– 142 –

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

Mr. Ormond's refuted charges against Sir G. Grey cooled the friendship of some ministerial supporters. A newspaper was to furnish the weapon with which the ministry was to be slain. Mr. H. R. Russell, a member of the Council, had brought an action against the “Waka Maori” newspaper (edited by the government). The action was pending when the Houses met, and Mr. Whitaker said (1st Aug.) that the plaintiff would probably pay the costs. On the 2nd a member moved that it was unconstitutional for a ministry to use influence in defending one citizen against another, and that the carrying on of the “Waka Maori,” after its dole had been struck from the estimates, was “highly reprehensible.” Mr. Whitaker thought that while an action was pending the subject ought not to be discussed in Parliament, and an interrupted debate was not resumed until the end of September. Meanwhile the law officers advised that a “plea of justification could be maintained” against the prosecutor. Mr. H. R. Russell, however, gained a verdict for £500. Mr. Larnach, member for Dunedin city, gave notice that he would move: “That this House disapproves of the action of the government in continuing to publish the “Waka Maori” newspaper at the public expense in defiance of the vote of this House, and in allowing its columns to be used for the publication of libellous matter.” The government accepted the challenge. Mr. Whitaker denied that the government had disobeyed

– 143 –

the wish of the House. The “Waka Maori” had ceased to exist when condemned, but many chiefs had petitioned for it, and it was decided to carry it on,—“a number of gentlemen guaranteeing to subscribe towards the cost.” Dr. Pollen, who succeeded McLean as Native Minister, had supervised the publication, which was continued until July, 1877, when Parliament assembled. Stafford and Fox still clung to the remnants of the ministry which the latter had constructed to do Vogel's pleasure, and to which the former gave his adhesion when Vogel determined to abandon his provincial pledges and support abolition. Mr. Rolleston marked his sense of the occasion by alleging wider issues than the existence of a newspaper:—

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

Mr. Stafford, in defending himself, explained the secret of his sudden conjunction with Vogel in destroying the provinces. Studholme was entrusted by Stafford with the task of “sounding” Vogel and the government supporters. Stafford undertook to sound the opposition. Thus was the abolition scheme secretly ascertained to be safe, and thus were Vogel's arts transferred from one camp to another by the counting of heads. Denying that he had licked the hand that smote him, Mr. Stafford claimed to have made marionettes of the actors who strutted on the ministerial stage. Of the secret negotiation by which he was, “if he wished,” to become Agent-General if Vogel could secure a commission on conversion of New Zealand stock, Mr. Stafford said nothing.¹¹

– 144 –

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

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

– 145 –

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

– 146 –

There was a singular solution of continuity in the House. Mr. Reynolds, who stepped in to the rescue of the new government, had voted to retain the Atkinson ministry in office. Mr. Gisborne, who had voted with the majority which expelled Atkinson, supported Atkinson's proposition to expel Grey. Mr. Curtis said that with about ten other members who had also voted against Atkinson he had agreed to support Atkinson's motion. The “middle party” to which they belonged having swung too far in one direction, was resolved to show a balancing power by swinging equally far in another. Mr. Fox attacked Sir G. Grey. A baser policy than his “was never heard of, and it must result in inevitable ruin though it may lead to the temporary elevation of a demagogue.” Mr. Ballance pointed out that if there was one member who should sympathize with Sir G. Grey in advocacy of provincialism, Mr. Fox was the man. How long had Fox advocated abolition? He had been the staunchest of provincialists. “In 1874 he was a provincialist; in 1874 Sir J. Vogel converted him in a single night, and now he stands forward as an ardent centralist.” Taiaroa grimly told the House that the site of the capital consorted with the wavering opinions of members. “It is a very good thing that the meetings of this Parliament are held in Wellington, because it is a windy place, and we hear the wind blowing about here every day. I liken the wind to the speeches of members. The winds blow from all quarters. So it is with the votes of honourable gentlemen; they are given this way to-day, and that to-morrow —and another way the next day.” Let the government have trial for a year. Day after day the debate was adjourned. On the 1st Nov., Mr. Stout interrupted it by raising a question of privilege. The ministry had asked the Governor to call Mr. J. N. Wilson to the Upper House. The Marquis of Normanby declined to make the appointment “pending the decision of the Assembly” as to the support of the ministry by “a majority of the House were Mr. Stout averred that the privileges of the House were involved. The manoeuvre was successful. A select committee, of which the Speaker was chairman, reported that notice by the Crown of a matter in agitation in Parliament

– 147 –

was an infringement of constitutional privilege, and Mr. Travers, in moving the adoption of the report, wished that an address to the Governor should state that the infringement was inadvertent. The resolution was adopted by 33 votes against 19. Fox, Atkinson, Ormond, and Whitaker were in the minority. The Governor without delay responded that as soon as he might receive the advice of his ministers he would forward his reply to the address. Meanwhile the debate on Atkinson's motion was resumed. On the 6th Nov., the member who had moved the adjournment did not respond to the Speaker's call, the question was put, and voices were given. A member rose to speak, but the Speaker interposed on the ground that as the ayes and the noes had been called for, the debate was at an end. Three ex-ministers, Atkinson, Reid and McLean, strove to arrest the putting of the question, but the Speaker was not brow-beaten, and 39 voters eyed their opponents from each side of the House. To give “a further opportunity for the House to know its mind,” the Speaker gave his casting vote with the Noes. Atkinson attempted to move that “as the government has not a majority it should immediately resign.” There was much debate on points of order, and eventually the word “that” remained on the paper.

