– 72 –

Chapter XVIII.
1874—1877.
Session of 1874.

Sir James Fergusson summoned the Parliament on the 3rd July, 1874. The subjects pressing for legislation were the creation and conservation of forests, and the “guarding against difficulties which might arise from continued differences of opinion between the two branches of the Legislature.” The mover of the address in the Council asserted that that body by throwing out the Provincial Loans Bill of 1873 had earned the gratitude of all thoughtful men. Dr. Pollen's bill to amend the Constitution was jejune. When the Houses differed, the Governor was to have power to summon them to a joint meeting at which the disputed measure was to be voted upon. The Representatives were 78 in number, the Council had 45 names on its roll. Constitutional questions were to be adjusted by transfer of numbers, as a man might adjust scales by taking from one and adding to the other. Dr. Pollen vainly deprecated the destruction which fell upon the bill. Mr. Waterhouse early in the session brought before the Council (9th July) the question of confiscated lands. McLean was known to wield the powers exercised by the government under the New Zealand Settlements Act. Many persons muttered that such powers ought not to be under one man's control. The envious insinuated that they might be abused, if not by direct corruption, by giving facilities for purchases by members

– 73 –

or friends of the government. Mr. Waterhouse brought no charge against the Native Minister, but urged that if the Assembly would not entrust provincial councils with control over the confiscated lands, still less should it be delegated to one person. The Council carried a motion declaring that the question ought to be regulated by Act of the Assembly and not by orders “made at the will of the government of the day.” The Governor replied that so important a subject could not be duly considered during the session, but that his advisers would consider it during the recess. Mr. Waterhouse also took up the subject of the “indebtedness of the colony.” Seventeen millions sterling, at which he computed it, might be too great a burden. The Native f Lands Act of 1873 had justified the fears of some of its opponents. Mr. Fenton, the chief judge of the Land, Court, with his brethren Messrs. Munro, Maning, Eogan, and Smith, had drawn up weighty objections to the Act. The clause which required a judge to make a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether an application accorded with the wishes of ostensible owners of land, seemed “of all things most likely to shake the confidence of the natives in the justice and impartiality of the Court (which has never hitherto been doubted); to impede its action; and to: jeopardize the peace of the country.” Moreover, the emissaries of the Maori king and others might make objections and assert claims which no judge could disregard. “Thus in process of time few claims would survive the preliminary inquiry.” They subjected the Act to careful criticism, but expressed no opinion on its general policy. The fact that they had sent a report to the government became known, but for a time Vogel refused to produce it. When it was obtained, the Committee on Native Affairs made suggestions founded on the judge's remarks. McLean adopted many suggestions, and an amending bill, in a shape which left large discretion to the judges, passed both Houses at the close of the session. One important provision was made. The concurrence of at least one native assessor with the judge was required to justify any decision or judgment. Mr. Mantell presented a petition from Maoris in favour of this provision. Under the existing law the assent of an assessor was not necessary. “We ask you to amend

– 74 –

this, so that the assessor or assessors may have authority, when in court, equal to that of the European judges. Let no one be greater or less than the other, lest the judgment be wrong.”

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

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

“The investment of £1 a year in creating forests would,” he said (14th July), “in thirty-five years give back many many times £100.” Old sinking funds were now proved delusive; but the growth and value of

– 75 –

forests was indubitable. “The government came to the conclusion that if the provinces would allow three per cent. of the whole of their land to be taken and set apart as forest-land, we would propose to Parliament to release the provinces from the payment of the principal cost of their railways—that is, would relieve them from the payment of the one per cent. sinking fund they now pay … if the amount its railways will cost is reckoned up, and the total of one per cent. sinking fund upon that amount is estimated, the exchange which is ottered will he found to be very profitable to the province… As far as can be done by bill we put upon the State forests the charge of repaying the public debt of the colony incurred for the construction of railways.”

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

– 76 –

to stem that feeling.” It was plain that having discovered the public feelings, Mr. Vogel would sacrifice his own, or what he represented as his own when he had misunderstood those of the public. But he was accommodating. He would cut down the Forests Bill. He would “remove all the provisions as to the acquirement of land.” “The State forests should be such land as the General Assembly should determine, and such as the superintendents and provincial councils should request the Governor to set apart.”

