– 148 –

Chapter xii.
State of the Maoris.

The early history of New Zealand is a story of the relations between the Maoris and the English. They form the current which carried with it the hopes and the fears of the visitors, the suspicions and resentment of the tribes. A faithful narrative, in order to depict the fortunes of the colony, must busy itself mainly with the administration of native affairs. On the eve of the struggle—provoked so often and so long by the cupidity of a section of the English, and courted by the wilder and more savage among the Maoris—it is good to ascertain the relative forces which could be brought into the field. Though the Maoris were outnumbered by the invaders of their soil they claim first notice. In 1858 they were estimated at 56,049, of whom 31,667 were males and 24,303 were females. In the North Island there were nearly 30,000 males and nearly 23,000 females. The total Maori population in the Middle Island was 2283, in Stewart's Island and Ruapuke 200, at the Chatham Islands 510. In 1864 the number was known to be much diminished. Dr. Thomson, the historian of 1859, had after careful inquiry on the spot added his mournful testimony to the rapid decrease of the Maoris. Inattention to the sick; infanticide; sterility; new habits; new diseases; intermarriage with relations—were the causes he assigned. All but the first and second had fallen upon the race after their intercourse with the Europeans. Four thousand were victims to the outbreak of measles in the North Island in 1854. The musket was supposed to have destroyed 20,000 lives in tribal wars. After contact with Europeans a practice of steeping decaying grain, and making it apparently fit for food, was believed by many persons to have been fatal to thousands. Dr. Thomson

– 149 –

attributed the decay of the race principally to marriage of blood-connections. Yet about a score of generations after colonizing the islands with 1000 souls, the Maoris had multiplied to more than 100,000, and it was after intrusion of foreigners that in twenty years they declined from that number to less than 60,000. Mr. Maning assigns a more potent cause for a decrease so sudden as to outrun all possible rate attainable by reason of intermarriage of blood-connections. He observed that a second plague followed the use of the musket, and swept away more victims than the first. The ancient weapons were powerless against the inmates of pahs built on precipitous hill-tops; and in selecting safe situations, the Maoris had chosen healthy ones. Day and night free air coursed over habitations placed beyond reach of exhalations from marshes. Troops of the dwellers therein descended to their cultivation fields, with club or spear in one hand, and an agricultural implement in the other. The women followed. In the evening the women led the way home, and the men kept that which was the post of danger in case of attack.

When the crops were growing the tribe or hapu would often wander to some fortified elevation near a river or sea, and obtain variety of food by fishing. Their growing crops were deemed safe even from enemies. When the musket became the principal weapon a change came over the scene. To avoid the toil and loss of time incurred in the long procession from hill-top to field, and the carrying of fuel, provisions and water, the Maoris, relying on their new weapon, transferred their “whares” or abodes from the airy eminence to the damp fields below. They built their oven-like houses in mere swamps, spongy even in summer-time. With rushes rotting underneath them; in low dens, heated like ovens at night and dripping with damp in the day, drinking noxious exhalations in unventilated artificial caves, they were cut off in thousands. They would take no advice. They could not see the devouring enemy, and would not believe Europeans who warned them.

“Twenty years ago, a hapu, in number just forty persons, removed their ‘kainga’ (village or head-quarters) from a dry healthy position to the edge of a ‘raupo’ (bulrush) swamp. I happened to be at the place a short time after the removal, and with me there was a medical gentleman who was travelling

– 150 –

through the country. In creeping into one of the houses, the chief's, through the low door, I was obliged to put both my hands to the ground; they both sank into the swampy soil, making holes which immediately filled with water. The chief and his family were lying on the ground on rushes, and a fire was burning, which made the little den, not in the highest place more than five feet high, feel like an oven. I called the attention of my friend to the state of this place called a ‘house.’ He merely said, ‘Men cannot live here.’ Eight years from that day the whole hapu were extinct, but, as I remember, two persons were shot for bewitching them and causing their deaths.”¹ The drinking of ardent spirits, the bane of European countries, claimed its victims. The king-maker and his friends endeavoured to bar the poison from their territories, but the dissolute and debauched evaded the prohibition. Europeans did not always assist Waharoa's efforts. Bishop Selwyn confessed the shame with which he sometimes saw the demoralizing effect of remitting the chivalrous chief to scenes and company likely to lead to his ruin. It was not possible that an imaginative and thoughtful race should see these things without despair. It was natural that a daring race should say—” Rather let us die in battle for our country than pine away, the slaves of the Pakeha.” Proud also and boastful,—admitted by speakers in the Assembly to have been undefeated if not successful in the Taranaki war—they might in some cases be fooled by the idea that they could drive the Pakeha into the sea, in spite of their having only fowling-pieces or muskets to oppose to rifles, rockets, Armstrong guns, and powerful mortars, and of ammunition being difficult to procure for the weapons they possessed. The superstition which doomed sorcerers to destruction because the dwellers in a marsh had died, was prompted to some deed of daring before the swarms of immigrating Englishmen might make all daring vain. But the English were already swarming. The early massacre at Wairau and the failure of the company's schemes had arrested immigration in old time; but it had been resumed. It is difficult even for misgovernment to arrest the material advancement of a young community. The resolution of the individual Englishman, who, though he grumbles with or

– 151 –

without cause, yet works to make himself a home, had conquered natural obstacles; and farms, agricultural and pastoral, had been pushed by slow degrees farther and farther from the several provincial capitals. Taranaki was an exception. In a memorial (April, 1863) the settlers bitterly complained that after 1844 no more than 70,000 acres had been secured by purchase. Even from these they had been driven; and the settlement was, in the Assembly and elsewhere, spoken of as for the time destroyed. But at the Middle Island the tide of immigration had been such that in 1863 more English stood on Maori land than there had ever been Maoris. On the 31st December, 1860, the whites were estimated at 83,919 in the islands. In December, 1861, they were deemed to be 99,021. In December, 1862, there were 125,812. In December, 1863, there were 164,048. And still the yellow slave of commerce drew shoals of gold-seekers to Otago.

In June, 1861, after various minor discoveries, the first redundant gold-field had been found by one Gabriel Read at Tuapeka. The first escort from “Gabriel's Gulley,” as the thronging miners christened the place, took away 5056 ounces of gold. Not only from the Northern Island and other parts of New Zealand crowds rushed to the spot. The Australian colonies caught the infection; the restless element at the populous gold-fields in Victoria cast itself loose from a soil to which it had never intended to attach itself, and exhausted all available means of procuring conveyance to Otago. For a short time it seemed that the adventurers had been drawn thither by a will-o'-the-wisp. They were too numerous for the known gold-bearing situations. The weather was colder than any they had encountered in Australia. A panic disturbed them and they began to fly. The Superintendent of the province issued a proclamation in September, 1861, warning intending miners not to make matters worse by rash immigration. In midwinter (July) there had been a retreat so rapid that only 7000 persons were supposed to be left at the mines. More than 16,000 returned to Australia. At the end of that month two men produced, in Dunedin, 1047 ounces of gold, and offered to divulge the spot where they had found this treasure if the Government would guarantee them a reward of £2000 if within three months 16,000 ounces should be brought down by the

– 152 –

escort. The bargain was made; and the Dunstan Gold Fields on the Clutha river were no sooner made known than the vagrant crowd returned. Before the end of the year 70,000 ounces of gold were obtained from the neighbourhood of the Clutha river. More fields were found at the valley of the Cardrona, and in the gorges of the Arrow river. At the Shotover river some miners were found at work by a Maori, Haeroa, and a half-caste, natives of the North Island. On the west bank of the river was a point which the miners yearned to examine; but they shrunk from the foaming torrent between. The Maoris plunged in and reached the coveted shore. A dog which attempted to follow them was swept to a rocky point below. One of them went to assist the dog, and observed gold in the crevices of the rocks. Before nightfall the two swimmers had scraped together 300 ounces of gold. The small province of Southland, under influences which had magnified Otago, increased its population from 1876 in 1861, to 8085 in 1864. In the Middle Island, which thus opened its maw to receive the coming thousands, there was no risk of Maori attacks. Never in that island, except at the Wairau in 1843, had there been collision between the two races; and the Maori champions then were Rauparaha and Rangihaeata, whose ordinary residences were in the North Island. The fertile plains of which the New Zealand Company had endeavoured to rob them with the policeman's staff was now the rich possession of a new province—Marlborough—carved in 1859 out of the original province of Nelson. The population of Marlborough had risen from 2299 in 1861, to 5519 in 1864. At Nelson, after the loss of Marlborough, the Europeans had increased from 9952 in 1861, to 11,910 in 1864. In Canterbury progress had been steady. The population had risen from 8967 in 1858, to 32,276 in 1864. At Wellington in the same period it had advanced from 11,753 to 14,987. Hawke's Bay in the same time had grown from 1514 to 3770. About 4000 Europeans were cooped up in Taranaki. Auckland, the capital, had steadily advanced. Though not so populous as the gold-producing Otago, its numbers had increased from 24,420 in 1861, to 42,132 in 1864. Everywhere except at Taranaki enclosures and agriculture had rapidly increased. The total of acres enclosed was 409,763 in

– 153 –

1861, and in 1864 it was 1,072,383. Including sown grasses the acres under crop had been 226,219 in 1861; they were 382,655 in 1864. But all this progress availed the war-party nothing, so long as the Maori sat in his king's gate. Yet the decay of the Maoris might have satisfied their enemies. There were not 50,000 of them, while the Europeans were more than three times as many. But nearly all the Maoris were in the North Island, in which they formed nearly two-fifths of the whole population. Many tribes were friendly, but it was not known how many would join the standard of the Maori king. That there would be, as in fact there were, large numbers of the natives fighting on the side of the English might be hoped, but could not be predicted with certainty. The causes which had so rapidly created a numerical preponderance of Europeans in the islands involved momentous financial considerations. Armies must be paid for, and wages had risen. Any highly-paid occupation absorbs labour to itself, and employers in danger of being deserted have to compete in price with temptations offered elsewhere. This maxim, true everywhere, is strained to the extremest verge when the glittering bait of gold, for mere grubbing, is the distracting magnet. The greed of the gambler is associated with honourable toil, and the measure of wages is unsettled by the quality of hope. The man who of all men in New Zealand had the most subtle brain for comprehending problems in political economy at this time passed away. The mover of so many puppets in his prime, he had become, like Swift, capable only of wondering at his former achievements. Secluded in ill-health, Gibbon Wakefield, long absent from the scenes of his activity, died at Wellington in 1862.

