed by unknown and unheeded. The time is at hand when their goods will rot in their stores, their ships will rot in their harbours for lack of sailors, their merchants will wring their hands in despair when they shall see their ill-gotten gains melt away like the mists of the morn at the rising of the sun.”

but it was the custom of his countrymen to impersonate thus; as a chief would often say, “I slew a tribe,” when he meant that his ancestor had done the deed arrogated to himself. Of his commanding influence there was no douht, but there was no sign that the followers of Tawhiao encouraged him. Some persons thought he hoped to test the validity of the confiscation proclamations before the Privy Council; or that by mingled demonstrations of power among his own people and passive martyrdom before the colonists the justice of the Queen might at last be invoked. There were others who saw with chagrin that his influence rebuked that drunkenness which was so profitable to dealers, and so potent in decimating the Maori race. At Parihaka, between Mount Egmont and the sea, his admirers assembled in such numbers that it was said there had not been seen so much Maori cultivation in one locality since Europeans had inhabited New Zealand. Men from distant tribes were assembled under his protection. In May, 1877, a magistrate reported: “The Maori prophet, Te Whiti, still holds his periodical assemblies at Parihaka, in the Taranaki country, and the natives continue to attend, and have not yet lost faith in his prognostications.” But though he preached peace no man doubted that at his command any follower would gladly take life at risk of his own.

Te Rangitake maintained a peaceable demeanour, but dwelt apart from Europeans, high upon the Waitara river. Scattered in various places on the confiscated territory were many of the Taranaki, the Ngatiruanui and others formerly hostile, who professed to rely on the assurances of the government that they would not be molested. As far as various officers could ascertain, there was no likelihood of troubles if those promises should be respected. There were occasional dangers from native feuds. Even among the friendly Arawa strife was at one time apprehended, but it was averted by the mediation of a commissioner with the aid of native assessors. Cultivation of land and sobriety were reported to be on the increase in several districts, but the decay of the race had not been appreciably arrested. In Canterbury, the Rev. Mr. Stack wrote (June, 1877) that the old order and reverence among Maoris which had been displaced by the loss of influence of chiefs and the voluntary abolition of slavery had been succeeded by a coarseness which degraded the morals of the people. They still craved education for their children. Many of them had been impoverished by their efforts to provide funds to enable Taiaroa to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of the Maori reserve at Dunedin.

The returns laid before the Assembly showed that 1131 boys and 789 girls attended native schools; the average attendance being respectively 791 and 565. The cost contributed by the government was £15,392. . Maoris had given towards salaries £464, and for erection of buildings £573 = £1037; total, £16,429. There were about 50 village schools. The superior schools for which Sir J. Fergusson had touchingly pleaded had not been altogether forgotten; 26 boys and 18 girls were stated to have received education at provincial district schools; and there were boarding establishments at which 99 boys and 126 girls had been taught. A petition signed by nearly 1000 Maoris, in 1877, might be styled a general grievance petition, with thanksgiving for certain acts. They declared their loyalty to the Queen. It was good that the tribes should meet every year to lay their grievances before the Assembly.

“We say that the present Maori Representation Act should be repealed, —i.e., the law which only allows a few representatives for the Maori people in proportion to the European representation. We say that the conduct of the native land purchases under the Act now in force is very confusing and bad, and that purchases under these regulations should be stopped. Land should not be sold while the original title exists. If the tribe, the hapu, and the chiefs consent to survey and to have the title investigated by the court, then only will it be right that such survey and investigation should take place. If all consent to sell the land, then only will it be right to sell. When the consent to sell has not been obtained, let no money be paid to the owners… Let the questions of survey and of investigation of title to land rest with the owners… We desire that all the laws about the Native Land Court should be repealed, and a (marama10

Maori scholars aver that no other language can express in one word the force and subtlety of the word “mãrâmâ,” which implies clearness, transparency, brightness, the force of truth, and a plainness to the understanding.

) clear Act should be passed, under which Maori land matters may be fairly dealt with. It should provide that the Land Court judges should hold the same position as judges of other permanent courts, and that the government should have no authority over such Native Land Court judges. We say that the government is a bad government. It has no good thought towards Maoris. Let the Parliament upset that government. We would address a respectful petition to our Queen praying her to send hither a trustworthy and upright man to inquire into our grievances, to write them down, and to write down our statements so that our Queen may see them…”

“The evils that have fallen upon the Maori people through the action of the Government Land Purchase Commissioners have been very great, and it is very proper that the system should be abolished.”