Escaped from the snare of the fowler, the gasping government, eagerly watched, proceeded with business. The fact that in the struggle temporarily postponed, several. members who had voted (8th Oct.) to expel Atkinson had within one month abandoned Grey, lent a dramatic interest; to the scene, which was heightened by other members, who, having striven to arrest Atkinson's fall, now deserted his standard for that of Grey. Atkinson canvassed so eagerly that Mr. Sheehan said in the House that if it had not been openly announced that Atkinson was leader, he would have “looked upon him as the principal opposition whip.” On the 8th November, Atkinson moved the postponement of the orders of the day with the view of proceeding with the remnant of the “want of confidence motion.” Mr. O'Rorke (chairman of committees) versed in Parliamentary lore, promptly pointed out that, by the standing orders, on the resumption of the chair by the

– 148 –

Speaker at half-past seven (as was the actual case) it was the “duty of the Speaker to direct the clerk to read the orders of the day without any question being put.” Atkinson endeavoured to dispute. Before the Speaker gave his ruling, Sir G. Grey laid on the table the Governor's reply to the address of the Council on the moot question of privilege. An eager debate ensued as to the time which should be fixed for discussing the reply.²² By 34 votes against 32 it was resolved to postpone the consideration of the Governor's message until the 12th, and the intervening days were deemed sufficient for his purpose by Atkinson, who had already asked for precedence for the want of confidence question. The Speaker then gave his ruling on the point raised by Mr. O'Rorke. Clearly, unless by general agreement to waive it, the course prescribed by the standing orders must be followed. Atkinson's proposition was out of order. The discomfited Atkinson gave notice that he would on the morrow move: “That this House has now no confidence in the government;” but he failed to obtain an opportunity.³³

The privilege question of which Mr. Travers complained was peculiar. The ministry advised the Governor to inform the House that his infringement of privilege was unintentional, and might be beneficial in establishing a precedent to be avoided. The Marquis requested them to reconsider their advice. They were constitutionally responsible to Parliament for his acts, not he. If his memorandum about Mr. Wilson contained any breach of privilege, it was a confidential document, and they were bound by their oaths to point out the fact to the Governor, who would “readily have reconsidered the answer he had given.” The presentation of the memorandum to Parliament was “solely on the advice of Sir G. Grey in writing, and therefore

– 149 –

ministers were solely responsible.” The ministry, in reply, admitted responsibility for “acts done on their advice.” Out of respect for him they “refrained from offering further advice” when their advice had been “twice rejected.” They respectfully pointed out that the presentation of the memorandum, made by their advice, was not styled by the House a breach of privilege. They suggested a message in the following words: “The Governor has received the resolution of the House of Representatives, by which he is informed that he has inadvertently committed a breach of the privileges of that House. The House is constitutionally guardian of its own privileges. The Governor having now called Mr. Wilson to the Legislative Council in accordance with his promise to his advisers, does not think it will answer any useful purpose to discuss the question any further, but he will transmit the papers to the Secretary of State for the colonies.”

The Marquis did not choose to condemn himself in the language of others. He did not accept the limitation of responsibility claimed for themselves by the ministry, “because if the act of the Governor is such that the government cannot accept or defend it, it is their duty to resign, in order that the Governor may be able, if he can, to form a government who would support his views, in which case he would have of course, to justify his conduct to the Secretary of State, to whom alone he is responsible.” In Mr. Wilson's case the Marquis concurred in thinking that the ministry were not called upon to resign, but they accepted and were responsible for the Governor's act, and the question should then have been at rest unless they pressed further advice upon him. But the constitutional principle which he contended for—that ministers, so long as they retain office, are alone responsible to Parliament for the acts of the Governor—was of such vital importance to the colony and to the position of a Governor that he would be recreant to his duty if he “did not try to the utmost of his power to have the matter finally and definitely settled.” He was ready to assume that the ministry did not see that his memorandum could be construed as a breach of privilege when they asked for its production. He would be sorry to impute to them “any intention of

– 150 –

entrapping him.” He saw so little “necessity for producing the memorandum that he was on the point of refusing his consent, and only refrained from doing so because he did not like for the second time to refuse their advice.” A question of privilege was immediately raised. “The government by whose advice the papers were published, and who are his constitutional defenders in the House, either took part against him, or remained in silence, and refused him their assistance. The Governor was condemned unheard… Criminals received more consideration. He would forward all the papers to England, and begged Sir G. Grey to understand that he looked upon the matter as “political, not personal.” The ministry replied that if the law were such that while a vote of want of confidence was pending the Governor could decline advice it would only “be necessary to raise successive votes of want of confidence in the government to enable the Governor to act for long periods of time without responsible advisers.” They protested against a reference to the Secretary of State, whom they designated as an “external authority.” They had nothing to add to their former advice. The Governor said that the Secretary of State was “the only constitutional channel through whom the commands of the Crown are conveyed,” and as he at any rate felt “bound to obey the command of Her Majesty,” he would submit the case, and would lay the papers before the House. In a message to the House he repeated his constitutional reason for not accepting their resolution, but assured them that “nothing was further from his intention than in any way to trench upon their privileges.”