The Ministry, in a careful document, laid before Sir George Grey at Taranaki, in May, 1863, had urged that the pay of the militia there (2s. 6d. a day with rations) was not too high, because “the ordinary wages of labour of the simplest kind, such as working on roads, was 8s. a day at that time at Nelson and Canterbury.” Under such circumstances the cost of an army was an apparition which might well disturb even a bold financier. Already two Waikato regiments had been raised in Australia. A third was in course of formation. Before the meeting of the Assembly the Ministers drew up a

– 154 –

voluminous description of their plans (5th October, 1863). Roads were to be made. The road from Auckland to Taupo was to pass through the heart of Waikato. About 1000 miles of roadways were proposed. The war was to be the last. “No opportunity of renewing it with any chance of success must be left.” Twenty thousand men would be required. Half of them would be wanted “from Waikato Mouth and Raglan to Tauranga and Thames.” The rest were to be located in bands of 1000 or 2000 at Taranaki and elsewhere. Two thousand were to go to Wanganui, where Dr. Featherston had been adjured by the chiefs to let no soldiers appear. They were to be imported to work on the roads, but to be armed with Enfield rifles. They would cost the country about £1,500,000 if they worked for nine months in the year on the roads. They would cost somewhat less if paid as militia. The scheme, with sundry accompaniments, would cost about £4,000,000. The money ought not to be raised by immediate taxation. It must be borrowed. Confiscated lands would be sufficient security. It was an ancient Maori custom for a chief to gloat over conquest of lands. The Romans gave away territories beforehand.

That there was a treaty of Waitangi in existence was a parchment bug-bear. The recollection of it had faded. It was not wanted to interfere, like Banquo's ghost, with the feast. There were, in the Waikato and Thames district, 2,292,000 acres; at Taranaki, 500,000 acres, = 2,792,000 acres. Let them be seized. Let the natives, if any be left at Waikato after the war, have 500,000 acres of their own lands. One hundred thousand acres would suffice for the Taranaki Maoris. Military settlers would have 500,000 at Waikato, and 200,000 at Taranaki. There would remain 1,492,000 acres to be sold, and they would realize more than £2,000,000. Increasing revenue would yield profits in the long run, even without taking into account the influx of prosperity attendant on expenditure of so many millions sterling. They hoped for a guarantee from the Imperial Government for, at least, £3,800,000 out of the £4,000,000. “It may be objected that these plans are based solely on the idea of force; and it is true that physical power is the main element of the conception.” But the Ministry could only rear moral sway on a basis of physical power. “The axe and the fire are wanted,”

– 155 –

they said, “before the plough and the seed-corn.” Mr. Domett signed the paper on behalf of his colleagues. It was laid on the table of the House. It must have intensified the hostility of the Maoris. It may have been one of the early causes of a general feeling which by degrees spread amongst Her Majesty's regular forces, that the war was sought, not as a necessary act of justice, but as a means of spoliation, and a stimulant of the expenditure which enriches traders. Debt never had horrors for the colonists. Under Mr. Stafford, in 1856 and 1860, the Assembly had raised £650,000; under Mr. Domett, in 1862, £500,000 more. The Provincial Governments had raised for various purposes no less than £2,454,239. Mr. Domett and his colleagues hoped, in 1863, to drown the new debt by spoliation; for they valued the land of which they intended to rob the Maoris at little less than the proposed loan. The Representatives lost no time in devoting themselves to the amendment of the Colonial Defence Force Act of 1862. They postponed their acceptance of responsibility for native affairs.

Several fresh members were added to the Council. Among them was Major G. S. Whitmore. When the Council met there was no representative of the Government in it. Mr. Swainson, the Attorney-General of former days, called attention to the fact by moving (22nd October), “That this Council do not proceed to any business of serious importance until there be a representative of the Government in the Council, and that it do now adjourn.” Subsequently, a member informed the Council that in consequence of pending changes in the Ministry, no representative of the Government had been appointed in the Council, but that, as soon as changes had been completed, no time would be lost in making an appointment. Mr. Swainson was not silenced by this promise. He gave notice of a motion, casting grave censure on the Government for neglecting to secure the presence of one of their number in the Council. On the 29th, the Council was informed that the Ministry had resigned. Mr. Swainson withdrew his motion; and on the 2nd November, Mr. Whitaker announced that Mr. Fox had formed a Ministry, of which Mr. Whitaker was Premier and Attorney-General, representing the Government in the Council. An old colleague of Mr.C. W. Richmond, and a traitor to the treaty of Waitangi, he had found

– 156 –

convenient colleagues. Mr. Reader Wood as Treasurer, and Mr. Thomas Russell as Minister of Defence, retained their offices in the new Ministry, which was considered a war Ministry, and by its conduct justified the belief.

An Act was passed to enable Provincial Legislatures to pass laws authorizing the compulsory taking of land for works of a public nature. This was a repetition of the scheme arrested in 1862 by the warning of Mr. Fenton, the reference to England, and the exceptional prudence of the Duke of Newcastle. Mr. Whitaker called no special attention to it. It was to remove doubts which had been suggested. Mr. Cardwell saw the contemplated injustice, and declined to advise allowance of the Bill unless native lands were excepted from its operation.¹ A Bill was passed by the Representatives to raise £3,000,000 sterling by loan, for the vigorous prosecution of the war. Mr. Fox took charge of the Colonial Defence Bill introduced by Mr. Domett, and on the 5th November carried the second reading of a Suppression of Rebellion Bill by the large majority of 26 against 10. Amongst the minority was the name of a new adventurer in New Zealand politics. Mr. Julius Vogel, having kept a small shop at a rural township in Australia, had taken flight with the migration to Otago. Having talent for intrigue, and sufficient literary ability for the local press, he obtained a position in the Provincial Government, and was elected to the Assembly for the district of Dunedin and suburbs north. Those who saw him enter the House would probably have repelled with scorn the idea that he would afterwards become their leader. Mr. Weld was not present at the commencement of the session, but took an early opportunity to protest against the Suppression of Rebellion Bill as “quite unnecessary and unconstitutional.” It was a singular spectacle. The admirer of Mr.C. W. Richmond, the supporter of the rape of the Waitara, was compelled to denounce the injustice and harshness of Mr. Fox, by whom that rape had been opposed. Mr. Whitaker shone with baleful but consistent lustre. In 1860, as in 1863, he was Minister, and urged on each occasion the measures which were alternately shrunk from by Mr. Fox and Air. Weld.

After amendment by the Legislative Council, the Suppression

– 157 –

of Rebellion Bill was passed. The same fate attended a Defence Bill. The Defence Bill of the former year had elicited an opinion from the law officers (Sir W. Atherton and Sir Roundell Palmer) in England as to the powers of the Legislative Council. They were “of opinion, that if in a Bill introduced into the House of Representatives and passed through that House, a certain tax or duty has been imposed upon a Crown grant, or an instrument in the nature of a Crown grant, it is competent to the Legislative Council, without any breach of the privileges of the House of Representatives, to make the efficacy for any given purpose of another class of instruments, intended to affect native lands under the provision of the same Bill, dependent upon their assuming the form of Crown grants, or of those instruments in the nature of Crown grants, on which the tax or duty has been so imposed by the House of Representatives.” They said it was never supposed in England that the privilege of the Commons as to originating taxation was attended with such a consequence as that the Commons could, by imposing a tax or duty on an instrument, exclude the other House from the power of originating or amending Bills relating to such instruments. But the suppositions known to jurists are not those of clutchers at unconstitutional control; and elsewhere as well as in New Zealand, members of parliament have contended, not for what custom or law could justify, but for all that could by argument or intimidation be extorted.

The Suppression of Rebellion Bill might have seemed sufficient violation of justice for one session. The Governor in Council, with Whitaker and Fox, might issue orders for the arrest of all “suspected” persons, and try them by court-martial. Death or penal servitude gleamed ominously amid the words of the Act. Nothing done under it was to be questionable in the Supreme Court, and to prevent the law so dear to Englishmen from being recurred to by a Maori, it was to be sufficient for the Governor to declare that anything done had been done in accordance with the Orders made under the Act. The bulwark of the Habeas Corpus statute was destroyed by a clause declaring that a writ under it should be satisfactorily met by a return that the body sought was held under the local Act. Indemnity was given for all unlawful things already done,

– 158 –

The reader who gasps for freedom is doubtfully consoled only by the clause which limited the duration of the disgraceful Act to the end of the next session of the Assembly. But something more than the taking of life has been shown to be at the bottom of Maori troubles. As at Taranaki, so at Waikato, Mr. Whitaker's mind was bent upon acquiring land. The land for which the settler lusted, the land to which the Maoris clung, was to be acquired, not by troublesome bargains, but by confiscation. For this purpose “The New Zealand Settlements Bill, 1863,” was introduced. Its preamble declared that, for prevention of rebellion, and to maintain “law and order throughout the colony,” settlers must be procured “able to protect themselves and preserve the peace of the country.” To obtain land for them the Governor in Council might declare any district in which “any native tribe, or section of a tribe (after 1st January, 1863), or any considerable number thereof, had been engaged in rebellion,” a district within the provisions of the Act. Within such district the Governor in Council might from time to time seize upon lands for settlement. Compensation might be awarded to owners, excepting such as had levied war after 1st January, 1863, or those who had comforted such warring owners, or “counselled, advised, induced, enticed, persuaded, or conspired with any person” to levy war, or who had been ‘concerned in any outrage against person or property,” or who, after proclamation in the Government Gazette, failed to surrender their arms. As suspected owners might be hanged under the Suppression of Rebellion Act, the compensation provided by the Settlements Act could be kept down to a low rate; but the astute Whitaker devised a mode of defeating the operation of the compensation clause. It was provided that no claim should be entertained unless preferred in writing to the Colonial Secretary within six months (if the claimant were residing in the colony) after proclamation of his land by the Governor under the Act. Under restrictions which all men knew to be destructive of the principle of compensation, the proud Maori might obtain such compensation as the robbers of his country might choose to award him through new Compensation Courts. The Governor in Council was to appoint the Judges of the Compensation Court, and in flagrant violation of principles which had become part of the life of Eng-

– 159 –

land, it was enacted that he should also have power at any time to remove any Judge. Thus an upright Judge could be got rid of, if his decisions should thwart the wills of Whitaker and Fox.