They thought that a fixed Act should be passed making the representation of the Maori people by Maoris proportionate to the representation of the European people by Europeans, that the present electoral districts should be abolished, and the great tribal boundaries should be made the division between the new electoral districts.

“… Through the evils in the laws, bad Europeans have seized, without consideration, the lands of the Maoris at Hawke's Bay (Heretaunga, &c.) and other places… The Act which allows Maoris to sit on juries in the European courts should be carried out. The chiefs and people of knowledge of all the tribes in this island should cause the names of qualified persons to be placed on the electoral rolls. The Maoris throughout the colony should not vote for the new county councils, lest it be made a ground for demanding money for the councils on account of native lands. The government should use every endeavour to have schools established throughout the colony so that Maori children may learn the English language, for by this they will be on the same footing as Europeans and will become acquainted with the means by which the Europeans have become great. The meeting asks the chiefs and all the people of the island to lay aside all old deeds, to return to the right religion and to the teachings of Scripture. The meeting is glad that the disputes about Kakirawa and Te Awa-a-te-atua have been settled by the payment of a large sum of money and the restitution of a portion of the land. The Europeans of these islands will now know that the objections raised by the Maoris to the wrong-doings of Mr. Sutton and others of Hawke's Bay are not untrue; for if they had not done wrong this large sum would not have been paid for Kakirawa and Te Awa-a-te-atua. The meeting strongly objects to the return of Mr. Sutton as member for the Europeans at Napier, to succeed Sir D. McLean. The Maoris of Hawke's Bay will put no faith in the actions of a man who has been the means of their suffering such evils; and the meeting says that Mr. Sutton's words in Parliament should not be listened to, and that members from all other places should try to discover the reason why such a man as Mr. Sutton is allowed to fill Sir D. McLean's seat. The meeting approves of the action of the people of Ngatahira—that is their keeping hold of it, lest Mr. Sutton should get it; and the meeting asks that neither the Parliament nor the Government should support Mr. Sutton in doing this great wrong to the Maoris under cover of the sacred name of the law (i raro o te ingoa tapu o te Ture).

… All the chiefs of the tribes are utterly to overthrow the drinking of spirituous liquors (waipiro—lit. stinking water), and the Parliament should pass an Act inflicting penalties on persons taking waipiro to Maori settlements. This meeting desires that Parliament will not put any obstacle in the way of the Maoris in reference to lands wrongly taken from them. It is better that the courts of law should decide such cases. These thoughts of all the Maoris are committed to the consideration of the Parliament of the colony…”

The Chairman of the Committee on Native Affairs reported (7th Aug., 1877), that the petition deserved careful consideration, but the committee were not prepared to—

“make specific recommendations in relation to the numerous political opinions expressed by the petitioners—that inasmuch as the petitioners threw great light upon the opinion of the natives as to the shape which should be given to legislation upon native lands, the committee would recommend that the petitions be printed… The committee desire to express its disapproval of the insertion therein of that portion of it which reflects upon the character of a member of this House, and hope that, in future, Maoris petitioning the Legislature will refrain from making such reflections.”

Such was the aspect of native affairs when at the end of the long reign of the Fox, Vogel, and Ormond party, supplemented by Atkinson and Whitaker, the reins fell into the hands of Sir G. Grey. It was believed that only the tact of Donald McLean had averted dangers which men deemed possible, if not probable. The unruly Maori had his counterpart in the low European. No traveller11

The reader may find an instance in a work written by Mr. Kennedy, a member of a Scotch family, which travelled from colony to colony in Australasia, singing the songs of “Auld Lang Syne” to gratified audiences.

could go into public places without finding that there was a section of colonists (happily in a minority) thirsting for another war in order that the weakened condition of the Maoris might lead to their extinction. But though in a minority, that section was not powerless. It could by crooked methods thwart a ministry which would not pander to it. There was another section composed of speculators, who, without any wish for war, looked upon questions of war, of right and wrong, and of the treaty of Waitangi, as trifles in comparison with the acquisition of Maori lands. Their morality was couched in their ledgers. They abominated the despatch in which Lord Stanley trampled into dust the vile image which the New Zealand Company wished to set up.