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

– 77 –

round a central board, as was the case with the Timarn system in the Canterbury district. Something of that kind might replace the provinces of Auckland, Hawke's Bay, Wellington, and Taranaki. It was probable that the superintendent¹ of “the great province of Auckland would object.” Mr. Yogel would make a life-provision for that honourable gentleman, who had devoted a lifetime in serving the province. The compact of 185G he would respect, because “any attempt to depart from it would be simply dishonest, and, besides, would be to the last degree impolitic.” The government having been questioned on the subject, would “accept any provision the Middle Island may think necessary to make it most clearly understood that the land revenue of the Middle Island shall be applicable to Middle Island purposes, and that the land revenue of each province of the Middle Island shall be applicable to the purposes of that province.” The provinces were distrustful, for Mr. Vogel declared: “There is in the great provinces of Otago and Canterbury a feverish impatience manifested to put apart land, or to sell it, so as to place it beyond the reach of the colony.” He emphatically denied that his resolutions were “an attack upon the Middle Island land fund.” He believed that t'le general government could do provincial work better and more cheaply than the provincial legislatures were doing it, and there would be great gain in the removal of the provincial opposition displayed in the North Island against the immigration and public works policy of the government. He declared that no personal ambition prompted him to a change of opinions which might forfeit the confidence of many political allies. Another minister then rose. Mr. O'Rorke, member for Onehunga, Secretary for Lands and Minister for Immigration, startled the House by disclaiming all complicity with Vogel's proposals, for which, if he were to vote, he would “deserve to be branded as a base political traitor.” … “I obtained admission to this House on certain principles, and I do not feel that I am at liberty to fling them to the winds, either for the sake of office, or to suit my own caprice.” With more words of like import Mr. O'Rorke disclaimed any personal motives, and left the astonished House. Mr. Vogel, rising to explain, was interrupted on the point of order, but being allowed by the Speaker to make a personal explanation, was arrested by that functionary when he proceeded to reveal a discussion in the Cabinet. The pith of his statements was that Mr. O'Rorke had opposed the resolution from the first, but that Mr. Vogel was unaware that he intended to retire from the government, or to speak in the language which the House had heard. Mr. O'Rorke lost no time in handing his resignation to the Governor. Major Atkinson (member for Egmont), who was about to succeed to the office vacated by Mr. O'Rorke, cast in his lot with those who would abolish the provinces. Mr. Thomson, member for Clutha, asked why there had been no hint in the Governor's speech of such vital change as Mr. Vogel now proposed. “The stormy eloquence of the honourable member for the Hutt” (Mr. Fitzherbert), in debate on the Forest Bill had engendered the new idea, “not a fortnight ago,” in the excited Treasurer. Mr. Reid, quoting from a speech delivered in 1868 the words, “You cannot have a greater curse in such a country as this than that the general government should be constantly educating the people to dissatisfaction with provincial institutions,” was challenged to name the speaker. He answered: “I intended to do so, but I will do it now. It is the honourable the Premier whom I am now quoting, whose opinions will have great weight in this House. He goes on to say: ‘you may take away the constitution, but you cannot give to the people another which will earn so much of their respect and veneration… We have lived under it. We love it. We shall never get another which we shall love as we have loved this one. We will stand by and preserve that which we have.”'

– 78 –

By metaphysical aid it would almost seem that Mr. Vogel, while keeping a shop in Victoria, transported his affections elsewhere. Mr. Macandrew declared that if the resolutions should be carried “no interest in the State would be safe against the caprice or neediness of the government of the day.” Mr. Montgomery, from Akaroa, foresaw that to settle the Northern Island an enormous

– 79 –

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

Mr. Fitzherbert (24th Aug.), bowing to the decision arrived at, asked the House to resolve that the change should not be “made without first testing the opinion of the people through the constituencies,” and that the Governor should be asked to grant a dissolution for the purpose. Mr. Vogel denounced the dangerous doctrine that a special appeal to constituencies should precede a serious change in the law. Mr. Gladstone had stigmatized it as “ultra-democratic—more than democratic—anarchical,” and rightly so. But where, as in New Zealand, there were several provinces with separate legislatures, the objections to such a doctrine were fatal in the abstract. To appeal from halls of counsel to the hustings has indeed the appearance of appealing from Philip sober to Philip drunk, and in New Zealand there were several Philips to be consulted. Vogel had the courage of his position, though as he had so newly assumed it, it could not be said that he had the courage of his opinions. He moved an amendment

– 80 –

recommending that the provincial government in the North Island should be followed by “an inexpensive but more thorough form of local government, under which the island should be divided into districts and sub-districts, endowed with substantial revenues, and the residents therein be enabled to take a larger and more direct share in the management of local affairs and the expenditure of local revenues than is at present the case.” “Endowment with substantial revenues” was a tempting bait, but the term was vague. Who was to decide upon the substance? Stafford supported Vogel's amendment, and Mr. Fitzherbert demolished Vogel's speech. He pointed out that already success had stirred the government to wider schemes, and that the altered tone of the Treasurer in moving his amendment implied that abolition of southern provinces would follow speedily. Mr. Fox confessed his conversion from ardent “provincialism” to centralism. Mr. Johnston, member for Manawatu, candidly said: “Now that the Premier undertakes to endow each district with substantial revenues my doubts vanish. I confess that I do not see where the money is to come from, but inasmuch as passing this resolution commits the House to a certain extent to find it from somewhere, I will vote for it.” The “sop” system admitted by Mr. Vogel as to time past was triumphant in the anticipations of the Johnstons of the House, and by 45 votes against 20 Mr. Vogel's amendment was carried. Mr. Swaiison vainly moved that the amending bill should be circulated “at least two months before the next meeting of Parliament.” So far as the existing House was concerned provincialism in the North was doomed, but the southern majority did not foresee that the measure they were meting to the North Island would be forced upon themselves.