The first debate on the Governor's message has been mentioned. On its resumption on the 12th, it was obvious that not the Governor — not the constitution of New Zealand—but the prospect of retaining or storming the ministerial benches actuated most of the speakers. After long discussion, the adjournment of the House was agreed to after midnight, and the privilege question was shelved.⁴⁴

– 151 –

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

Loose language is often used, about the prerogative which summons and dissolves Parliaments, and the ministry thought the Governor mistaken in deeming the power of dissolution “a prerogative of the Crown” in New Zealand. It was derived from the Constitution Act. Ministers claimed for themselves and for the people the same constitutional rights which existed in England, and maintained their right to a dissolution, unfettered by any condition with regard to supply. In a separate memorandum, Sir G. Grey argued that the Governor's expressed “desire to secure a government, no matter how constituted,” commanding the confidence of a majority in the House, would be destructive of the principle of party government deliberately adopted by the people. The Marquis briefly replied that the Constitution Act, without mention of an

– 152 –

Executive Council, empowered the Governor to dissolve, and that his commission from the Queen delegated to him the Royal powers of summoning, proroguing, and dissolving the legislative body. He could not admit that ministers had the unqualified rights they claimed. They (21st Nov.) “felt it their duty to point out the mistakes into which they cannot but think the Governor has fallen.” They discussed the abstract ideas of a Privy Council, a Cabinet, and an Executive Council. The Governor respectfully but distinctly declined for the future “to enter into any controversy or discussion of a general or abstract character regarding his constitutional position, his responsibilities, or his duties.” On all occasions he would give most attentive and favourable consideration to any particular matter on which he might receive advice. Ministers, of course, had an undoubted right to complain of any act they might think “illegal, unconstitutional, or wrong,” and he would at all times forward such complaints to England with any necessary explanation. The ministry (who had just been permitted to go into Committee on Supply) answered (23rd Nov.) that they had regarded the questions raised as practical, not abstract, points, the maintenance of which was essential to the welfare of the colony.

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

– 153 –

The ministry–threaded their way through the parliamentary labyrinth, adroitly shunning the blow which Atkinson longed to deliver. Their Financial Arrangements Bill was so commended by Sir G. Grey's eloquence (3rd Dec.) as to command 41 votes against 13. Twenty members paired. Atkinson voted for the bill, while three of his recent colleagues, McLean, Bowen, and Reid, opposed it. The majority of the House had plainly determined to support the policy of the new men during the current session. On the 6th Dec. the ministry again pressed the Governor for power to dissolve. On the same day he declined to accord it. Frequent dissolutions, tending, in the words of the great Sir Robert Peel, to blunt the edge of “a great instrument in the hands of the Crown,” were to be avoided. The Marquis did not wish to deny that in matters not affecting Imperial interests ministers had similar rights to those of English ministers, but did “not believe that under similar circumstances a minister in England would ask for a dissolution.”⁵⁵

It is proper to notice the result of the discussions between the Marquis and his advisers. As to the calling of Mr. Wilson to the Legislative Council, Lord Carnarvon commended the Governor's conduct. As to the dissolution of the Assembly, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, who (4th Feb., 1878) succeeded Lord Carnarvon, supported the Marquis. A Governor “ought to pay the greatest attention” to the representations of his advisers, “but if he should feel bound to take the responsibility of not following his ministers’ recommendations, there can, I apprehend, be no doubt that both law and practice empower him to do so.” Sir G. Grey's views seemed “unduly to limit the prerogative of the Crown.” There was a further important point on which it would have been difficult for even the weakest functionary to fail to support the Governor. When the session was about to end, leaving Sir G. Grey in power (10th Dec.), he advised that a Land Bill, then ready for the Royal Assent, should not be assented to. Introduced

– 154 –

by the Atkinson government in August, it was in committee when the government fell. On the 15th Oct. Sir G. Grey included it in a list of bills which his ministry would take up. In committee there were divisions in which Whitaker and Taiaroa were found voting with Atkinson and Reynolds, against Larnach and Stout. There was a division (19th Nov.) in which Atkinson, with the aid of Stafford, Whitaker, Rolleston, and others, foiled by one vote a proposition made by Stout and supported by Sir G. Grey. Col. Whitmore, the Colonial Secretary, took charge of the bill in the Council, and it was passed with amendments with some of which the Representatives declined to concur. Reasons were prepared by Messrs. Stout, Ballance, and Reid for insisting on certain provisions. Stout and Ballance were supporters of Sir G. Grey. The House adopted the reasons. The Council waived some amendments, but eventually asked for a free conference, which was held. A report from the conference was adopted by both Houses, and the bill thus hammered on the anvil awaited only (in the words of Lord Hale) the Royal Assent to give it “the complement and perfection of a law.” Conceived by the Atkinson ministry, duly produced in the House, adopted by Sir G. Grey and his colleagues, the subject of conference between the two Houses—the bill might be looked on as the genuine offspring of the New Zealand Assembly. Yet Sir G. Grey strove to strangle it. There was an Executive Council meeting at half-past twelve o'clock on the day fixed for prorogation at half-past two. Many members of the Legislature had gone to their homes. At that meeting Sir G. Grey advised the Governor to refuse to assent to the bill. The Governor declined to withhold his assent. The Clerk of the Parliaments, after the Executive Council meeting was concluded, carried several bills to the Governor, who observed that, with regard to the Land Bill, Sir G. Grey had not attached his name to the customary formal recommendation for assent. The Marquis determined neither to veto the bill nor to assent to it in an unusual manner. The hour of prorogation drew near. The Speaker arrived with the Appropriation Bill. That lever of the House of Commons against the Crown became an instrument in the hands of the Crown to foil the strange device

– 155 –

of a colonial minister bent upon frustrating the action of the two Houses and foiling the Governor. The Marquis requested the Speaker to retain the Appropriation Bill, while Mr. Macandrew, a minister, took a memorandum from the Marquis to Sir G. Grey. After some delay Mr. Macandrew obtained from Sir G. Grey the usual recommendation, and the bill was signed by the Governor. Sir M. Hicks Beach laconically said: “I approve the action taken by you in declining under the circumstances which you record to refuse your assent to the Land Act of the last session of the New Zealand Parliament.”