The New Zealand Settlements Act was a fit complement to that for suppression of rebellion. Robbery was to be sanctioned by law. It devolved upon Mr. Whitaker to prepare an official defence of the prostitution of the power of a Government for the purpose of pillage. In a paper to be submitted to an English Secretary of State, he said, that as, for the most part, Maoris possessed “little personal property,” the “permanent loss of their lauded possessions” was that which they would feel the most. Of love of country his black-letter intelligence took no heed. Comment cannot heighten the criminality of his advice. The following sentences gibbet their writer: “It will be observed that the provisions of the Act may be made to include lands belonging to persons who have not justly forfeited their rights by rebellion. In order to carry out the scheme this is absolutely necessary.… The New Zealand native tenure of land is, for the most part, in fact with little or no exception, tribal; and if the principle were admitted that the loyalty or neutrality of a few individuals would preserve the lands of the tribe, the Act would, for the most part, be a dead letter, and that in districts in which it is most required, and in which its operation would be perfectly just.” He who runs may read in these words an absolute condemnation of that Act by which Colonel Browne, abetted by Whitaker and others, attempted to set aside in 1860, with a high hand, that tribal tenure of the existence of which Whitaker was aware, and which he was fain to plead as an excuse for wholesale robbery in 1863.

Sir George Grey did not reprobate his adviser's immorality. Professing his trust that he could infuse some spirit of equity into the administration of the Acts, he recommended their allowance. If the weak Duke of Newcastle had remained at the helm they might have been simply allowed. But the good Sir William Martin drew up a paper “on the proposal to take native lands under an Act of the Assembly,” and sent it to Mr. Fox, with a request that it might be transmitted to the Secretary of State. Mr. Fox complied, and sent his own comments. He was unshaken in his resolution to abandon the sentiments he had professed in 1860. If the North Island was to be held by

– 160 –

the English, confiscation must take place. There was nothing unjust or “unusual in the history of national conflicts” in it, and it was “in conformity with the customs of the Maoris themselves.”… To allow “natives, rebel or others, to retain possession of immense tracts of land, that they neither use nor allow others to use, and which maintains them in a state of isolation from the European race and its progressive civilization,” was “most prejudicial to the natives,” and contributed “to the rapid decay and extinction of the race.” Sir George Grey, for reasons which he did not state, avoided comment on Mr. Fox's paper. He equivocally justified the invasion of the Waikato territory, which Sir W. Martin's paper seemed to condemn, but hinted that Sir W. Martin's views “would probably agree with” his own on the point. In recommending the Acts for allowance by Her Majesty, he declared his own belief that generosity in dealing with rebels had been more successful than severity in the past. It is but just to Mr. Sewell to record that, in a letter to Lord Lyttleton¹ (December, 1863), he animadverted severely upon the Suppression of Rebellion and the Settlements Bills. The first purported to make that law which is in itself a “violation of all law.” The second had all the vices of the worst ex post, facto legislation, and was a breach of Imperial and moral obligations.

An Assembly with an over-weening sense of its importance, was likely to resent Sir George Grey's decision to renounce as unjust the Waitara purchase which the Representatives had condoned. It had endorsed Richmond's and Governor Browne's repeated and positive assertions that Teira's title had been fully proved and found good. On the 28th October a petition from Teira and his friends was presented by Mr. Atkinson. It expressed loyalty to the Queen, and a desire that the Waitara block might be taken by the Pakehas. On the 11th November, Mr. Stafford moved for correspondence about the return of Te Rangitake to Waitara in 1848. Mr. Weld, as an admirer of Mr.C. W. Richmond, obtained on the 24th an order for other papers relating to Waitara. On the 17th November, Mr. Fitzgerald obtained leave to introduce a Bill to constitute a High Court of Inquiry on the events at Waitara. On the 25th November, the

– 161 –

storm, such as it was, broke on the Governor's head. A recent success at Rangiriri under General Cameron diminished its force. At a crisis where, if ever, united councils were needed, it was more important with some members to adhere to an old injustice than to give loyal support to the representative of the Queen. On Mr. Weld's motion it was resolved: “That this House having supported the measures taken by his Excellency the late Governor of New Zealand to repress the armed interference of Te Rangitake¹ at Waitara, because, as set forth in its resolution of August 6th, 1860, in the opinion of this House such measures were indispensable for the due maintenance of Her Majesty's authority, considers that the renewed and definite recognition by his Grace the Duke of Newcastle in his despatch of August 25th, 1863, of the justice of exerting military force against Te Rangitake and his allies, has happily rendered it unnecessary for this House to controvert or supplement statements made by his Excellency Sir George Grey in his despatches on the Waitara question.” A second resolution declared that good faith required that Teira should be protected, and investigation made of title to the block. The Governor was requested on the 1st December to transmit the resolutions to the Secretary of State. The insolence of the first resolution did not provoke him to a rash rejoinder, and the courtesy of Mr. Weld's speech was such as to justify moderation in reply. On the 2nd December, Sir G. Grey informed the House by message that his statements had been “made advisedly, and after long consideration,” and that he was satisfied of their entire accuracy. He trusted, therefore, that the House would inform him which of those statements it was prepared to controvert, and the grounds on which it did so, in order that he might have an opportunity of showing the accuracy of his statements, when transmitting to England the resolutions of the House.

On the 3rd December, Mr. Fox moved for a Select Committee to report on the Governor's message. Mr. Weld moved an amendment in which a long citation from the Duke of Newcastle's despatch was adroitly put forward as sufficient answer to the Governor. The debate was adjourned. On the 5th, Mr.

– 162 –

Weld was allowed to withdraw his amendment in favour of one moved by Mr. Gillies, viz.: “That this House, in supporting the measures of Governor Browne, did so on the ground that the quarrel between the Governor and Te Rangitake was clearly not as to title to land, but as to whether the course taken by him was justifiable, and the resort to arms by him and his allies in defence of that course compatible with the Queen's sovereignty. That, on the other hand, it appears to this House that the tenor of his Excellency's despatches on the Waitara question leads to the inference that the quarrel was one as to land and not as to jurisdiction and sovereignty. That this House adheres to its former opinions, and controverts the accuracy of the various statements by which it appears that his Excellency has been led to take an opposite view, and especially those statements which are referred to in the Duke of New-castle's despatch of 25th August, 1863.” In reply, the Governor transmitted copies of the statements alluded to in the despatch, and requested the House to be good enough to inform him whether they were the statements alluded to by the House; and if not, which were the statements controverted by the House, and on what grounds they controverted them.

The House read Mr. Fitzgerald's Waitara Inquiry Bill a second time on the day on which the Governor's message was received, and a third time on the following day. Mr. Fox, before the passing of the Bill, laid on the table the Governor's reply to the despatch of the Duke of Newcastle, which had furnished so rankling a subject for debate. Appended to the Governor's despatch was a memorandum, “which” (he had said) “if your Grace thinks fit to read, will, I am sure, satisfy you.” It was irrefragable, both as to the wrong-headed conclusions of Colonel Browne's advisers, and the equally perverse decisions of the Duke of Newcastle.

How prone the Representatives had been in 1860 as well as in 1863 to make assertions incapable of proof was now shown by Mr. Stafford's conduct. Unable to refute Sir George Grey he was obliged to move, and the House passed without a division, a resolution (11th December): “That this House did not, by its resolutions of the 25th November last, desire to express any opinion as to the accuracy or otherwise of the three statements

– 163 –

specified in the enclosure to the Governor's message, inasmuch as those statements do not appear to affect the question of the justice of exerting military force against Te Rangitake and his allies; but this House does controvert the statements on the part of the natives as to the cause of the quarrel.” The field of argument which could not be maintained with the Governor was abandoned, and the challenge to the natives was not likely to be accepted when they were already engaged in the bloody arbitrament of war.

Mr. Dillon Bell assailed Sir George Grey in the House. He denied that the fact of Te Rangitake's residence on the Waitara block could have been “not before known” to Sir George Grey. Mr. Bell lamely pleaded that he in 1860 thought that Te Rangitake's dwellings had been respected, and Donald McLean made a similar untrustworthy averment.¹ Colonel Browne was privately appealed to, and wrote to Mr. Stafford that he was aware in 1860 that Te Rangitake had a residence on the block. Such a confession was all that was required to convict him of bad faith in signing the despatch (4th December, 1860), which was framed to persuade the Secretary of State that Te Rangitake's claim was only seignorial, and that he had put forward none other. On the charge that the discovery of Lieutenant Bates could have afforded him no information, Sir