After such proofs of strength the government carried their bill to amend the Native Lands Act of 1873. A bill to authorize advances for provincial public works was more successful than the Provincial Loans Bill of the previous session. Lands in the provinces were to form the security, and superintendents of provinces were authorized to agree with the Treasurer upon terms of repayment. A Railways Bill, appropriating money and empowering the government

– 81 –

to purchase from the provincial authorities certain existing lines in Otago and Canterbury passed the Lower House, but was lost in the Council. On the same day which saw the Railways Bill rejected by the Council Mr. Murray moved in the House—” That in the opinion of this House the nomination of tenants of the Crown to seats in the Legislative Council is highly objectionable and inconsistent with the independence of Parliament.” In New Zealand, as in Australia, the pastoral occupation of the country was the avocation of some of the most intelligent settlers. The original theory was merety to occupy temporarily until a more permanent form of settlement might become as necessary as it was natural, and freehold would be substituted for the lease or license held by the tenants of the Crown. This was part of Gibbon Wakefield's plans. He argued that the annual grass crop could properly be so availed of—the government holding the power to sell land at a fitting time. How that theory was unwisely departed from need not be here discussed. Mr. Murray's motion implied that there was danger lest servile submission should pervade the Council. But he moved it at a time when the Council had given proofs of independence. His grievance was the rejection of Land Bills; and when he said that “interested persons who never ought to have voted” had thrown them out, the Speaker called him to order. Jealous of the honour of the whole Parliament rather than of the aggrandizement of the House of which he was Speaker, Sir F. Dillon Bell added that he had consulted the Speaker of the Council, and if “his colleague” had considered the motion an improper interference with the Council, he (Sir F. D. Bell) would have removed it from the Order paper. The motion was withdrawn. When the Appropriation Bill had passed in the Lower House, Mr. Vogel moved the second reading of a second Railways Bill divested of the provisions on account of which the Council had rejected the first. It was passed through both Houses without a division. An attempt was made to authorize, by resolution, negotiations to effect a purchase, at Otago, contemplated in a defeated bill. Mr. Vogel opposed it, and the Speaker pronounced that it was “not

– 82 –

in accordance with Parliamentary practice for the government to carry out by resolution what it had failed to carry out by bill.” But the Otago province was supposed to be weeping at the door. Mr. Vogel “felt that it was a very hard thing that Otago, which required money for the construction of branch railways, should go away from the Assembly without any money in its pocket, while other provinces went away with plenty,” and an Otago Provincial Public Works Advances Bill, to enable the Government to advance £60,000 for railways, on terms to be agreed upon, was passed. An Immigration and Public Works Bill was passed to give effect to provisions of the Loan Bill. It dealt with the purchase of land from the natives, for which £700,000 had been authorized at various times. Friends of the Maoris declaimed against artifices resorted to in obtaining their lands; and Captain Fraser declared that in the Middle Island, where temptation was not applied by colonists covetous of land, “the Maoris had abjured drinking altogether.” “How would the Europeans have got the land in Hawke's Bay if the Maoris had not been encouraged to drink? He paused for a reply,”—but none was vouchsafed. “Gross injustice had been done to the whole Maori race, and he would never cease to express his opinion on that subject.” The question of payment of members of the Assembly out of the public funds was examined by a committee, Mr. Rolleston's contention, that the subject ought to be dealt with as a matter of principle by a bill, being ineffectual.

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

The Marquis of Normanby succeeded Sir J. Fergusson, but the latter had various acts to perform before demitting his authority. In place of the indignant Mr. O'Rorke,

– 83 –

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

In 1875, the meeting between the Maori king and Sir D. McLean, so anxiously sought by the latter, was brought about by the aid of Te Wheoro. McLean went to Alexandra (26th Jan.), and remained there while friendly chiefs conferred. Te Paea, the king's sister, had recently been buried, and Te Wheoro and other chiefs attended at Waitomo to take part in a “tangi.” On the 3rd of Feb. McLean was welcomed, and after formalities (a part of which was an interval of strict silence), Tawhiao said that his word was, “Let the Pakeha who are spread over the world return to the appointed place (probably Maungatawhiri, where General Cameron commenced the war and which the Maoris had called their boundary). If they return thither, I will follow and return to Waikato.” Tawhiao thus made the demand which his deputies had

– 84 –

previously made. McLean replied that the abandonment of the territory confiscated in Waikato was not feasible, and Tawhiao said: “Don't suppose that this will be your last visit to us. Come again.” McLean proposed: 1st. That Tawhiao should exercise authority over tribes within his district. 2nd. That he should choose a council of chiefs to keep order and repress wrong. 3rd. That the New Zealand government should assist him. 4th. That the government should build a house for him at Kawhia and grant to him certain lands on the Waipa and Waikato rivers. Nothing was agreed to, but much was thought to have been accomplished. Tke Civil Commissioner, Mr. Kemp, who accompanied McLean, wrote that the meeting, “whether viewed politically or in connection with the welfare of the settlers, could not but be regarded as of paramount importance.”

Death was busy amongst the elder generation of Maoris. Mohi Tawhai, a companion-in-arms of Waka Nene against Heke, more than eighty years old, was mounting his horse after attending Divine Service and fell and died. He it was who was mainly instrumental in preventing Colonel Despard from repeating at Ruapekapeka the assault so disastrous under that officer at Ohaeawae.² His services were not forgotten. At his funeral at Hokianga it was said that every respectable European in the district joined in paying respect. In Wanganui, Pehi and Tahana Turoa passed away. The resident magistrate reported that he should much miss Tahana, who as assessor and otherwise had always given him wise counsel. Tahana was owner of much land, and left a will which was duly proved in the Supreme Court. Officers reported from various districts a slight improvement in the condition of the Maoris. With less dissipation there was more intelligent industry amongst them.