Sir G. Grey and Mr. Sheehan encountered opposition. Some Maori experts, who had followed McLean, and expected no patronage from the new government, strove to inspire Maoris with distrust of Grey and his friends. The interpreter's license of Mr. C. O. Davis, already familiar to the reader, was cancelled; and after a time Mr. Mair and his brother and Mr. Searancke were removed from office. The personal government which had been condemned in McLean was repeated, and was to be defended by Mr. Sheehan, who could not or did not assign reasons for ostracizing some whom he displaced, and was to discover that, in the instances of Mr. Davis and Major Mair, he offended men whose aid might have been potent in overtures to Tawhiao.

Amongst documents printed during 1877 was one concerning the claims of Mr. Whitaker, which had been the subject of the bill passed through the House but rejected in the Council in 1875, in spite of the efforts of Dr. Pollen, Whitaker's colleague. Mr. Murray obtained a select committee, which reported that a proposed exchange of land between Whitaker and the government was judicious, and that delays had subjected Whitaker to loss which ought to be ascertained and settled. The committee gravely stated that they had not “the means of examining the natives interested, but had taken all available evidence.” Much labour would be avoided by inquisitors if such a mode of inquiry should become the rule. The original claim was based on an alleged purchase (Maukoro) near the Piako river, by one Webster in 1839, and Sir G. Gipps’ wise edicts had rendered that transaction nugatory. Governor Fitzroy, nevertheless, made certain irregular grants of land in 1844, and Sir G. Grey's Quieting Titles Ordinance of 1849 was alleged to have invested the claims of Webster with validity. Rights under awards of the Land Claims Commissioner were purchased by Whitaker and Heale, and there were protracted negotiations to gather in the native interests. Mr. F. D. Bell, being a Commissioner under a Land Claims Settlements Act, heard the case in 1861, and made an award of 12,065 acres to Whitaker and Heale. He admitted that under Gipps’ law only 2560 acres could have been awarded, but urged that the Quieting Titles Ordinance enabled the court to validate the wrongful grants of Fitzroy. But, in 1861, it was one thing to make an award and another thing to act upon it. By the seizure of the Waitara block in 1860 Mr. Whitaker and his friends postponed the day of the gown, and he slept upon his rights. In his evidence in 1877 he plumed himself (and was congratulated) upon not having urged his claims, for fear of creating a “native difficulty.” He must, as one concerned in the “rape of the Waitara,” have smiled at the imputation of such weakness. After the war the native titles were still undealt with at the Piako, and to enable a government land-agent to purchase a tract of country, it was proposed that Whitaker should agree to exchange his Maukoro block if the government would permit him to select an equivalent elsewhere. Dr. Pollen made the bargain, but the Maoris did not wish to lose Maukoro. The land-agent told the committee that they “lived on the land, and would not” allow Mr. Whitaker to take possession … “because their ancestors and chiefs of the tribe were buried there, and they did not wish to give it up.”12

N.Z. P.P. 1877; I. 15.

Dr. Pollen was very gracious to Whitaker in 1874; but the burial-places of ancestry could hardly be wrested from the natives, and McLean might not have consented to such an act.