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

So far as subsequent misdoing could justify former illusage, Sir G. Grey laboured to indemnify the Duke of Newcastle and Earls Carnarvon and Granville for the past. He had complained that they would not do their duty. He now contended that a Secretary of State had no duty to do. The Marquis declined to discuss the “position or authority” of a Secretary of State. Such an argument was “too serious to the future interests of the colony to be dealt with in a correspondence of this kind.” He remarked

– 156 –

that Sir G. Grey had in 1876 invoked the authority of the Secretary of State with regard to the abolition of the provinces. He was ready to admit that correspondence which in any way might commit ministers “should be done by their advice and at their instigation.” But the Governor had asked the Secretary of State for a decision on his own action. A Governor had “certain rights and duties to perform.” He “was as much a part of the Constitution as either branch of the Legislature.” “While he had no wish to trench in the slightest degree upon the rights and privileges of the other branches of the Constitution, he is bound to preserve intact those which have been entrusted to his care by his Sovereign. Should the Governor exceed his powers or commit any action to which exception can justly be taken an appeal is at all times open to the Secretary of State; but the Governor cannot admit his responsibility to any other authority.” Sir G. Grey retorted that the Secretary of State “was the constitutional adviser, not the mouthpiece of the Sovereign,” but did not show how the Crown prerogatives could be exercised without a channel of communication. The Governor declined to make any remarks upon Sir G. Grey's paper, on the ground that “no public advantage could be derived by a prolongation of the correspondence.” The despatches were published in the “New Zealand Gazette” in June, 1878.

The financial proposals of the government secured its position, to the disgust of those supporters of abolition who had hoped that local revenues would be locally appropriated after “local habitation and name” had become an “airy nothing” under the treatment of Atkinson and Vogel. They had been warned in vain. They were now punished. The Grey government had no difficulty in showing that the provincial land funds had been so encroached upon by their predecessors that “the idea that a large proportion was available for localization was a delusion.” The government would by law appropriate locally 20 per cent, of the land revenue in each provincial district, and would ask parliament to pass a land law fixing uniform prices throughout the colony. They would ask for a new loan of £4,000,000 rather than increase taxation; but would consider that subject in the recess. They found a deficiency of

– 157 –

more than, £700,000 on the 30th June, and would endeavour “to secure a state of equilibrium.” Such was Mr. Larnach's statement (19th Nov.). Major Atkinson disputed it. The short sight of those representatives from Otago, and Canterbury, who had thought to procure abolition of provinces without loss of provincial funds, was apparent The two provinces which, by partial adherence to Gibbon Wakefield's principles, had accumulated wealth, were about to be plundered by their professing friends. The first serious defection from the opposition was on the 22nd Nov. Mr. Gisborne, thinking the Grey ministry “a standing menace to the unity of the colony,” had been hostile to it. The financial propositions justified him in opposing it no longer. Mr. Ormond had made charges against Sir’ G. Grey which the House compelled him to withdraw; yet; even he, pleased with the prospect of plundering the Middle Island, announced that he would support the government in “generalization of the land fund, and, when that was carried,” strive to eject them. The Financial Arrangements Bill which dissolved the opposition was read a second time (3rd Dec.), Sir G. Grey, in the absence of the Treasurer, commending it to the House. It was broadly stated in a newspaper that as Canterbury had divided land revenues amounting to more than three-quarters of a million sterling amongst its local bodies in a part of the year “it was high time to make a change, but of course Canterbury does not like it.” Atkinson, the promoter of abolition, though he spoke against the ministry, voted for the bill. Grey, the opponent of abolition, thus consummated it when in office. The men of Canterbury, who had been potent in procuring abolition, in vain deplored its consequences. By 41 votes to 13 the second reading was carried. It made the land fund throughout New Zealand a part of the consolidated fund. It enacted that out of the latter there should be paid to each county a sum equal to 20 per cent, of the land revenue accruing in such county. Mr. Fox was absent when the death-blow of his “compact of 1856” was thus dealt. When the bill went to the Legist lative Council, Mr. Hall, who had been Fox's colleague in 1856, was unable to restrain his feelings. The measure constituted (he said) “a breach of the compact solemnly

– 158 –

entered into between one portion of the colony and another” in 1856. In Canterbury, by selling 2,331,000 acres on Gibbon Wakefield's principles, £3,671,000 had been obr tained. In Otago, in similar manner, for about 2,000,000 of acres, £1,807,000; while, by neglect of those principles, Auckland, for 2,144,000 acres, had obtained only £274,000. Was it fair to rob the south of the profit of its prudent management? Mr. Hall might as well have questioned with the wolf. The Council passed the bill. A Crown Land Sales Bill regulated the price of land throughout New Zealand. Lands taken under free selection were in no case to be obtained at a less price than £2 an acre. The upset price at auction was not to be less than £1 an acre. The bill which Sir G. Grey wished the Governor, to disallow swept away fifty-six provincial and general Acts. It classified all lands as town, suburban, or rural. The first were to be sold by auction at not less than £30; the second in like manner at not less than £3 an acre. Rural lands were not to be sold in larger quantities than 320 acres, nor in less than 20. Land would be taken on deferred payments in proclaimed areas. The New Zealand government thus avoided the profligacy by which in portions of Australia the selection of land was converted into an engine for robbing the public treasury, and for levying blackmail upon pastoral tenants of the Crown. The New Zealand legislature avoided another evil created by the land laws of New South Wales (1861) and Victoria (1862), where, if more applicants than one selected the same site, the land agent was to determine by lot the fate of the site. If there were more applications than one for-the same allotment on the same day in New Zealand the land was to be put up to auction, at which the bidding was limited to the applicants-Corruption or favouritism could thus be excluded, while the public might derive benefit from anincreased price. The old provincial arrangements were not altogether abandoned. The ten new land districts were bound to certain conditions embodied in the Act. Sir G. Grey and his ardent admirers contended that unddue advantages were conferred on pastoral lessees of Crown lands; but the rent of runs was to be determined by the Land Board of the district within a range fixed in the Act—the board,

– 159 –

and not the lessee, determining the carrying capacity of the run.