Sir D. McLean busied himself in purchasing land. At Maketu he conferred with chiefs, and the result was an order to the Land Purchase Commissioners to discontinue negotiations in the Arawa territory. He communicated the result of his departmental labours to the Assembly.

– 85 –

The land acquired, or under negotiation, under the Public Works and Immigration Acts was, in 1875:—

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

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

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

– 86 –

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

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

Mr. Alexander Mackay, having compiled a statement of the lands purchased by Europeans in the Middle Island, Taiaroa moved (30th Sept.) that it be printed in Maori.

– 87 –

McLean objected to the expense. But Wi Tako Ngatata in the Council carried a similar motion there. Taiaroa learned from the statement that the government had bought land in the Middle Island for about an eighth of a penny an acre. The chiefs of the north learned that they had obtained more money, but that it was sprinkled with blood. The Native Affairs Committee in the Lower House reported on the petition of Middle Island natives that a Commission ought to be appointed on the alleged unfulfilled promises in connection with land purchases. Taiaroa had fought his battle in the committee with the aid of counsel. Mr. Sheehan moved (6th Oct.) that the report be referred for “the favourable consideration of the government.” Taiaroa ran over the years in which he had vainly asked for justice as to the claims. He would still consent, as in a former year, that the government should nominate one commissioner, the Maoris another. Mr. Carrington desired that a portion of his evidence before the committee should be read. He had therein declared that, “having knowledge of the matter through meeting directors and gentlemen of the New Zealand Company in 1839 and 1840, prior to coming to the colony as the chief surveyor of the Plymouth Company of New Zealand,” he thought it right to make a statement. The value of his declaration may be shown in a brief extract: “The question as to one-tenth of the land being reserved for the natives in the inhabited districts, so far as my knowledge goes in this matter, had special reference to the North Island… Hence I never heard of its being contemplated by the New Zealand Company that a reservation of one-tenth of the land of the Middle Island should be set apart for its natives.” In the agreement of the company with Lord John Russell it was expressly stipulated that the reserves should be made everywhere, and in the instructions issued by the company to Colonel Wakefield before he sailed in the “Tory” in 1839—of which period Carrington claimed a knowledge—were these words: “You will take care to mention in every booka booka, or contract for land, that a proportion of the territory ceded, equal to one-tenth of the whole, will be reserved by the company, and held in

– 88 –

trust by them for the future benefit of the chief families of the tribe.” Those instructions were published; Mr. J. J. Symonds in purchasing the Otago block expressly stipulated “on behalf of the natives for one-tenth of each description of allotment;” and the company was lauded for making reserves on such an imposing scale. The company was bound to hold the reserves in trust for the “chiefs, their families, tribes, and successors for ever;” and on surrender of the company's charters their obligations devolved, not only naturally, but by express stipulations, upon the Crown.³ It is disheartening to read such a statement as that of Mr. Carrington. McLean having characterized Taiaroa's claims as extravagant, but admitted that he was “quite aware that unfulfilled promises existed,” the debate was adjourned. Mr. Macandrew moved an amendment (13th Oct.) declaring that there were no unfulfilled promises, but could not carry it. Mr. W. Kelly declared that “there no doubt remained many unfulfilled promises, and something should be done in the matter.” McLean had stipulated that a decision arrived at by the Native Land Court at Canterbury, which was ratified by “the Ngaitahu Reference Validation Act of 1868,” should not be challenged. The Act in question will be remembered as legalizing retrospectively an improper reference to the Native Lands Court. The field of justice was circumscribed, but it comprehended “schools, hospitals, and other advantages.” Even this Mr. Macandrew would have refused; and it was only agreed to by the members on the understanding that for final decision it must be again submitted to the House. McLean positively refused to “go behind 1868” (in which the Land Court had overruled the claims of Heremaia Mautai). Mr. Sheehan moved: “That this House regrets to hear of the scandalous and dishonest dealings of certain Europeans in the acquisition of native lands at Hawke's Bay, … and considers that such transactions are a stain upon the good name of the colony.” He animadverted upon the manner in which, after the Crown had waived the sole right of purchase, the natives had been inveigled by artful