– 164 –

George Grey informed the Secretary of State (19th December, 1863) that he had been hospitably entertained at the Waitara in 1850, but he did not know, and it would have been sad to think, that such was the site bought by Colonel Browne—to screen whom, he added, “I ought therefore to mention that though I am quite satisfied from authority I cannot doubt that, although my predecessor's despatch (on which reliance seemed to be placed in England) was really written by Mr. Bell, he was at the time he wrote it entirely ignorant of the circumstances connected with the Waitara purchase which have recently been brought under your Grace's notice.” In conveying (5th January, 1864) a full narrative of the transactions in Parliament, the Governor added: “When I received the closing resolutions from both Houses, and felt that the only answer I could return was, that after the most careful consideration of the subject my conviction was that the natives were in the main right in their allegations regarding the Waitara purchase, I feared if this reply was published at the present time, when a rebellion is raging, it might have produced weighty consequences as regards the native race, and might have very much embarrassed the Colonial Ministry who did not at all agree upon this subject. I therefore thought I should act best by requesting my Ministers to advise me as to the nature of the reply I should return, and in accordance with their advice I assented to their simply making a statement in each House to the effect that they had advised me that in their opinion it was not necessary for me to reply to the resolutions.” A more lame and impotent conclusion was probably never arrived at by a representative of the Queen under advice. The subterfuges and misrepresentations of McLean and Parris, the wily seductions of Whitaker and Richmond, the bold contempt of truth in Governor Browne's prompted despatches, were pointed out by the honest examination of Lieutenant Bates, but exposure was arrested by the aversion of the General Assembly to confess the wrong it had sanctioned in 1860. It remained for a judicial inquiry in a later year (1866) to scatter finally to the winds the flimsy pretext that the title of Teira enabled him to sell to Colonel Browne the “carefully chosen” seed-plot of war. By a singular retribution that inquiry was instituted (while Mr. Stafford was Premier) with no intention to

– 165 –

analyze the rights of Te Rangitake, which were found irrefragable. Perverse to the last, the Ministry, by privately compounding the matter before the Court, evaded the delivery of a formal judgment; but happily the facts became known under the hands of the Judges in official reports to the Government. As late as 1869 a further judicial inquiry (on the Rangitikei-Manawatu case) proved that even if Te Rangitake had had no tribal claims to the south of the Waitara previously, his occupation there by tribal arrangement constituted himself and his companions “owners according to Maori usage and custom.” It may be admitted that until the scales of justice were applied, Colonel Browne and his advisers could not know how grossly the treaty of Waitangi was violated by his act at the Waitara. But their ignorance confers no moral relief; for the prayer of Te Waharoa, of Bishop Selwyn, of Sir W. Martin, and Archdeacon Hadfield, was that the law might be resorted to, and their prayer was roughly refused.

One of Colonel Browne's advisers had in 1863 quitted the political arena. Mr.C. W. Richmond had become a Judge of the Supreme Court. But he was unable to keep aloof from the Waitara question in which he had such bad eminence. In October he asked his old colleague, Stafford, to make known to one or both Houses his willingness to submit to any further investigation. He wrote to Sir George Grey: “I have taken this step in consequence of certain statements in your Excellency's recently-published despatch announcing your determination to relinquish the position assumed by your Excellency's predecessor in reference to the Waitara purchase.” As to the new evidence elicited, and doubts whether Governor Browne knew the true facts of the case—whether indeed they had been concealed or kept back from him—Mr. Richmond said: “I see no reason to suppose that your Excellency's suspicions point particularly to myself… nevertheless I find that it has appeared to others as well as to myself that your Excellency's surmises may be deemed to point at or include myself, as I then held the position of Minister for Native Affairs.” Therefore he courted inquiry and volunteered explanation in the colony or to the Imperial Government. He was not accused. By coming forward at such a time he seemed to accuse himself. Prima est

– 166 –

hœc ultio, quod, se judice, nemo nocens absolvitur.¹ The Governor sent the letter to England, where its receipt was simply acknowledged. To prove that Governor Browne, or Mr.C. W. Richmond, or both, had been deceived, was of little use. The wrong they had done was past recall, and no one accused them of other than official wrong-doing. The historian must inculpate them with mingled regret for the culprits and for their countrymen, and pity for their fellow-creatures whom they wronged. Resolutions carried in the Legislative Council (4th December, 1863) were similar to the resolution of the Representatives, with the exception that the Council thought it “happily unnecessary further to discuss the Waitara question,” and did not speak of controverting the Governor's statements. When the Governor's last despatch on the subject was laid before the Council, an attempt was made by Mr. Swainson to express the regret of the Council that a document which might have influenced their decision was unknown to them when asked to vote on the 4th December. Mr. Whitaker opposed Mr. Swainson, whose motion was lost by 6 votes against 4. Mr. Gilfillan, who had supported Mr. Swainson, was immediately permitted, however, to quash the Waitara Inquiry Commission Bill, by shelving it in Committee for three months. Members may have seen an incongruity in inquiring about the justice of the Waitara war of 1860, while the war of 1863, its direct result, was being prosecuted with vigour. In the North Island nearly all males were enrolled. On the 5th November, it was resolved that the provisions of the Militia Act should be strictly carried out in the Middle Island, till the whole male population between the ages of sixteen and fifty-five, not exempted by law, were organized and drilled.

The ambiguous manner in which the Representatives had received the invitation to manage native affairs was removed on the 6th November. The change was brought about by military success. The Governor having received sanction from England (and in a qualified sense from the Assembly), and more than 2000 armed men having been raised in Australia under Colonel Pitt for the Waikato regiments, the General advanced towards the stronghold where the Maoris were assembled at Mĕrĕ-mĕrĕ. Skirmishing bodies were abroad, and on the 23rd an officer

– 167 –

commanding the English outposts at Mauku (near Manukau and far in rear of General Cameron) was compelled by a large body of natives to retire with loss of an officer and five men killed. Reinforcements arrived, but the enemy escaped. Rewi and his guerillas had the reputation of instigating the numerous raids made at this period in the Hunua forest (between Auckland and the Waikato river) through which the unclothed Maori glided with an ease unattainable by encumbered soldiers. On the 29th October, General Cameron, with Commander Wiseman, reconnoitred Mere-mere. Two 40-pounder Armstrong guns had been previously landed at Whangamarino to command the landing-place at Mere-mere. That stronghold was on a low ridge which approached the Waikato river. Traversed rifle-pits occupied the descent of the ridge to the river. Swamps almost encircled the ridge, and the Whangamarino and Maramarua rivers, or creeks, were available to the east for the possible retreat always aimed at by Maoris in their plans of fortification. The swamps were more water-laden than usual. The Maori flag floated in a pah where the ridge was 130 feet high. Every slope and projection from the ridge to the swamps was traversed with rifle-pits. Growth of scrub-pine and scrub, from six to ten feet high, was interspersed with the surrounding swamps. There was a horse-track leading by a spur of the ridge towards Rangiriri about twelve miles higher up on the right bank of the Waikato river, but swamps and curving hollows with swampy bottoms made all tracks sinuous. The General and Commodore found no convenient place for the landing of troops. The Maoris fired at the steamer, the ‘Pioneer.’ By immense exertion they had dragged a gun from the west coast to the Waikato. The resistance to be expected from the nature of the defences led the General to proceed up the river as far as Rangiriri in search of a point at which troops might be landed to turn the enemy's position, while attention was occupied in front by the steamer and gunboats. A point six miles above Mere-mere was selected. Secretly, at half-past two o'clock on the morning of the 31st August, the ‘Pioneer’ and ‘Avon,’ with four gunboats, transported a force nearly 700 strong to the place. No opposition was made, and the troops took up what the General called a commanding position about 400 yards from the

– 168 –

bank of the river. He intended to take up an additional force on the following night, and a breastwork was constructed to defend the camp, which was left under command of Colonel Mould. What the General supposed the Maoris were doing while he was sending hundreds of soldiers to the north of them, his despatches do not tell. He does say that, while he was busy with his preparations, the officer in command at Whangamarino reported that the natives were escaping in canoes by the Whangamarino and Maramarua rivers. He embarked at once in the ‘Pioneer,’ and found that Mere-mere was abandoned.

Mr. Fox in his narrative bewails the catastrophe. “Our troops appear to have been able to do nothing except look on from a distance.… It was a great disappointment to everybody.” Nevertheless, though the Maoris left only empty rifle-pits behind them, they seemed to have admitted their inability to cope with the troops, and Mr. Fox lost no time in moving (6th November) a resolution pledging the Representatives to accept the control of native affairs. It was far more absolute and binding than the proposition which he failed to carry in the previous year, and which led to his retirement. But he carried the stronger resolution without division. The cause of the change in the opinions of the House may be read in the terms of the resolution. Imperial troops had won colonial affection. Having considered the Duke of Newcastle's fixed determination not to control native affairs, the House recognized with the deepest gratitude the great interest always taken by the Queen in “the welfare of all races of her subjects, and the thoroughly efficient aid which Her Majesty's Imperial Government is now affording for the suppression of the rebellion unhappily existing, and the establishment of law and order in the colony. And, relying on the cordial co-operation of the Imperial Government for the future, cheerfully accepts the responsibility thus placed upon the colonists, and at the same time records its firm determination to use its best endeavours to secure a sound and lasting peace, to do justice impartially to both races of Her Majesty's subjects, and to promote the civilization and welfare of all classes of the inhabitants of these islands.” The Council on the 9th November adopted similar resolutions. It must be confessed that the vain efforts which the House made soon afterwards to

– 169 –

strangle the truth with regard to the seizure of land at Waitara formed an unhappy commentary on these professions. The address was promptly transmitted to England and acknowledged with great pleasure by the Secretary of State. The pledge to accept responsibility was no sooner made than it was repented, and by some sought to be evaded. In many contemporary writings and speeches it was spoken of as a “fatal acquiescence.”