A Government Native Land Purchases Act deserves mention. In August Major Atkinson withdrew his Native Land Court Bill, intimating that a bill would be introduced to stop all private dealings with native lands “until after the close of the next session of Parliament.” He brought in the bill (6th Sept.), but it did not reach a second reading. Its author expressed his regret when, after his ministry fell, the bill was by the order of the House discharged from the paper (28th Nov.) on the motion of the new native minister, Mr. Sheehan, who declared that “sinking all party feeling, forgetting all past differences, it would be unfair to deny that to Sir D. McLean we are largely indebted for the fact that from 1869 up to the present time we have been at peace with the native people… I hold that on entering upon the immigration and public works policy it would have been an act of suicide to have provoked or sought for a native disturbance.” There were few natives not loyal to the Queen. Less than 3000 Maori men were “in the king country,” and though Maori women could fight, the fact that “we have 25,000 or 30,000 loyal natives on our side showed that the chances of a native outbreak are simply nil.” He deemed the £3,200,000 already spent by the colony in putting down native disturbances as “simply thrown away.” He approved the policy of teaching the English language to the Maoris, which McLean had encouraged; and proposed to increase the sum, £11,000, placed on the estimates of the year. He did not approve the manner in which land purchases from Maoris had been effected by the government. The official return of land negotiated for (after 1870), was —freehold, 4,613,000 acres; leasehold, 1,540,000—but “of the freehold transactions only 1,967,000 acres have been completed” … and “at least in regard to one-third of (them) it will be found that the titles are invalid, and it will require more money to be paid away and other acts. to be done in order to make those titles good.” He proposed that nafiye chiefs should ascertain the native titles, and that the European judges should be “simply for legal purposes only.” He regretted the abandonment of

– 160 –

the pre-emptive right of the Crown in 1862, but the step could not be retraced. He wished to raise the number of Maori members in the House from four to seven, hoping that after some years, “by the operation of a suitable land law and by the conversion of native titles to a freehold tenure under Crown grant, we could call upon them to give up all special representation of the race and to vote as Europeans do.” With regard to the dual vote which Maoris would exercise, he stated that it was almost inoperative—such votes being “not more than 5 per cent. of the whole,” although the proportion of Maoris to Europeans was very much larger. He took credit for the influence of Sir G. Grey, which had elicited friendly missives from Tawhiao. His statement was favourably received. He introduced a bill “to amend the Native Land Act 1873,” which passed through both Houses without discussion. One of its provisions may have been necessary, but it was capable of being rendered oppressive. The Act so easily passed enabled the Land Court to award costs, provided for their recovery, and gave the court power to order a deposit as security for costs, and to refuse to proceed with a case, or “hear any person who does not comply with such order.” The Native Minister was empowered “at any time” to obtain from the court a determination of the “interest in any block of land., acquired by or on behalf of Her Majesty,” and all lands declared by an order of the court to have been acquired were, from the date of the order, to be “absolutely vested in her said Majesty.” Whether the Maoris in the Legislature could have qualified the measure by guarding the rights of their countrymen unwilling to submit joint tribal rights to the court it is impossible to say. Perhaps they trusted that Sir G. Grey and Mr, Sheehan would not abuse or strain the law. The chief, Rangihiwinui, and others, petitioned for postponement of the bill in vain.

In the course of the session the sum of £5000 in final settlement of native claims on account of the Dunedin Prince's Street reserve was voted as already described.⁶⁶

It is necessary to watch occurrences in the New Zealand Parliament as regards the condition of the Maoris. It is

– 161 –

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

After floating into office, Mr. Vogel, in 1874, propounded a scheme by which, if the provinces would yield 3 per cent. of their land to be afforested, he would be able to release them from their railway obligations. By an excise of 3 per cent. upon provincial lands, the modern alchemist would convert into untold wealth the possibilities of growth of trees, although, under the colonial rule, the ancient forests were being wasted at a rate which created alarm lest even in that ocean-cradled land sterility should be brought about by diminishing the moisture of the atmosphere. Schemes for enrichment abound at all times. It was but in the 18th century that Cagliostro received money to arrest the foot of time. Schemers of every kind crave the handling of other men's wealth. The straightforward rogue advertises now, as in 1720, that if ready money deposits be sent to his office as earnest, and a few hundred pounds be remitted at a future time, untold wealth will accrue to his dupes. After a few days or weeks he decamps with the remittances of those who had, at the most, less wit than cash. The South Sea Bubble and the Pacific Islands’ schemes were framed on a different model. Shareholders were not to be robbed. In the handling of money the promoters would perforce find that some adhered to their palms, if only as a business percentage. There is, however, an indestructible commodity on which rests the security of nations, and the hope and the pride of their people. On land all usurers will lend. The Public Works and Immigration Scheme, based upon that principle, had poured many millions into