– 89 –

agents. He showed how signatures had been extorted from Maoris; how to relieve themselves from debts they had been under duress persuaded to sell their rights; how Henare Tomoana, who foiled Te Kooti, had in equipping Maoris to fight the Hau Haus incurred a debt of thousands of pounds, the cancelling of which was the engine brought to bear upon him to extort his signature; how Karaitiana Takamoana, the Maori member, half brother of Henare Tomoana and co-proprietor in the land, had moodily resisted and vainly besought the Native Minister to avert sale by such untoward methods. The freehold of the Heretaunga block, close to Hawke's Bay, comprising about 18,000 acres, illegally occupied by settlers before the government abandoned the exclusive right of purchase had, by the arts he described, passed into the hands of settlers. Mr. Ormond, member for Clive, was amongst the purchasers, and Mr. Sheehan complained that, in bargains for lands bought for Sir D. McLean himself, an agent had been employed, who, having been previously dismissed from the public service for embezzlement, had plied base arts against Maoris with whom he dealt. The Native Minister and Mr. Ormond replied at great length. Many members spoke. It was admitted that wrong had been done in many cases. Karaitiana Takamoana declared that if the House yielded to Sir D. McLean and stifled discussion, he would appeal to England. “Maoris prefer to be destroyed themselves rather than see their lands destroyed. Neither the Superintendent of Hawke's Bay (Ormond), nor the Native Minister (McLean), had a good name with the Maoris at Napier. If the House will not deal with the matter, the Maoris will go on until they lose their skins in the Supreme Court… If the House will not agree with this question there will be mischief in Hawke's Bay. The Maoris consider that treachery has been committed there.” Mr. Sheehan's motion was lost. Sir D. McLean met a motion of Sir G. Grey's by promising that, in future, agents should not be permitted to traffic privately for lands, but neither he nor the House would probe past transactions, and Sir G. Grey was defeated. With regard to a transaction at the Piako swamp the government had broken the law. The minimum upset price of land in the Auckland province was five shillings.

– 90 –

A tract exceeding 70,000 acres had been parted with by private arrangement for a less sum than the legal minimum. McLean pleaded that the land could not have been sold at all unless by special arrangement, and that though Mr. Thomas Russell and his friends had paid less than the price fixed by law, they had been bound to make a road through the Piako swamp which would compensate the public, the rebate of half-a-crown per acre being the maximum allowance to be made to them for the cost of the road, in which case the price paid per acre would fall to half-a-crown an acre. McLean was able even by such an explanation to satisfy the House. His colleague, Dr. Pollen, brought in two bills in the Council—one to enable Mr. Russell to exchange some land for other waste land; the other to enable Mr. Whitaker to resign land claimed by him, and select an equal quantity elsewhere. Both bills were thrown out at different stages. A select committee recommended with sarcastic simplicity “that in all future transactions any alterations in the law that may be desirable should precede, and not follow the agreement for the purchase of land.” Sir D. McLean's committee in the Lower House was more lenient, but it declared that “dealings by private contract with the public landed estate are inexpedient, and they are glad to observe that the government have proposed to bring the confiscated lands under the operation of the ordinary waste lands laws of the colony.” The subject was not dead, however. The time within which Mr. Russell had been bound to pay had expired, but he had not paid. Dr. Pollen stated before a committee that unsettled native claims and the confused position of the confiscated boundary were obstacles to closing the transaction. He seemed to think the government had power to complete it. Mr. Whitaker's name was to appear prominently in connection with the Piako swamp. He had urged sweeping confiscations in 1864. Subsequently, in 1867, when superintendent of the province of Auckland, and also government agent at Auckland, he was appointed commissioner for the sale and disposition of the confiscated lands. His own claims were involved in one of the bills which Dr. Pollen strove in vain to induce the Council to pass. He had purchased the interest (dating

– 91 –

from 1844) of other persons in land, of which about 18,000 acres had been awarded to him by Mr. F. Dillon Bell. But the natives had never surrendered their claim to about 14,000 acres of the block, and Whitaker abstained from taking steps which Dr. Pollen declared might have created a native disturbance. He had never taken possession. Maoris were in occupation. Mr. Mackay, Government Land Purchase Commissioner, reported that he could negotiate for the purchase of 200,000 acres if the 14,000 acres claimed by Whitaker were abandoned to the natives. Pollen's bill proposed to allow Whitaker to select elsewhere. The Council thought an undue advantage would thus be conferred. The casting vote of the Speaker crushed the bill for the time, but in after years the subject was revived. Meanwhile Sir D. McLean was harassed by the checks which he received. He passed in the Lower House a Confiscated Lands Bill, which it was hoped would enable the Piako swamp to be dealt with, but it broke down in the Council.

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

– 92 –

Hearts which are now dark will be comforted when these things are done.”

It has been convenient to glance at Maori questions, but the battlefield of the session was the abolition of the provinces. Vogel was not in the House. McLean obtained leave of absence for him for the session, Mr. Rolleston remarking that the country would gain if the absence “were prolonged indefinitely.” Major Atkinson (6th Aug.) moved the second reading of the bill to abolish the provinces. It contained a clause for endowment of Road Boards, but the government, not knowing what form of government “those bodies would be desirous of assuming,” would “be prepared to make any alteration which honourable members representing those districts” might desire. Local rates and licenses were to be handed to cities and Road Boards. But for the title of the bill, which warred against the provincial ideas, by means of which Mr. Vogel had expelled Mr. Weld from office in 1865, there was no evidence of a desire to destroy local government; and through the endowment of Road Boards, the arts by which Vogel had manitained a majority in administering public loans, might be revived under another name. Gaols, harbours, police, lunatic asylums, and education were to be the care of the General Assembly. Major Atkinson admitted that in the past the distribution of public revenues had been iniquitous, had been indeed “a gigantic scramble on the floor of this House, or in the lobbies,” but he expected that annihilation of the provinces would purify the parliamentary air. Sir G. Grey opposed the bill in a speech, of which a member said, that, though it had not convinced, it was admirable for its eloquence. Mr. Reader Wood analyzed the financial aspect. “Pass this bill, and the last trace of the land fund of the colony will vanish like a streak of morning cloud; pass it, and you strike a blow at the credit of the colony under which it will reel again.” The House sat late night after night. Mr. Montgomery quoted the public complaint of Vogel, that instead of £8,000,000 sterling, only £6,500,000 had been spent on railways, the difference being “represented by the expedients to which we have had to submit in order to purchase support from the provinces.” “I can understand this regret,”