The session did not close without a notable triumph for the war-party. The Maoris after evacuating Mere-mere occupied Rangiriri, higher up the river than their former position. The Waikare lake was there separated only by a narrow belt from the river, and numerous swamps and ana-branches facilitated the use of canoes. The Maoris had constructed their main line of entrenchment “across the isthmus which divided the river from the lake.” The line had a double ditch and high parapet, and was “strengthened in the centre by a square redoubt of very formidable construction. Behind the left centre of the main line, and at right angles to it, there was an entrenched line of rifle-pits parallel to the Waikato river, and obstructing the advance of troops from that direction.”¹ The General reconnoitred on the 18th, and resolved to land a force above the position “with a view of turning and gaining possession of a ridge 500 yards behind the main entrenchment, and thus intercepting the retreat of the enemy.” Three hundred of the 40th Regiment were embarked in the ‘Pioneer’ and ‘Avon.’ They were to land at a selected point on a preconcerted signal. The wind and currents delayed their movements. The number of the Maoris was thought to be between 400 and 500. The total British force was about 1300. The enemy's position was shelled till nearly five o'clock. Armstrong 12-pounders on land aided the fire from gunboats. The General was weary of waiting for the preconcerted signal of the landing of the men of the 40th Regiment sent to the rear by water, and he ordered an assault, which was gallantly executed. The entrenchment was scaled, the line of rifle-pits facing the Waikato was forced, and the Maoris were driven to their centre redoubt, which they “defended with desperate resolution,” behind a parapet 21 feet high. At this time the General saw that the 40th had

– 170 –

occupied the ridge in the rear, and were pouring a heavy fire on a body of the enemy who fled by the Waikare swamp. Two assaults on the centre redoubt were made separately by 36 of the Royal Artillery, and by 90 seamen, armed in each case with revolvers. Both were driven back with loss; and hand-grenades were vainly thrown into the work to dislodge the besieged. It was then growing dark, and satisfied with his position, in which he said “the troops almost completely enveloped the enemy,” the General resolved to wait till daylight. The force under the Commodore endeavoured to prevent an escape to the Waikare lake. Shortly after daylight the Maoris hoisted a flag of surrender. One hundred and eighty-three men and two women became prisoners of war. The General was unable to ascertain what had been the original force, or what was the loss of the natives. “Their wounded must have been removed in the night, as there were none among the prisoners.” Thirty-six dead Maoris were found and buried, and it was believed that numbers were drowned or shot at the Waikare swamp. The General's despatches gave a return of 39 English killed, and 89 wounded. Amongst the dead was Captain Mercer who led the Royal Artillery in their desperate assault on the redoubt. When he fell in a position exposed to the fire of Maoris and of English, Te Oriori risked his own life in carrying him to a place of safety within the pah. It had been supposed that the king and the king-maker were in the camp; but they were not among the prisoners. A native afterwards said that the king-maker and others escaped between the Waikare swamp and the river to the south of the redoubt, in which case they must have passed almost through the English lines. A letter from the king-maker on the 4th December, asserted that 36 escaped by swimming across the Waikare lake. Many, including women, were drowned. Among the prisoners were many important chiefs.

Mr. Gundry, interpreter, in his report to the Native Minister, mentioned a fact which found no place in the General's despatches, but which marks the true nobility of English soldiery. Far from thirsting for the blood of the gallant foes who had rent their ranks so fearfully the evening before, they respected the courage with which, under a storm of shot and shell, that

– 171 –

small band of men had defended their ramparts. The simple narrative of the interpreter must make every Englishman proud of his countrymen. “A Maori came forward with a white flag, when the soldiers sprang in amongst them, and commenced shaking hands with the Maoris. Soon after, the General came, and ordered them to give up their arms and he would treat them well as prisoners because of their brave conduct.… Te Wheoro accompanied the General from Mere-mere to Rangiriri, and was very useful as a guide.” On the morning of the surrender the king-maker approached with a large party of Maoris with a flag of truce. The interpreter found the leader inclined to surrender, but his followers unwilling. The king-maker sent his “mere,” a weapon of green-stone, but the General could not tell whether it was in token of peace. General Cameron wrote: “I hope the prisoners will be treated generously, for every one must admire the gallant manner in which they defended their position to the last.” The captives proposed to make peace, but the General told them the Governor only could arrange it. They wrote to the king-maker to urge the tribes to make peace, and abandon the “mana” of the island. One of the chiefs who had escaped wrote to the Governor soliciting the release of the prisoners. “Let it suffice for you—the men who are dead. Return to us those who live.” He was told by Mr. Fox that the Governor could make no terms till their arms were laid down. The chiefs wrote again to the Governor. He answered (6th December): “Your letter has reached me. Sons, my words to you are these. The General must go uninterrupted to Ngaruawahia; the flag of the Queen must be hoisted there. Then I will talk to you.”

On the 3rd December, Wiremu te Wheoro went from the General to Ngaruawahia. As he approached he was greeted with firing on both sides of the road. He reached the house of Matutaera, and the chiefs said, “Come and see your fallen tribe and your broken canoe.” In like figurative words he addressed them and recommended peace. The king-maker was sent for from Tamahere. There was a council. They said, “If we give up the guns we shall perhaps be made prisoners.” The Ngatimaniapoto were about to cut down the flagstaff. “Waikato would not allow them. The quarrel was great.

– 172 –

Both sides fired without aiming. Then Tamati Ngapora, Mohi te Ahiatengu, Patara te Tuhi, and the king-maker, gave the flagstaff to me, Wiremu te Wheoro, with these words: ‘Wiremu, we give over this flagstaff to you, with those buried here and at Ngaruawahia, for you to give over to the General and to the Governor. Especially let not the remains of the dead be ill-treated by the soldiers.’”¹

It cannot be asserted that this act of submission would, if wisely received, have terminated wars in New Zealand. It is plain that it was not wisely availed of by the Governor and his advisers. At Rangiriri was found a proclamation by the Maori king, dated 3rd October. It called for one-fifth of the tribes of the island to assemble as warriors at Ngaruawahia. It commanded them not to despoil the slain of their clothes; but “guns, powder, bullets, copper caps, cartouch-boxes, watches, money, rings, hats,—these take.” Such spoil was to be “brought to one heap,” and marked with the name of the depositor and the king's seal. The arms and ammunition would be given back to the captor, the other property was to be “left alone till the end, when his own will be restored to each man.” How far this summons had been obeyed no European could tell. The General had crossed the Waikato frontier more than two months before it was issued.

To the letter from the captive chiefs the king-maker replied ambiguously on the 4th December. He was unable to fulfil their word, to make peace. “We have not yet taken breath, both on account of your (ma-te) misfortune, and on account of the enemy constantly driving us from place to place. We are quite out of breath. What we have done, since you left, is to think over your word and continually retire; as the steamer moves this way we move also.” The steamer ‘Pioneer’ moved with an important freight. The General, the Commodore, and 500 men were with her. The Governor detained the English mail for twenty-four hours, to announce the occupation of Ngaruawahia on the 8th December, and the establishment of head-quarters at the rebel capital. The Maoris had evacuated it, taking with them the bones of Potatau, their first king. In

– 173 –

a few days the success of the Thames expeditionary force, 900 strong, was assured by establishing military posts from the firth of the Thames to the river Waikato. Near Paparata Colonel Carey built a redoubt on a hill, which, commanding a view of the Queen's Redoubt at Te Ia, of the Waikare lake and of the firth of the Thames, enabled him to establish a system of telegraphs. An exploit of Captain Jackson, of the Forest Rangers, at Paparata, attracted attention in December. Smoke was observed on Sunday morning, and a stealthy advance was made. The voice of a Maori leading the devotions was heard, and the approach of the Rangers was unnoticed. At thirty yards' distance a volley was poured upon the congregation, and the assailants rushed up to finish their work with revolvers. “The panic was intense. One man stood upright, without making an effort to escape or defend himself, and was shot down. Another was wounded in the shoulder by Smith; the native fired at him in return, but missed; he then clubbed his double-barrelled gun, and struck at Smith, who parried the blow and closed with the native. Although the Maori was wounded, he would have proved match enough in this hand-to-hand struggle, but for Ensign Westrupp, who came to the relief of his man, and shot the native in the head; he fell, but again rose to his legs, when another man blew his brains out. This was the only instance of resistance, except a few shots which did no harm. Four of the Maoris were left dead on the field, and several wounded men were carried away, principally by the women of the party. There was an order given not to fire at any of the women.” Such was the account in a newspaper, which regretted that the fugitives were not followed and punished more severely; but “on the whole (thought) a highly successful affair had occurred to enliven the monotony of the war, and this time it is entirely by civilians.” It transpired that women had not been spared, and the commander admitted that one woman was wounded. The Rev. R. Taylor in his ‘New Zealand, past, present, and future,’ singled out Jackson's Sunday performance as one which ought to make the colonists blush.

The readiness of the Maoris to discuss their plans showed how utterly they had been defeated. They had intended to operate, in guerilla bands, upon the rear of the General's forces.

– 174 –

From the Thames to Manukau, and especially in the Hunua forest, they had hoped to harass their invaders. They had not believed that supplies for a large invading force could be depended upon, but were disappointed. The destruction of the war-party at the Wairoa river, in September, had signally foiled their schemes on the General's left rear, and when the redoubt was constructed near Paparata, and the road through the Hunua forest to Maungatawhiri was held by efficient detachments armed with rifles, the inefficiently-armed Maoris were powerless for offence. The Parliament unanimously thanked the General, the Commodore, and Major-General Galloway, the commander of the colonial forces.¹

A serious question had occasioned much debate in both Houses. The remoteness of Auckland from many populous parts of the Middle Island had always obstructed members in attending the General Assembly, and was an obstacle to communication with the General Government. It was resolved in the Lower House that the seat of Government should be transferred to a suitable locality in Cook's Straits, the selection of the site being left to an impartial tribunal. After opposition the motion was carried. On the 25th, in spite of vigorous efforts by Mr. Stafford, it was resolved, by 24 votes against 17, to ask the Governor to seek the aid of the Australian Governments in selecting impartial Commissioners to choose the site. The Governor expressed his willingness to comply with the address, but further debate was raised on the question of providing funds, which were nevertheless voted, on the 4th December, by 23 votes against 11. A similar motion was carried in the Legislative Council by 11 votes against 8; Mr. Whitaker, the Premier, being in the minority, although his colleague, Mr. Fox, had voted with the majority in the House of Representatives. The early project of Gibbon Wakefield's friends was thus resumed after many years, for it would hardly be doubted that Wellington would be chosen as the most suitable position in the Straits. To compel a removal from Auckland, the Representatives

– 175 –

resolved that if proper accommodation should not have been made at the seat of Government, it would be expedient that the Assembly should hold its next sitting at Christchurch.