It was agreed that Whitaker should surrender his title, and that the government should allow him to select 14,783 acres elsewhere (Puninga) between the Piako and Waitoa rivers, of which he was to receive a Crown grant. Whitaker thought the transaction was to be completed without delay under an Act passed in 1858, but a law officer told Pollen that the Puninga block had to be paid for out of a loan raised under the Immigration and Public Works Act, and money thus devoted was inapplicable to lands selected under any scrip, and could not be awarded by way of compensation. Whitaker pleaded that a bonâ fide exchange of land was outside of the scope of the Act, but Dr. Pollen would not depart from legal advice. Then followed the Piako Land Exchange Bill, which was lost in the Council, and Whitaker complained that he was “badly treated,” but he obtained no “satisfactory answer.” He returned to Auckland and “reopened negotiations” with the Maoris, “and after the dilatory proceedings which always” attended them, arranged to give the chief the Maukoro block with a Crown title in exchange for Puninga, for which the chief was to obtain a Crown title. The latter put his case before the Land Court, but so largely had civilization encroached upon the tribal domains while he was at Maukoro that he could only prove a claim to 8000 acres. This was insufficient for Whitaker. The chief then negotiated (Whitaker deposed) “with other natives, and agreed to give them 5s. an acre, which they accepted. But the next difficulty was the money; Terapipipi declaring that he had none, and urging me to pay it, and he would repay. I advanced about £2000 for survey fees, and to buy up the outstanding claims, which was done… In the meantime Terapippi has made a selection at Maukoro, and I have had it surveyed, so that I am in a position to obtain a Crown grant on application; but I do not do so because Terapipipi wishes the Crown grant to be made in his name, which I cannot agree to till my title at Puninga is made good. Thus the matter stands at present.” Whitaker did not tell the committee whether—while the matter was thus standing—interest for monies was destroying the native inheritance, but an item in his own claims for compensation, as put before the committee on the 11th Oct., 1877, aroused the worst fears for the chief placed at his mercy: “Date, Nov. 15th, 1854. Purchaser (original), Abercrombie. Acres, 5000. Price, £2000. Date to June, 1876, 21 years 199 days. Simple interest at 10 per cent., £6309 Os. 10d Compound interest at 10 per cent., £15,609 7s. 10d.” It may be remembered that in 1873 Dr. Pollen made piteous moan for a chief who, for a small amount of survey fees (£150 or £200) was, by litigation, plundered of an estate of 30,000 acres. His mind had suffered change in 1877. When examined before the committee he was indignant. He was asked: “Did the government think it desirable to acquire this block of land which witnesses say is apparently worthless, and to give up this Puninga block, part of which, we are told, was sold at £1 an acre by Mr. Whitaker before he acquired it?” He replied: “That is a question you can hardly expect me to answer. I think it is exceedingly undesirable that, as chairman, you should put such a question to me. I expect courtesy at least, and not to be accused of dishonesty. My hands are infinitely cleaner of native land dealings than yours are.” “My honour (retorted the chairman), “as a gentleman, in dealing with native lands, has never been impugned. What actuated the government in making this exchange?” Dr. Pollen could give no explanation. Asked why Whitaker had been allowed “to acquire 4000 acres in addition to the 14,000 he was to get from the natives,” he replied, “I cannot say.” Yet he was able to say, “I think Mr. Whitaker has reason to complain that the agreement made with him by me, on the part of the government, has not been carried out.” Writers of fiction have drawn terrible pictures of the rapidity with which the human mind can slide down an inclined plane. Yet surely nothing more lamentable has been seen than the conversion of the Pollen of 1863 and 1873 into the apologist of 1877.13

Supra, pp. 52, 54, 55.

The picture has been necessary to show the condition of the colony. The state of the Maoris cannot be estimated without a knowledge of the arts of those by whom they were pursued, in the attorney's office, in the camp, and in council; and last, not least, where “waipiro” was brought to oppress them.

When the Parliament of New Zealand assembled in July, 1878, the Governor congratulated it on the friendly relations which Sir G. Grey and Mr. Sheehan had established with “the leading chiefs” of the Waikato and Ngatimaniapoto tribes. He added: “The question of the survey and settlement of the west coast of this island has been firmly taken in hand, and the immediate survey of the Waimate Plains has been ordered.” By what obliquity of judgment the Grey ministry were led to announce so peremptorily the survey of the Waimate Plains it is difficult to understand. All men knew that McLean had guaranteed possession to Maoris who might return to the land. Nor did their claims rest only on his words and the concurrence of the government. A proclamation of peace, issued on the same day (2nd Sept., 1865) as that of confiscation, had announced—“the Governor (Sir G. Grey), will at once restore considerable quantities to those of the natives who wish to settle down upon their lands, to hold them under Crown grants, and to live under the protection of the law. For this purpose commissioners will be sent forthwith, … who will put the natives who may desire it upon lands at once…” The words “forthwith” and “at once” had indeed been neglected, but Donald McLean had so completely recognized the right of the returned Maoris to the confiscated lands, that in 1875 he had negotiated for the purchase from them of 185,000 acres,

West Coast Commission, second report, 14th July, 1880.—N. Z. P. P., 1880; G. 2. A. A return (N.Z. P.P. 1879: A. 8, A.) showed that on the 10th July, 1879, “sums of money paid to natives within the confiscated block on deeds of conveyance to the Crown” were £54,412, on 434,702 acres.

and full information of the conveyances to the government was regularly given to Parliament. His arrangements for acquisition of land by purchase (within the confiscated block) “with the good will of the natives,” were reported to and approved by the Secretary of State.15

Supra, p. 39.