– 93 –

said Mr. Montgomery, but “history will say that the government might have withstood unjust demands, that they should not have been afraid of losing their positions, that it was the lust of power that made them thus dispose of public property… They regret it, not for the wrong done, but for the amount of money it cost to do it.” Mr. Tribe said that because change was necessary he would vote for the second reading. “If I have the honour of a seat in this House next session I shall have to come down and take part in a scramble. I suppose I shall have to fight the battle and log-roll as well as I can.” Vogel's method of “purchasing support” had so dulled the moral sense of the House, that no exception was taken to this language. The government had a majority in the House, and the fame of the devices of the opposition spread beyond the bounds of New Zealand. On the 17th Aug., after long debate upon formalities, and further debate when points of order had been set aside, the House sat till daylight streamed in upon the Chamber. That night Mr. Rolleston denounced the bill. If it should pass, separation of the two islands would follow. The ministry was governed by Mr. Stafford, and who guided Mr. Stafford Mr. Rolleston could not tell. The House was asked to launch into chaos. If the bill should pass, the land laws of the provinces would soon be moulded on a uniform plan, and the land fund would be common revenue. He had but one hope; that the Council, which had already averted many mischiefs, would refuse to pass the bill. Mr. Bowen (Minister of Justice) admitted that Vogel had “given way to provincial pressure, as all Colonial Treasurers had to give way before him;” but he did not quote the opinion of any other Treasurer that the support was bought at a price. He affirmed that if the bill should not be passed “a scramble would take place within a year that would ruin the finances of the country.” Stafford threw his ægis over the men who had hurled him. from office in 1872. He disclaimed the post of guide to the ministry, but supported them. Mr. Fitzherbert ruthlessly showed (20th Aug.) how earnest had been the praise bestowed by Vogel and Fox in 1868 upon the provincial governments, which Vogel and his colleagues in 1875

– 94 –

faithlessly strove to destroy. Mr. Stafford was in 1856 a party to the compact to localize the land revenue. Then he acted in a provincial spirit. Now he “comes forward as the champion of centralism.” … “By all that is honest, by all that is respectable, by all that is honourable in political life, and by all precedents in countries where parliamentary government exists, I say most plainly that, as men of honour, maintaining the opinions which they came into office to support, the ministry should no longer be sitting on those benches. They were pledged by all that men hold sacred to vacate their seats. There is no term of opprobrium too strong for men who so abandon their principles. These are facts. I have proved them in the course of my speech.” The second reading of the bill was carried by 52 votes against 17. The struggle in committee was yet to be encountered, and the government announced (2nd Sept.) that to secure general support they would introduce ancillary bills—to divide the provinces into districts in which Boards of Works would be elected, and in which the balance of the land fund would be appropriated —and to create or confirm in each province Boards of Education in which existing reserves of lands for educational purposes would be vested. Sir G. Grey had already provoked ironical laughter by high-sounding allusions to the rights and liberties of man, especially of man in New Zealand, and he made a speech strangely compounded of such sentiments and of assertions that the New Zealand Assembly ought not to pass the bills without obtaining the sanction of the British Parliament. The government seemed determined to sit in silence until the opposition speakers might be exhausted. Mr. O'Rorke, before the committee sat, denounced the mode in which Vogel, having “floated into lucrative office” on the strength of provincial professions, “turned traitor to the cause which placed him in office.” The government remained silent, and victorious. But the defeated did not abandon the field. Every material for debate was seized upon. Public meetings were held at Auckland and elsewhere to strengthen the hands of the opposition, who were pertinacious in committee, and battled throughout a night. At six o'clock in the morning (10th Sept.) there was an adjournment

– 95 –

until ten. All day long the battle—si rixa est ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum—was waged in the same manner. When the time arrived for the ordinary sitting of the House (10th Sept.) the mace was removed from under the table, and a debate on the imputed irregularity of procedure arose. At last progress was reported, and Sir D. McLean moved the adjournment of the House until the 14th Sept., in order that an arrangement might be made “to terminate the existing differences.”

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

The mode of dealing with the land fund was earnestly debated. The Speaker, Sir Dillon Bell, warned the House that to pass a certain clause would force the land fund into the general treasury. He shrunk from the “log-rolling” which he dreaded as inevitable if the local bodies should have funds placed at their disposal by the vote of the House. With few changes the bill was carried and was easily passed in the Council. A Local Government Bill was to have complemented that for the abolition of the provinces. But the government shrunk from proceeding with it. Read a first time on the 30th July, it was afterwards dropped. The ministry held in their hands, therefore, the strings with which they thought to move the

– 96 –

minds of members, and to excite the hopes of constituencies. Pliability of the first, and contentment of the second, seemed yet in their control. The opposition vainly demanded that the new bill should be “made public at least one month before the next session.” A motion to that effect was defeated.