During the session a subject which had in former years aroused the Legislature of the colony of Victoria was brought before the Assembly. As in Victoria, so in New Zealand, the gold-fields drew crowds of harpies from the criminal classes in Tasmania, the last gathering-ground for English convicts in the south-eastern group of Australian colonies. After discussion, disallowance, and difference, the Victorian Convicts Prevention Act found a home in the statute-book. In Otago the vultures which prey upon their honester fellow-creatures hovered so thickly that Major Richardson, the Superintendent, emitted a piteous cry. Criminals of desperate character were setting in like a tide, which, if not arrested, would “inevitably make the province one vast penal settlement.” In 1861 and 1862 the Provincial Council passed ordinances to prevent influx of criminals. They were severally disallowed by the Governor, the opinion of the Judges being taken as to their repugnance to law and to the Constitution. A similar Bill was passed by the House of Representatives in 1863; was carried, by a majority of four on its second reading, in the Council; but was, on the motion of Mr. Swainson, ordered to be “read a third time this day six months.” The Ministry urged that an Imperial Act should be passed, either to meet the evil, or to empower the Assembly to do that of which, in the opinion of the Judges, they were then incapable. Mr. Cardwell replied that as the Government “did not advise the disallowance of the Act passed to prevent the entrance into Victoria of persons formerly sentenced to transportation in the United Kingdom, but whose sentences had expired, so neither would they now advise the disallowance of a similar Act if passed by the New Zealand Legislature. They would, however, see the passing of such an Act with regret, and they certainly would not advise that Parliament should be invited to pass a law for the express purpose of enabling a Colonial Legislature to enact a provision so little in accordance with Imperial policy, and which, in the opinion of their own Judges, is not called for by any proved necessity.” On the 14th December the session closed. The Governor gave the Royal assent to the Suppression

– 176 –

of Rebellion Act, the New Zealand Settlement Act, and a Loan Act for three millions sterling. The members were dismissed in triumph to their homes, with the Governor's thanks for their liberality, and an assurance that the unusual powers granted to the Executive in a time of great public danger should be used so as to encroach as little as possible on the ordinary domain of law. They had provided in their Loan Act for a reduction of interest on so much of the loan as the Imperial Government might guarantee, and Mr. Reader Wood, the Treasurer, sailed in January to advocate the interests of the colony in England. Among the Acts reserved for the Queen's pleasure was one “to enable Provincial Legislatures to pass laws authorizing the compulsory taking of land for works of a public nature.” Mr. Whitaker was determined to effect the object in which he had previously been thwarted by the decision of the Secretary of State. By the Constitution of New Zealand, as in Australia, power was reserved to the Crown to disallow a Bill (although assented to by the Governor) within two years after the receipt of the Bill by the Secretary of State. Mr. Whitaker, at the close of the session, protested against the exercise of this power of disallowance with regard to the Rebellion and Settlement Act. His main plea was that native land tenure “was with little or no exception tribal,” and if lands of a tribe could be preserved because loyal occupants were incapable of eviction, the Act would be for the most part a dead letter. Already 3000 men had taken military service with the hope of obtaining land, and it was intended to enrol 20,000. Difficulties in the way of confiscation would be intolerable. Such was Mr. Whitaker's argument in 1864. A more elastic construer of rights and powers can hardly have held office as Her Majesty's Attorney-General amongst the numerous dependencies of the Crown, nor one who, under the guise of quiet simplicity, affected to be ignorant of guile until concealment became no longer possible. The tribal rights he had advised the ignorant Governor Browne to reject as baseless, at Waitara, could scarcely be denied before the learned Governor Grey. Their existence was therefore made a plea for a larger measure of confiscation than any but special enactment could permit, though it could not justify. Some of those who supported the ministerial measures had misgivings. Mr. Weld

– 177 –

protested against them as unconstitutional and tyrannical. Mr. J. C. L. Richardson, who became a Minister at a later period, recorded the fact “that the doubtful supporters of the Ministry of Mr. Fox gave a hesitating and timid adhesion to the Bills,” savouring, as they did, of the “darkest periods of English legislation.”¹ Sir George Grey told the Secretary of State that, of the two modes of dealing with subjects after rebellion, generosity would generally be found most successful; and that, in New Zealand, generosity has so far prospered that former enemies, who might have inflicted serious injury in 1863, had not only refrained from joining the rebels, but had volunteered to aid the English. But the same policy could not now be relied upon. The belief of large numbers of Maoris that a new principle was to be established in procuring land, and dealing with the natives generally, had bred distrust in the Government, and the successes at Taranaki in 1860 had em-boldened the young men of the tribes which had acquired arms and ammunition in great quantities. It was needful now to inflict punishment by taking land. But, recognizing the wisdom of a large generosity to the defeated, he would not carry the system too far. Magnanimity was not a virtue which abounded in New Zealand Ministries, and the want of it was to breed endless confusion. Yet a warning was received in January. In November, 1863, the Duke of Newcastle, while acquiescing generally in the seizure of lands from rebels, deprecated such wholesale confiscations as would lead the Maoris to believe that land-grasping was the motive for war. Even friendly tribes might thus be shaken in their allegiance, and wider and more desperate struggles might ensue. Her Majesty's Government would view with gravest apprehension a policy which might intensify the spirit of disaffection.

Timely words were lost on the dull surface of Mr. Whitaker's sensibility. He had little to say except that he had no apprehension that confiscation could not be confined within proper limits, and that the General Assembly would disapprove undue extension. The careful ‘Observations on the proposal to take native lands under an Act of the Assembly,’ drawn up by Sir

– 178 –

William Martin in November, 1863, were sent by Sir George Grey in January, 1864, to the Secretary of State with the ‘Memorandum’ by Mr. Fox, already mentioned as contending for confiscation on the grounds of necessity, of justice, and the interests of the Maoris, who were possessed of too much land for their own good. It is noteworthy that Fox took up a different position from that of Whitaker. Whether he hoped to be believed may be doubted. He wrote: “The Government proposes to confiscate (that is, to take without compensation) no lands except those of which the owners have been engaged in open rebellion, or actually aiding and abetting it by overt acts.” He denied the existence of that for which Whitaker pleaded as absolutely essential. He concluded his paper with a declaration that “Mere technical difficulties (if there be any, such as govern feudal liability to forfeiture, or the necessity of conferring political franchise, which is alleged to be a condition precedent to the right to enforce submission to law), however interesting as abstract questions for discussion, cannot be entertained by a Government on which the responsibility rests of saving to the British Crown a dependency in imminent peril, and preventing for the future the renewal of a similar crisis.”¹ To Sir William Martin's remonstrance that the Government ought to discriminate between the various sections of the Waikato tribes—the loyal and disloyal—Mr. Fox replied not a word. Sweeping confiscation was the long-coveted remedy for the woes of colonists who deplored the recognition of Maori rights by the Queen. They would undo by proclamation what she had sanctioned by solemn treaty. Whitaker's reasoning,— that the rebellious could not be properly punished if the rights of the loyal were respected,—furnishes an explanation of the silence of Fox. Sir William Martin's paper, written by him with a “feeling of sorrow, if not of shame,” remained unanswered by the Ministry, and received unworthy treatment at the hands of Sir George Grey. He, who well knew that the crossing of the Maungatawhiri was a declaration, and an act, of war,

– 179 –

was not ashamed to urge that it was an act of self-protection. He could not answer Sir W. Martin, and he was too prudent to resort to the hollow immorality of Mr. Fox. He insidiously said (with regard to the invasion of Waikato): “I say this, not in answer to Sir W. Martin's views, which would probably agree with my own on this point, but because I fear that his remarks might, as they stand, be misunderstood by persons at a distance.” He did his best to cause them to be misunderstood, lest the injustice of confiscating the goods of loyal subjects should be perceived in England, and the Waikato campaign should be marred. One thing he had the grace to avoid. He did not adopt the ethics of Whitaker and Fox; nor did he comment upon them. Anise and cummin his advisers could supply. The weightier matters of righteousness and mercy were beyond their ken. The law they worshipped was not like the ancient Themis, offspring of heaven and earth. It was altogether of the earth, earthy, and was centred in a craving for Maori land. The law to which Sir William Martin appealed, whose “seat is in the bosom of God, whose voice the harmony of the world, to which”¹ all things in heaven and earth do homage, “the very least as feeling her care, and the greatest not exempted from her power; both angels and men and creatures of what condition soever, though each in different sort and manner, yet all with uniform consent, admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy”—such a law was unfitted for the designs of the heirs of the rapacious crew whom Lord Stanley had abashed, when, for the credit of the English name, he conveyed to New Zealand the commands of the Queen. They ruled, however, in New Zealand in 1864, and the majority of the increasing population, ignorant (as Sir W. Martin admitted) of Maori history and rights, and therefore comparatively guiltless, were hurried by their leaders into acts of crime.² The

– 180 –

Governor's disingenuousness did not improve his position, which was, without doubt, difficult. Mr. Fox had been his ancient enemy, and had gone to England to assail him in former years. There was still some animosity.

The Ministry in various ways showed jealousy of the Governor's ability and knowledge of Maori character. It was revealed in characteristic and trivial ways, which made the course of affairs a maze of pettiness, encumbering hundreds of pages in the New Zealand blue-books. A few specimens are necessary to explain the state of affairs. It will be remembered that the rebels had been told that the Governor could only talk to them when the Queen's flag had been hoisted at the rebel capital. When the General reported the occupation of Ngaruawahia on the 8th December, his Ministers urged Grey to go thither with them and promulgate terms of peace. Those terms were discussed at great length. Surrender of arms, oath of allegiance, confiscation of all the land of rebels, followed by restitution to each man of a limited portion, so that his family might not starve,—prosecution of all murderers—were the main points. The Ministry insisted on going with the Governor. He thought it better to go alone. They would not yield, and he did not go with them. A notice, 16th December, was sent to the chiefs telling them that their reluctance to give up arms lest they should be made prisoners (as reported by Te Wheoro), was needless, for that none of them should be molested, except actual murderers. No act of war would be punished. If they wanted to know more of the Governor's intentions, he would receive a deputation in Auckland, treat it kindly, and allow it to return in peace. They must decide quickly, for the General would not stay his advance. Mr. Fox, in his account of the war, condemns the Governor for inability to make up his mind about going to Ngaruawahia; but a memorandum furnished by Sir G. Grey to his Ministers on the 18th December, at their request, explains his proceedings in a different manner. For a Governor, with the General and his Ministers, to make overtures and fail, would injure his position in the eyes of Europeans and of Maoris. The natives ought to make overtures to him. Either the Governor ought to be with the General, making no overtures to the natives, but on the spot if they should choose to make them to him;—or, if his

– 181 –

advisers preferred another course, they might be with the General ready to receive overtures. On the 19th December, Mr. Whitaker summed up a reply in the words: “Most of the cogent reasons given by his Excellency against his going with some of his Ministers appear to them equally cogent against either party going without the other.” Mr. Fox declares that it was unfortunate that the Governor¹ did not go with his Ministry, and that his refusal led to his being charged by the natives with breach of faith and responsibility for further war. He even says that the king-maker positively asserted, that if the Governor had gone to Ngaruawahia peace would have been made. But the king-maker's letter which Mr. Fox quotes makes no such assertion. It declares, on the contrary, that if the war had been allowed to stop at Rangiriri—if the proposals of the prisoners had been accepted by the English—there would have been peace. But neither the Governor nor his Ministry agreed to the captives' suggestions, though the king-maker wrote at the time that it was not proper for him to carry on war while his imprisoned friends were proposing peace.