His system, if that could be called system which depended so much upon the blank charter entrusted to him, was to invite all natives to return, to promise them undisturbed occupation of lands which they might settle upon, to purchase from those who claimed, under awards of the Lands Compensation Court, land at the rate of £1 an acre, and to rid himself of the general rights of the tribe over particular areas by compensation not exceeding 5s. an acre. This rate, defined in 1872, was in 1876 raised by him to 7s. 6d. an acre, and the formal instructions which empowered the Civil Commissioner so to raise it dwelt especially on the fact that it was most important to secure for settlement the valuable plains between Waingongoro and Stoney river. Of those plains the Waimate were esteemed the most precious. The Civil Commissioner, Major Brown, encountered opposition in surveying the Waingongoro river, but negotiated successfully for several blocks to the south of that river. Added to former acquisitions by his predecessor, the concessions thus purchased within the confiscated boundary were 363,000 acres. In 1877 he reported that after finishing “south of the Waingongoro” he proposed to cross that river and settle the question of the Waimate Plains. At that date Dr. Pollen was Native Minister, and Major Atkinson was Premier. The method pursued by Major Brown and others was called bribery by some persons and gratuity by others. Its native name was takoha, or “spread abroad,” but some of it was dispensed secretly. A portion he paid publicly to buy up the tribal rights, and a portion (Brown said) was “to cover the mana of the chiefs, which was privately paid.16

West Coast Commission Report.—The Commissioners, Sir W. Fox and Sir F. D. Bell, remarked on this statement: “As described by the Civil Commissioner in his evidence it was nothing but secret bribery.” The Commissioners extracted from Brown the manner in which he paid public money to Titokowaru. They also ascertained it from the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs, who told them that but for the discoveries of the Commission it would not have been known that £2000, represented to the Audit Office as paid to certain natives by Major Brown, had not been paid to them, but devoted to purposes “not disclosed to the audit.”

To acquire the Waimate Plains large sums were disbursed, but he deposed (March, 1880) that he had gained nothing by his largesse. In 1878 he charged, to his Waimate Plains “takoha” account, £1000, which he had paid to a Ngatiawa chief to defray the cost of a feast at the Waitara, and he pleaded that Mr. Sheehan, the then Native Minister, considered such a charge justifiable although the native feasters were of the Ngatiawa tribe, and the Waimate Plains were the inheritance of the Ngatiruanui. Nor was this all. Close to the Waimate Plains was Titokowaru. He was solicited by Brown, and consented, to receive “takoha” for his “mana” over the Waimate Plains which was unquestionable. But when a voucher containing his name was seen at the Audit Office, it was returned “with the intimation (Brown testified) that no expenditure of public money to that individual could be passed.” Brown was told to pay the money to the public account. He was equal to the occasion. Titokowaru's original name was Kohi Rangatira, and he was afterwards christened Hohepa. In the war he had taken the name of Titokowaru. An Under-Secretary suggested to Brown that he “had better get the voucher signed in some other name.” Ever since (quoth Brown) Titokowaru has “signed as Hohepa and Kohi Rangatira, either jointly or separately.”

In the end of 1876 Brown, pleading that he had been so instructed by Sir D. McLean, abandoned his practice of procuring deeds of cession, and relied upon “takoha,” which he said was given as “compensation for former rights previous to the land becoming Crown land through confiscation.” On Donald McLean's resignation the Native Department under Dr. Pollen continued the practice of bribing certain natives to surrender rights which, by the proclamation of 2nd Sept., 1865, the government professed to have confiscated, but which from 1872 to 1876 they purchased under deeds of cession. In 1877 Major Brown prepared, under order from the Atkinson ministry, to survey the Waimate Plains. Sir G. Grey formed his ministry in Oct., and the Maoris at Waimate objected to the survey of the plains, though Brown reported that