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

A bill to raise the number of the Representatives to 84, exclusive of the Maori members, was carried through both Houses. An Act was passed (Immigration and Public Works Appropriation) which restricted the powers which the ministry had exercised over the expenditure of borrowed money. On the 21st Oct. the session, memorable for all dwellers in New Zealand, came to an end, and the agitation within was exchanged for that without the halls of legislation.

– 97 –

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

The position of members was found equivocal with regard to a Disqualification Act of 1870. Passed in a spasm of virtue, its provisions were found too cramping. One member complained that because in his capacity as

– 98 –

Superintendent of Nelson he had been the nominal recipient of two small sums of money, his name was included in a return. In other cases land purchased from members by the government to facilitate negotiations with the Maoris was found to endanger seats. In both Houses there was a desire to remove doubts or disabilities, and a Bill to amend the Act, “and to indemnify certain members of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives from disabilities and penalties they may have incurred under that Act,” was rapidly passed.

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

Amidst the turmoil of the time, the shrieking of engines, the throb of electric wires, the din of Parliament—was heard in 1875 a plaintive cry from settlers who had arrived in New Zealand “prior to 1st January, 1848.” Naval and military settlers and volunteers had received grants of land. The pioneers would do the same. No special grant was applied for in the petition, but a witness thought that sixty acres would be a reasonable grant to each of the pioneers. The Committee on Petitions made no recommendations in their favour. The class which cares least for Pilgrim Fathers is that which immediately succeeds them. It tramples on their records with a wantonness which after-generations labour ceaselessly to undo. The iconoclasni of Niebuhr would have been out of place if the early Rorman annals had been complete; and the life and

– 99 –

actions of Homer seem to have been as little cared for by his contemporaries as were those of Shakspeare by the bulk of Englishmen. If Shakspeare's partners had not printed his works soon after his death; if his dedications of his poems to the Earl of Southampton had not furnished unshakeable proof of his position among the best spirits of the time; if Milton's immortal praise had not hymned him while the sounds of his voice still lingered in the ears of his lovers; if Ben Jonson and a few others had not vouched for their knowledge of the man and of his works, there might, even though printing had then been invented, be a lack of evidence to resist the ridiculous fable that although Shakspeare lived he did not write Shakspeare's plays. It was not likely that the pioneers would find favour if their claims had been reasonable; and it could not be denied that their opportunities as firstcomers had, like their difficulties, been great. Many of them were still eminent amongst the successful. For the others new men cared nothing.

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

In the end of 1875 the Governor dissolved the House, and elections were held immediately. In Otago and in Auckland some members who had voted for abolition were

– 100 –

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

The deference shown to Sir J. Vogel was manifested by postponing until his return the consideration of a circular despatch on the subject of island annexation. The horrors of abduction and brutality practised by white scoundrels in the Pacific, the retaliation by islanders who slew their best friend in revenge, the intercession of the colonies, and a sentiment of honour, had induced England to annex the Fiji Islands with the declared consent of the ruling chiefs. In 1874, Lord Carnarvon had inquired whether the Australasian colonies would join in contributing a small sum (in no case exceeding £4000) to maintain the Fiji civil establishment whose creation they had urged. The colonies did not agree. New South Wales was ready to share the burden with England. Queensland shrunk from all responsibility, although the “labour traffic” amongst the islands had contributed to her needs; New Zealand would not assist unless with a voice in administration. Victoria asked for more information, and suggested that no colony should be permitted to acquire privileges in Fiji from which any other “should be shut out.” The burden

– 101 –

remained with England. In July, 1875, Lord Carnarvon asked whether any principle could be adopted by which colonies advocating annexation might in future meet a proportion of its costs. Pressure at the time was brought upon the Colonial Office to colonize a part of New Guinea. It was not until April, 1876, that his ministers enabled the Marquis of Normanby to reply to the circular, and the reply was more argumentative than precise. The Marquis himself was of opinion that, in future, England, if urged by a colony to annex islands, should arrange with the applying colony as to the terms of contribution to maintain the government to be established. Long before the New Zealand reply reached England the Earl of Carnarvon had decided not to take possession of New Guinea and other islands, the annexation of which had been proposed to him.

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

Reports from officers in native districts were in one sense encouraging. Major Mair reported that Tawhiao's advisers had “introduced a temperance movement” amongst his

– 102 –

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

An attempt, sanctioned by the government, was made in 1876 to exclude Karaitiana Takamoana from the House, where he was a thorn in the side of McLean. A Maori election case deserves to be told. Karaitiana had often denounced McLean's methods of procuring land. With uncontrolled command of funds, McLean, by gifts and persuasions, had induced chiefs to consent to transactions which more jealous Maoris disapproved. Karaitiana declared that the government were violating the law. When the election for the Eastern Maori province was held (Jan., 1876), three other chiefs were nominated against him. He obtained the show of hands at Napier, and at the poll received 401 votes. His opponents received 376, 373 and 145 respectively. At one polling place, Kawa-kawa, no votes were taken, floods having detained the returning officer. A Maori was persuaded to petition against Karaitiana's election. The returning officer made a special return of the facts, but did not return that Karaitiana was elected. On the 16th June it was ordered that on the 27th the House should consider the appointment of a committee to try the petition. It was hoped that a combination of votes adverse to Karaitiana might exclude him if a new election should be ordered. Meantime, as Legislative votes were of importance, it was determined to keep him out of the House. A sharp debate about the sale of the Piako swamp to ministerial supporters had