As early as in December, 1863, there was a feeling that the Governor might be unwilling to confiscate lands so sweepingly as his Ministers might demand. On the 17th, he showed them a draft of a despatch to the Secretary of State, asking whether it was wished that he should assent to any advice from his responsible advisers; or whether the English Government proposed to issue any instructions. Pending the receipt of instructions he would act on his own judgment. Judging from the tone of the press, some persons desired—not that land should be confiscated as an example and check upon rebellion,—”but that a magnificent and extensive territory might be thrown open to any amount of prosperous colonization.” Mr. Whitaker and his colleagues demurred to the despatch, and reserved their rights “as Ministers responsible to the General Assembly and

– 182 –

the colony.” After exchange of minutes, in the course of which Mr. Whitaker “feared that the conclusion was inevitable that the views of the Governor and his Ministers differed essentially as to the practice of responsible government,” the document was not sent to England, and Mr. Cardwell in due time furnished the Governor with instructions on the subject matter of the cancelled despatch.

The ceremony of handing the king's flagstaff to Te Wheoro bore no fruit. The wrangling of the Ministry with the Governor neutralized the tender of submission.

The advance of the Queen's troops made peace impossible. It was ascertained afterwards that the Maoris on no occasion had more than 2000 men in arms throughout the island. They had never more than 600 men assembled at one place during the war, and they were too wary to oppose them in the open field to far larger numbers aided by superior weapons. Rifle-pits and concealment were their defences. Thus they might hope that their assailants might be brought within the short range of their guns. Retreat from fortress to fortress was their plan of operation as General Cameron marched forward. To the General, meanwhile, looking round for strategic advantages, and heedless of national rights, it occurred that it would be wise to conquer the Tauranga district on the east coast. The Maoris to the east of the harbour were comparatively friendly. On the west the Ministry said they were decided enemies. Some had been to the war; some were preparing to go. Their crops were ready to be gathered. The loss of them would be a heavy blow. Writing on the 19th January, the Ministry said it was already publicly known that the expedition was contemplated, and to delay it would be considered a proof of weakness. The Governor yielded with professed reluctance, feeling that “under the present form of government” he ought to comply with the demands of his advisers. Again, therefore, an expedition was undertaken which could only be accepted as a token that the Government raised quarrels in order to seize upon lands.

It was believed that in 1863 as in 1860 the warlike youth of Tauranga had swelled the ranks of men in arms against the Queen. It was also true that the king-maker had much influ-

– 183 –

ence over the Maoris between the east coast and the waters of the Thames. Nevertheless, though the man who looked only from a military standpoint might be excused for favouring such a marauding expedition, the Civil Government, charged with equal care of both races, in recommending the expedition, were worse than pirates, for pirates have not sworn to do right to those whom they rob. The Civil Commissioner at Tauranga had furnished a return of the warriors supposed to have gone to the Waikato district to help the king. From the east side of Tauranga, 30 out of an adult population of 212; from the west, out of 542 no less than 260 were said to have gone. Over them the king-maker's influence was great. Mr. Whitaker drew up (19th January) short instructions for the Colonel (Carey) in command. One sentence was: “The crops and cattle and other property of the natives on the west side should be taken possession of and the crops gathered in.” Mr. T. H. Smith, the Civil Commissioner, waited on Colonel Carey on the 22nd. Before doing so he had intimated to the Maoris in conformity with the exact words of a memorandum from Mr. Fox (the Native Minister), “that the object of the expedition is to act as a check on the movements of the Waikato sympathizers, but that unless forced upon them, active hostilities are not contemplated, and in any case will be only carried on against open rebels.” Shocked at the variance between these words and the instructions given to Colonel Carey, Mr. Smith by words, and in writing, entreated him to stay his hand till the Government could be consulted. Ruthlessly to seize the property of the innocent would rouse peaceful tribes to take arms against the Queen. Colonel Carey waited while Mr. Smith's appeal was sent to Mr. Fox. On the 25th, two letters from Auckland were sent to Mr. Smith. The Governor wrote privately: “Colonel Carey sent me a copy of your letter to him regarding the error I had fallen into, in issuing such instructions as I did for treating all the natives on the western side of the harbour of Tauranga as enemies, seizing their crops, cattle, &c. I feel very much obliged to you for the fearless and honourable way in which you did your duty on this occasion, thereby preventing me from being the cause of bringing much misery upon many innocent people.” The other letter, from Fox, was sevenfold more lengthy,

– 184 –

and upbraided Mr. Smith for circulating the former instructions among the natives. If the Government had desired their circulation Mr. Smith would have been told. “As you have acted entirely without instruction, the responsibility must rest solely with yourself.” Mr. Smith's humane conduct appeared inconsistent with his verbal statements to Ministers in Auckland about the hostility of the tribes, and he was ordered to explain it. Sir George Grey (25th January) took prompt measures. He thanked Colonel Carey for staying his hand as to ravages, and told him to undertake no aggressive movement. If possible he was to intercept armed parties passing by the Tauranga route to join the natives in arms in the interior. Most civilians are as unfit to control military events as children are to be trusted with gunpowder; and when thwarted in mischief will like children complain. Mr. Smith furnished a satisfactory explanation, but Fox and Whitaker were discontented. They roundly rated the just officer for interfering to save the property of the innocent. At a later date (3rd February) in a memorandum on responsible government they complained of the Governor's “correspondence with their subordinate officer Mr. Smith.”

On the course to be adopted with regard to the Maori prisoners, Mr. Dillon Bell had, on the 1st December, 1863, moved in the House that it was important that the policy of the Government should be announced. The Ministry were unprepared to make any statement and the motion lapsed, although seconded by Mr. Weld in a few words in which he expressed his opinion that though technically the prisoners were rebels, morally they were not, and ought to be treated neither with maudlin philanthropy nor with “vengeance and hostility.” The Ministry soon showed that they were incapable of generous discrimination. Retained for some weeks on board of H.M.S. ‘Curaçoa,’ the Rangiriri prisoners were after the 24th December confined in the hulk ‘Marion,’ moored under the guns of a man-of-war in the Auckland harbour. Sir George Grey, on the 29th February, 1864, urged the Ministry to release on parole Te Oriori, a chief who had on numerous occasions acted nobly towards the English, and who was believed to have been wounded at Rangiriri while placing Captain Mercer in a place of safety. He had also been friendly to Mr. Gorst at Awamutu,

– 185 –

when that gentleman's life was in danger. Looking to the rank and generosity of Te Oriori, Sir George Grey thought that his release would produce an excellect effect upon the natives. After many days Mr. Fox declared that the Ministry objected to Te Oriori's release. Mr. Fox was about to visit Kaipara, and on his return “Ministers would be prepared to take the case of all the prisoners into consideration.” It was not until the 7th April that Fox could be brought to make any proposition; and then in reply “to his Excellency's request more than once repeated” the ministerial junto said, they considered the trial of the prisoners ought to take place, if at all, under the Suppression of Rebellion Act of the recent session. But as that Act had not received Royal allowance they feared to use it lest after trial the disallowance of the Act should bring about serious complications.¹ “But as his Excellency has pressed so strongly (that the course to be adopted should be considered), Ministers are prepared to surrender their own views, and acquiesce in that of his Excellency.” Let the prisoners, therefore, be tried by a military tribunal under the Act not yet allowed. Sir George Grey replied that he was not pressing that “the prisoners should be all brought to trial, but that some decision should be come to as to their future disposition.” Uncertainty was producing a bad effect upon the natives generally, many of whom thought that all the prisoners were to be put to death. Some might be tried, and others released on conditions. Moreover, he wished the trials to take place before the ordinary tribunals, and not before Courts composed of military officers. Mr. Whitaker then (19th April, 1864) took up the argument. Ministers were of opinion that all the prisoners should be tried, “and that none should at present be released,” and that the most convenient mode would be under the Suppression of Rebellion Act. Militia officers might be mingled with military in the composition of the Court.