– 162 –

New Zealand, and waifs of the stream had attached themselves, or had been attached, to its propounder. There was occasional demur; but a glamour of assumed public good cast a mist over the eyes of men in general, and they were grateful. In 1876 the House had refused to vote the sum proposed for Sir J. Vogel by the Atkinson government. In 1877, a few members, more careful of New Zealand than of him, disputed the propriety of awarding a sum far exceeding the amount stipulated for when Vogel had undertaken his last mission to England. There was a sharp debate, but the money was voted. Though Vogel's personal applications might disappear from the Treasury the fruit of his labours was to be more enduring. Abolition of provinces had increased colonial burdens. Both Atkinson and Grey were compelled to deal with the financial problem. The day had not yet arrived when capital would be openly borrowed or encroached upon to meet demands for interest; but the policy of “purchasing the support of the provinces” had made many mouths gape. Only more loans could enable the appetite to be gratified. In July, Major Atkinson had announced that he would ask for a loan of £2,000,000. There was an invested sinking fund which he proposed to respect. The gross debt in December, 1876, had been almost £19,000,000 sterling. Mr. Larnach in November declared that there was a deficit in revenue of more than £700,000, and proposed to ask for a loan of £4,000,000, and do away with a multiplicity of local loans by creating one consolidated colonial debt. Major Atkinson impugned the accuracy of Larnach's calculations.

The Loan Bill was read a second time (5th Dec.) without a division, but after discussion the loan was limited to £2,500,000, of which £300,000 were to discharge provincial claims; £800,000 to redeem guaranteed debentures; and £1,400,000 to carry on public works and immigration. No provision was made for a sinking fund, although the maximum rate of interest was fixed at six per cent. The Legislative Council accepted the bill. In committee on a Consolidated Stock Bill the Speaker, Sir W. Fitzherbert, departed from his usual custom, and seriously addressed the House. As agent for the colony, in 1867, in negotiating a large loan, he was entitled to speak with authority, and

– 163 –

was heard with respect. In the loan negotiated by him, one per cent. was devoted annually to the cancellation of the stock. Earnestly he implored the House not to damage future prospects by grasping at deceitful present gain. To convert securities from other forms into one compact responsibility was good; but in so doing, to absorb the provision (by way of sinking fund) already accumulated to about a million and a-quarter sterling, was fraught with danger, and would alarm the dealers in New Zealand stock. “Heretofore we have evaded our stern duties; in an uncourageous spirit we have shut our eyes to them… If we do not act prudently our credit will fall.” No one attempted to reply, and on the following day, without discussion, by 38 votes against 13 the principle of the bill was sanctioned. In public and in private life there is no subject on which men's consciences are more elastic than on one which holds out hope of immediate gain, although it may lead to distant disaster; and there is such a weakness as unconscious gambling. The Immigration and Public Works Appropriation Bill of 1877, though dealing with millions of money, caused no debate in the Lower House. In the Council, the Speaker, Sir J. L. C. Richardson, on putting the question of the second reading (8th Dec.) pointed out that the privileges of the House had been infringed by clauses which authorized certain acts to be done by the corporation of the Thames county, and vested certain property in that body. He assumed that the infringement was unintentional, and suggested that a message should be sent to the other House, to the effect that the Council would waive their objection to the insertion of the clauses, “in the full belief that it was not the intention of the House of Representatives to annex clauses to one of their bills of supply, the matter of which is foreign to and different from the true matter of such Bill of Aid or Supply.”

Colonel Whitmore, on behalf of the government, assured the Council that there was no intention to infringe their privileges. Mr. Hart and Mr. Mantell thought it would be desirable to guard privilege against invasion; and Sir F. D. Bell (a former speaker of the Lower House) thanked Sir J. Richardson for his watchfulness and Colonel Whitmore for

– 164 –

the manner in which he had met it. Sir Dillon Bell raised a warning voice against the extravagance with which, in the Appropriation Bill and the bill under discussion, votes were “crowded on to the supplementary estimates at the last moment, in utter disregard of the certain fact that we have not money to pay them.” Nothing would “save the country from insolvency unless the government of the day, let them be who they will, sternly set down their foot against this madness.” The New Zealand Legislature seems to have shrunk from seriously considering the question of payment of its members, originally sanctioned merely to reimburse members for the difficult task of journeying to the seat of government when means of conveyance were rarely to be procured. In 1877 Mr. Stevens (from Christchurch) moved a reduction in the item, which was called “honorarium;” but he found little support. The session ended on the 10th December. The members were dispersed with irritated feelings. The men of Canterbury who had supported abolition felt the iron in their souls when the prophesied seizure of their provincial land fund became an unwelcome fact. The extension of the pastoral leases in Canterbury roused the wrath of Sir G. Grey. His reputation served to procure a friendly interview, in January, with Tawhiao, and his bitterest foes acquiesced in the belief that, as regarded the Maoris, his influence might prove useful. At Wellington he addressed the electors, by invitation, and harangued them on the policy which he fondly said would make them happy, and give the world assurance of beatitude unknown on earth before. Taxation was to be imposed on all holdings exceeding 350 acres. Universal suffrage and equal electoral districts were to convert ignorance in the halls of legislation into supreme wisdom. All would be well if the people would support Sir G. Grey.

At an election of a member to supply the place of Mr. Reader Wood at Parnell, an Auckland suburb, a supporter of the government was elected without opposition, and the high hopes of the Vogel party that in 1878 they would easily drive Sir G. Grey from office began to wane. Nevertheless Major Atkinson, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Bowen, and Mr. McLean, recently expelled from office, addressed

– 165 –

their constituents with success. The endeavour of Sir G. Grey to strangle the Land Bill furnished a weapon which they were not slow to use. He, in the meantime, addressed crowded audiences at Westland, Canterbury, and Otago. At Christchurch, Mr. Rolleston and others vainly endeavoured to check the tide. The local magnates were howled at, and Sir G. Grey was received with acclamation. After a triumphal progress he returned to the North Island to meet again the Maori King. The ministry received an addition to its ranks in the person of Mr. Stout, who became Attorney-General. Two representatives from the Otago district still held office with Sir G. Grey, although Mr. Larnach, the Treasurer, resigned his position and went to England, bearing powers to represent New Zealand in negotiating the new loan. Mr. Ballance succeeded Mr. Larnach as Treasurer. Mr. Stafford had left the colony. The star of Sir G. Grey seemed for the time in the ascendant, and the failure of the prosecution of Jones for libel against Whitaker seemed to show that outside as well as within the walls of Parliament the Atkinson ministry was condemned.