– 103 –

already intervened, and the government had been placed in a minority in opposing the suspension of the Standing Orders. Indisposition of the Maori petitioner having debarred his attendance, McLean moved the dismissal of the petition. A member pointed out that, if the petition were dismissed and no fresh writ could be issued, the Eastern Maori district would be unrepresented. Major Atkinson revealed that the government weapon had two edges. On dismissal of the petition a new writ might be issued, and thus he presumed the House “would comply with the object of the petitioner.” Taiaroa said that, pending inquiry, Karaitiana ought to take his seat. The fault was with “the government officers, who, perhaps, were vexed at what Karaitiana had said in the House.” Mr. Reader Wood suggested inquiry by a committee. Vogel, asserting that the government “had no feeling in the matter,” desired an adjournment to enable them to consider so “novel” a case. As two of his colleagues had proposed measures for dealing with it, the assertion carried little weight. A select committee was appointed. Mr. Curtis, member for Nelson city, was chairman, and a proposition that, pending a decision, Karaitiana should take his seat, was rejected. On the 4th July, without having heard any evidence, McLean carried in the committee a motion that as no member had been returned a fresh writ should be issued. An interim report to that effect was made to the House, and Vogel moved that the Governor be requested to issue a writ. Mr. Swanson asked for the evidence taken by the committee. Mr. Tole dissented from its report. McLean vied with Vogel in asserting the indifference of the government. The speediest way to confer their electoral rights on the Maoris was to issue a new writ. A member retorted that the speediest way wrould be to direct Karaitiana to take his seat. The Western Maori member, Nahe, though he would have preferred a different representative, thought it but fair that Karaitiana should at once take his seat.⁴ After much

– 104 –

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

– 105 –

… “The reserves made by the natives for themselves at the time he was Commissioner had been purchased by him. While he was minister, some of these lands were passed through the court, and he bought them. He had bought large blocks for himself… Through plunder he had gained his present position… It was through deceitful sales that he had got so much land.” … Karaitiana, distrustful of the government, threatened to go to England for the justice which was denied to him in the land of his forefathers. Meanwhile he supported Sir G. Grey, the accredited leader of the opposition.

War in New Zealand was transferred from camp to Council. The Governor's opening speech (June, 1876) invited the Parliament, in consequence of the abolition of the provinces, to give to towns and country districts a larger share of self-government than they had previously enjoyed. Counties were to be established, with “powers and revenues of an independent character, but with liberty to adopt concerted action with boroughs and road districts.” A Land Bill was promised. Before the government could proceed to business, an act, done by them before the meeting of the Houses, stopped their way. It will be remembered that a bill, under which Mr. Whitaker would have been enabled to make good a defective title at the Piako swamp, was lost in the Legislative Council in 1875. Mr. Whitaker was a power in the House. He had been frequently a minister. It was convenient to strengthen his friendship. Before the Parliament met, the government ventured upon a bold step. They published an Order-in-Council, making regulations for sale of the land at the Piako swamp to Messrs. Russell, Whitaker, and their associates. Before business was entered upon, Sir G. Grey obtained the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to move that the hand of the government be stayed until the House could discuss the Order-in-Council. When the motion to stay procedure was submitted, the government secured 29 supporters against a like number of opponents. Mr. Fitzherbert voted with the Noes, “that an opportunity might be given for further discussion.” (He had been elected Speaker on the motion of Sir J. Vogel, seconded by Sir G. Grey. Mr. O'Rorke was again Chairman of Committees.)

– 106 –

The debates proved that Vogel had more than once discussed the subject with Mr. Russell when the Piako swamp was applied for (1873), but Vogel declared that to assert that he would favour Mr. Russell or others was beneath contempt. Yet favour had been shown. The Piako swamp was open for selection between 1866 and 1871. At the latter date, under fresh regulations, it ceased to be eligible. Nevertheless, in 1873, the selection at 5s. an acre was unlawfully permitted, with an arrangement that the government should contribute at the rate of 2s. 6d. per acre towards the cost of making a road. Even these terms were designated by Mr. Russell as “too hard;” and Sir D. McLean “considering the heavy outlay” to which the purchasers would be subjected “in roads and drains,” agreed “to accept the payment of 2s. 6d. per acre within two years.” Nor were these all the favours conferred. The block was about 82,000 acres. There was an adjacent block (Tawera) of 5370 acres of good land, and it was added to the Piako block without allowing the public to compete for it,—the government negotiating for its purchase with resident natives, so as to enable Mr. Russell and his friends to receive it. A member told the House that the Tawera block was itself worth all the money paid for the 87,370 acres. Such were the facts which furnished debates extending through many days. But the time was unpropitious for doing justice. The abolition of the provinces seemed to demand that the ministry which abolished them should complete the subsidiary arrangements; and at a meeting of his supporters, Sir