– 186 –

Sir George Grey pointed out that already the imprisonment had lasted five months. Arms had been taken, houses and crops destroyed. The prisoners had lost the means of life. Their lands were deemed forfeit, and, though it was contemplated to give back small portions, without implements or stock the restitution would be of little worth. “In addition to these punishments it is now proposed to bring all these prisoners, without reference to degrees of guilt, or services, or conduct (prior to the disturbances), to trial before military courts for high treason, and then the trial being over to determine what their ultimate disposal shall be, keeping them however in safe custody until peace is established. The Governor much regrets that his Ministers should have rejected his earnest solicitations in favour of the chief Te Oriori. He believes that many lives would have been saved by a compliance with his request.… The course pursued in this matter has driven many natives to desperation, and has filled others, who have as yet taken no part in the rebellion, with distrust.” No captive New Zealand chief generously treated would break conditions on which he might obtain his liberty. On the whole, believing that what his responsible advisers proposed surpassed in severity any punishment which Great Britain had inflicted in like cases, he would not take upon himself the responsibility of giving effect to their advice. He appealed to them to consider his position. In England the Crown was not active in giving the absolute orders to suppress riot or rebellion. Some functionary was held responsible. In New Zealand, the Governor was compelled to issue orders to the military and naval authorities. Ostensibly the orders were his, really they were those of Ministers. Yet no doubt he would be held responsible by the Home Government if any act of his should “appear to the Government and people of England unnecessarily severe or unjust, or to have a tendency to prolong, without sufficient object, a civil war.” If he remembered at this juncture his acceptance of the resolutions of the House in August, 1862, on the ground that practically while he was in New Zealand the result would be the same, his reflections must have been bitter. Mr. Whitaker replied that the objection to release any prisoner on parole was insuperable; that Te Oriori had claims for consideration, but was infirm of purpose, and

– 187 –

could not therefore be trusted; and that Ministers had not such an exalted opinion of the parole of a New Zealand chief as the Governor had. With taunting truth the arrest and long imprisonment of Rauparaha by Sir George Grey, in 1846, was now thrown in his teeth by the men who had used his influence in obtaining troops and his administrative ability in the commencement of the war, and would make him their slave when they were presumptuous of success. As for the general question of responsibility, there were differences between the English and Colonial Government; “but if his Excellency means that responsibility for the acts of the Government in New Zealand rests with him, and not with Ministers, they feel it to be their duty respectfully to express their dissent from that view.”

A dreary correspondence of this kind was protracted for months. In vain Sir George Grey furnished a report from the interpreter serving with the forces (28th April, 1864) showing that Rewi though anxious to make peace was deterred by the treatment of the prisoners,—and distinctly complained that they had been led to believe that on giving up their arms they would be permitted to live freely within the lines of the troops. This rumour Mr. Whitaker said was not to be disregarded, but too much weight should not be attached to it. Friendly chiefs piteously entreated, but in vain, that the captives might be allowed to leave the hulk and live on shore. Sir George Grey (29th April) said that he feared the recent slaughter at Orakau, including women, might with justice be traced to the unexplained detention of the prisoners, especially of Te Oriori. He felt a serious responsibility, and dreaded a recurrence of such events. “He has done his utmost at all times to promote the views of his Ministers, and wished to show that on a point where he felt so strongly, a responsibility really rested on him, which gave him a strong claim on their consideration, which he hopes they will yet recognize.” He might as well have appealed to the timbers of the hulk in which the prisoners were immured. Mr. Whitaker, professing a desire to be compliant, regretted the difference which had arisen, but would not consent to release any one of the prisoners. Mr. Fox asserted that they were very comfortable and in excellent health in the hulk; but the principal medical officer in the colony, and the sanitary officer for the

– 188 –

troops, reported otherwise, and that the seeds of disease were being sown in the captives by reason of the unfitness of their prison. A special request was made to Mr. Fox in May for straw mattresses, in order that these prisoners of war might not be compelled to sleep upon hard boards. (In the same month the surgeon in charge reported that Te Oriori and six others should at once be removed to the shore, where with “exercise and other hygienic measures they will be allowed a fair chance of renovating their shattered constitutions.”) It was not until nearly a month after this request was made to the hard-hearted Minister that it became known to the Governor. Mr. Fox, when reminded of this concealment, roundly told Sir George Grey (June, 1864) that the Ministry only were responsible, and that it was not customary to lay before the Governor reports on “other prisoners in the various gaols of the colony.” On the 4th June, the first winter month, the sanitary officer of the troops reported that “None of the prisoners had anything to lie upon save the deck of the ship.” Such being the conduct of his Ministers it was well that Sir George Grey referred the question of principle to the Secretary of State. On the 6th April he had narrated the facts up to that date. On the 7th May he had asked that, if it were deemed necessary, he might receive commands on the subject. He wrote to the Duke of Newcastle, but that nobleman did not receive his letter. Early in 1864 the Duke's health failed, and he retired. He was succeeded in April by Mr. Cardwell. It would have been well for humanity, and might have restored the feeble statesman, if he had retired earlier, and left to the firmer grasp of Mr. Cardwell the reins which he had held to so little purpose. As it was, he died in a few months. The evil effects of his sanction of the Waitara rapine could neither die nor be forgotten.

Mr. Cardwell's decision as to the captives may be told here. To Sir George Grey's first recapitulation of his difficulties he replied (June, 1864) that he was led to conjecture that if the Ministry had concurred in a definite and generous course, evils and loss of life might have been avoided. “On this I think it necessary to observe, that while I fully recognize the general right and duty of the Colonial Government to deal with matters of native policy, properly so called, I consider that while active

– 189 –

operations are being carried on under the conduct of Her Majesty's officers, and in the main by Her Majesty's military and naval forces, it is for the Governor personally as representative of the Imperial Government to decide upon the fate of persons who are taken prisoners in the course of these military operations. And although, before adopting any such decision, I should wish you to obtain the advice, and if possible the concurrence, of the Ministers, I do not consider that concurrence indispensable. But, subject always to the positive law of the colony, I hold you entitled to determine, and I look to you for determining, whether such prisoners or any of them shall be released on parole or otherwise, or whether they shall be kept under such control as may legally be applied to them as prisoners of war, or whether they shall be handed over to the civil authorities to be dealt with as criminals. I shall therefore be fully prepared to support you, in case you should have thought it necessary, with or without the consent of your Ministers, so to deal with these prisoners as, in your opinion, the public interests may have required.” At a later date (26th July) Mr. Cardwell treated the subject at greater length. Adverting to Sir George Grey's statement that the Governor would be held responsible in England if needless severity were used, Mr. Cardwell said: “You appear to me rightly to interpret your position in the observations you have addressed to your Ministers.” On the 26th May, he had written: “I entirely anticipate that your Ministers will be animated by a just sense of the exertions and sacrifices which have already been made by the mother country, and that on colonial grounds they will be as anxious as you can be yourself to terminate the present hostilities. But it is my duty to say to you plainly that, if unfortunately their opinion should be different from your own as to the terms of peace, Her Majesty's Government expect you to act upon your own judgment, and to state to your Ministers explicitly that an army of 10,000 English troops has been placed at your disposal for objects of great Imperial, and not for the attainment of any mere local, object; that your responsibility to the Crown is paramount, and that you will not continue the expenditure of blood and treasure longer than is absolutely necessary for the establishment of a just and enduring peace.” Of these words he now

– 190 –

reminded the Governor. As to the wisdom of releasing Te Oriori, only presence on the spot could justify an opinion. Mr. Cardwell gave none. “What I do feel it my duty to say to you plainly is, that the aid of the mother country in men and money is given to the colony on the understanding that the military measures which have unhappily become necessary shall be directed by you in concert with the distinguished General in command. I shall be perfectly ready to support you in any measures which, not breaking any positive law of the colony, and after consulting with the General, you may have thought it necessary to take.” The Whitaker Ministry would not consent to the publication of these despatches in the usual prompt manner. They doubtless deplored the events which had placed in the Colonial office so clear a judgment as that of Mr. Cardwell. On the general policy to be pursued he was equally decided, and a remarkable despatch (26th April, 1864) will demand special consideration.

At the resumption of warlike operations, the state of the tribes may be summarily stated thus: Dr. Featherston, Superintendent at Wellington, visited the west coast, and found Wi Tako friendly to the English, although not severed from loyalty to the Maori king. The capture of Rangiriri was commented on with evident knowledge of the scene of operations. The chiefs “were highly pleased at the fraternizing of the soldiers with the natives at Rangiriri, with the compliment paid them by General Cameron, and the kind treatment (as they believed) the prisoners were receiving.” Dr. Featherston temporarily adjusted a dispute about land between the Ngatiapa and the Rangitane and Ngatiraukawa tribes. At the discussions the natives showed “calmness and moderation.” For a time, as far north as Wanganui, the west coast was, in February, 1864, deemed safe. In March, Colonel Warre, commanding at Taranaki, captured without loss the rebel positions at Kaitake, near Oakura, and at Au Au. “The beautiful practice of the Armstrong guns set fire to a whā-rĕ” at the very hour fixed for an advance, and availing themselves of the “fortunate accident,” under cover of the smoke assaulting parties entered the works, from which the Maoris rapidly escaped, having wounded only two soldiers by a sustained fire. In April, having employed

– 191 –

flying columns to destroy the Maori crops and cultivations, Colonel Warre reported that “every acre of cultivation was cleared within twenty miles to the south of Taranaki.” In the same month, Captain Lloyd, 57th Regiment, with a reconnoitring party of about 100 men, in the act of destroying a Maori plantation, was surprised by an ambuscade at Te Ahuahu. He and six others were killed in the retreat, and twelve were wounded. The heads of Captain Lloyd and five others were cut off and carried away. There was a rumour that this atrocity was provoked by the taking of the head of a Maori by a European for scientific purposes; but on investigation the occurrence was not proved. At the end of the month a large body of Maoris, after dancing their war-dance, attacked a redoubt at Sentry Hill. Captain Shortt, 57th Regiment, had ordered his men to sit concealed till told to fire. When the Maoris approached they were met by heavy volleys and shells from a cohorn. They fled, leaving more than thirty dead and many wounded. Only one soldier was wounded. Colonel Warre reported that the confidence shaken by the death of Captain Lloyd was entirely restored. “Our vengeance has been at least five-fold; and to show how we appreciated the desperate gallantry of the natives I sent to offer to return them their dead, but they had not the courage to send for them, and they were buried near the redoubt.”

It was noticed that in the advance of the Maoris they had halted strangely, and the reason was afterwards discovered. Sir William Martin's prediction had proved true. The faith of the perfidious Pakeha was discarded. A new creed had been coined to stir the tribes to battle and murder. The sword of the Lord and of Gideon was in their hands to smite the Pakeha and all unfaithful to the Maori king. The great day of deliverance was to be in December, 1864. The followers of the new religion were to be called Paimarire. It was called Hau Hau from the use of that sound in its ritual. It was said that when Captain Lloyd was slain, the infuriated Maoris had reverted to their national atrocity of cannibalism; and that the blood of some of the victims was drunk in savage tri