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

– 166 –

There was a cloud at Parihaka. The great block of land declared to be, with reservations, confiscated by proclamation at Taranaki in 1865 comprised all the coast line of the Cape Egmont promontory from Waitotara on the south to the White Cliffs on the north. Within it there were patches held by Maoris under English tenure. The government had pledged itself to make reserves for Maori uses, but had not made them. Even awards made to the natives by the Compensation Court in 1866 had not been carried out. Content with his practical autocracy in native affairs, Sir D. McLean, in 1872, permitted the scattered natives to return, with the public sanction, to their old homes. “I think it would be politically undesirable, and I fear practically impossible, to attempt to prevent their occupying the country north of Waingongoro, the confiscation of that country having been abandoned by the government so long as they behave themselves and keep the compact about not crossing Waingongoro.” These words (written by one of his staff) were officially approved by McLean in 1872; and the Waimate Plains were included within the territory over which confiscation was thus treated as abandoned. So completely did McLean recognize the resumption of their land by the Maoris, that he entered with them into formal deeds of cession and sale by them of lands within the confiscated block.⁷⁷ The Ngatiruanui tribe originally held the coast from near Opunake to Waitotara. The fertile Waimate Plains were part of their heritage. It has been seen that although the joint tribal rights ought naturally, by accretion, to have devolved upon the unoffending, if by treason or otherwise any deminutio capitis had been incurred by any outlawed persons, the colonial government had not adopted the wise suggestion of Mr. Cardwell to take by cession, and not by confiscation, lands required in order to punish Maoris who had taken up arms against injustice and had been worsted in the field. The proclamations of the colonial government, nevertheless, invited the rebellious Maoris to come in, and land was promised in those proclamations to those who would do so. Even to Titokowaru, Sir D. McLean had

– 167 –

declared that if he would be peaceful he would not be molested, and he had settled at Okaiawa, near the scene of his exploits at Te Ngutu-o-te-Manu. But he was not now the accepted prophet of the people. Te Whiti was their guide. Month by month—year by year—he convened meetings and harangued his countrymen with an eloquence of which they did not tire, though he sometimes spoke for hours. Mr. Parris, the agent employed in 1859 to create war at the Waitara, reported (1872):—

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

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

“erect and bareheaded, it could be heard all through the village, now thrilling with passion, anon replete with scorn, and then plaintive in entreaty. He revels in mystery, and for copiousness of language and imagery, for gracefulness of action, modulation of voice, for selfpossession, and command of his audience, Te Whiti certainly ranks high as an orator. To the usual (Maori) metaphor, he adds all that can be gleaned from Scripture. His memory in private conversatio with visitors shows that he is well informed on both ancient and private history.”⁸⁸

The colonists wondered whether he was mad or cunning; whether under the cloak of prophecy he was secretly organizing resistance, or was the dupe of the enthusiasm which asserted that he was inspired. His figurative speech fomented doubt. He spoke as if in him the Deity uttered oracles,⁹ but it was the custom of his countrymen to

– 168 –

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

Te Rangitake maintained a peaceable demeanour, but dwelt apart from Europeans, high upon the Waitara river. Scattered in various places on the confiscated territory were many of the Taranaki, the Ngatiruanui and others formerly hostile, who professed to rely on the assurances of the government that they would not be molested. As

– 169 –

far as various officers could ascertain, there was no likelihood of troubles if those promises should be respected. There were occasional dangers from native feuds. Even among the friendly Arawa strife was at one time apprehended, but it was averted by the mediation of a commissioner with the aid of native assessors. Cultivation of land and sobriety were reported to be on the increase in several districts, but the decay of the race had not been appreciably arrested. In Canterbury, the Rev. Mr. Stack wrote (June, 1877) that the old order and reverence among Maoris which had been displaced by the loss of influence of chiefs and the voluntary abolition of slavery had been succeeded by a coarseness which degraded the morals of the people. They still craved education for their children. Many of them had been impoverished by their efforts to provide funds to enable Taiaroa to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of the Maori reserve at Dunedin.

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

“We say that the present Maori Representation Act should be repealed, —i.e., the law which only allows a few representatives for the Maori people in proportion to the European representation. We say that the conduct of the native land purchases under the Act now in force is very confusing and bad, and that purchases under these regulations should be stopped. Land should not be sold while the original title exists. If the tribe, the hapu, and the chiefs consent to survey and to have the title investigated by the court, then only will it be right that such survey and investigation should take place. If all consent to sell the land, then only will it be right to sell. When the consent to sell has not been obtained,

– 170 –

let no money be paid to the owners… Let the questions of survey and of investigation of title to land rest with the owners… We desire that all the laws about the Native Land Court should be repealed, and a (marama¹⁰¹⁰) clear Act should be passed, under which Maori land matters may be fairly dealt with. It should provide that the Land Court judges should hold the same position as judges of other permanent courts, and that the government should have no authority over such Native Land Court judges. We say that the government is a bad government. It has no good thought towards Maoris. Let the Parliament upset that government. We would address a respectful petition to our Queen praying her to send hither a trustworthy and upright man to inquire into our grievances, to write them down, and to write down our statements so that our Queen may see them…”

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

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

“… Through the evils in the laws, bad Europeans have seized, without consideration, the lands of the Maoris at Hawke's Bay (Heretaunga, &c.) and other places… The Act which allows Maoris to sit on juries in the European courts should be carried out. The chiefs and people of knowledge of all the tribes in this island should cause the names of qualified persons to be placed on the electoral rolls. The Maoris throughout the colony should not vote for the new county councils, lest it be made a ground for demanding money for the councils on account of native lands. The government should use every endeavour to have schools established throughout the colony so that Maori children may learn the English language, for by this they will be on the same footing as Europeans and will become acquainted with the means by which the Europeans have become great. The meeting asks the chiefs and all the people of the island to lay aside all old deeds, to return to the right religion and to the teachings of Scripture. The meeting is glad that the disputes about Kakirawa and Te Awa-a-te-atua have been settled by the payment of a large sum of money and the restitution of a portion of the land. The Europeans of these islands will now know that the objections raised by the Maoris to the wrong-doings of Mr. Sutton and others of Hawke's Bay are not untrue; for if they had not done wrong this large sum would not have been paid for Kakirawa and Te Awa-a-te-atua. The meeting strongly objects to the return of Mr. Sutton as member for the Europeans at Napier, to succeed Sir D. McLean. The Maoris of Hawke's Bay will put no faith in the actions of a man who has been the means of their suffering

– 171 –

such evils; and the meeting says that Mr. Sutton's words in Parliament should not be listened to, and that members from all other places should try to discover the reason why such a man as Mr. Sutton is allowed to fill Sir D. McLean's seat. The meeting approves of the action of the people of Ngatahira—that is their keeping hold of it, lest Mr. Sutton should get it; and the meeting asks that neither the Parliament nor the Government should support Mr. Sutton in doing this great wrong to the Maoris under cover of the sacred name of the law (i raro o te ingoa tapu o te Ture).

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

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

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

Such was the aspect of native affairs when at the end of the long reign of the Fox, Vogel, and Ormond party, supplemented by Atkinson and Whitaker, the reins fell into the hands of Sir G. Grey. It was believed that only the tact of Donald McLean had averted dangers which men deemed possible, if not probable. The unruly Maori had his counterpart in the low European. No traveller¹¹¹¹ could go into public places without finding that there was a section of colonists (happily in a minority) thirsting for another war in order that the weakened condition of the Maoris might lead to their extinction. But though in a minority, that section was not powerless. It could by crooked methods thwart a ministry which would not pander to it. There was another section composed of speculators, who, without any wish for war, looked upon questions of war, of right and wrong, and of the treaty of Waitangi, as trifles in comparison with the acquisition of Maori lands. Their morality was couched in their ledgers. They abominated the despatch in which Lord Stanley trampled into dust the vile image which the New Zealand Company wished to set up.

– 172 –

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

Amongst documents printed during 1877 was one concerning the claims of Mr. Whitaker, which had been the subject of the bill passed through the House but rejected in the Council in 1875, in spite of the efforts of Dr. Pollen, Whitaker's colleague. Mr. Murray obtained a select committee, which reported that a proposed exchange of land between Whitaker and the government was judicious, and that delays had subjected Whitaker to loss which ought to be ascertained and settled. The committee gravely stated that they had not “the means of examining the natives interested, but had taken all available evidence.” Much labour would be avoided by inquisitors if such a mode of inquiry should become the rule. The original claim was based on an alleged purchase (Maukoro) near the Piako river, by one Webster in 1839, and Sir G. Gipps’ wise edicts had rendered that transaction nugatory. Governor Fitzroy, nevertheless, made certain irregular grants of land in 1844, and Sir G. Grey's Quieting Titles Ordinance of 1849 was alleged to have invested the claims of Webster with validity. Rights under awards of the Land Claims Commissioner were purchased by Whitaker and Heale, and

– 173 –

there were protracted negotiations to gather in the native interests. Mr. F. D. Bell, being a Commissioner under a Land Claims Settlements Act, heard the case in 1861, and made an award of 12,065 acres to Whitaker and Heale. He admitted that under Gipps’ law only 2560 acres could have been awarded, but urged that the Quieting Titles Ordinance enabled the court to validate the wrongful grants of Fitzroy. But, in 1861, it was one thing to make an award and another thing to act upon it. By the seizure of the Waitara block in 1860 Mr. Whitaker and his friends postponed the day of the gown, and he slept upon his rights. In his evidence in 1877 he plumed himself (and was congratulated) upon not having urged his claims, for fear of creating a “native difficulty.” He must, as one concerned in the “rape of the Waitara,” have smiled at the imputation of such weakness. After the war the native titles were still undealt with at the Piako, and to enable a government land-agent to purchase a tract of country, it was proposed that Whitaker should agree to exchange his Maukoro block if the government would permit him to select an equivalent elsewhere. Dr. Pollen made the bargain, but the Maoris did not wish to lose Maukoro. The land-agent told the committee that they “lived on the land, and would not” allow Mr. Whitaker to take possession … “because their ancestors and chiefs of the tribe were buried there, and they did not wish to give it up.”¹²¹² Dr. Pollen was very gracious to Whitaker in 1874; but the burial-places of ancestry could hardly be wrested from the natives, and McLean might not have consented to such an act.

It was agreed that Whitaker should surrender his title, and that the government should allow him to select 14,783 acres elsewhere (Puninga) between the Piako and Waitoa rivers, of which he was to receive a Crown grant. Whitaker thought the transaction was to be completed without delay under an Act passed in 1858, but a law officer told Pollen that the Puninga block had to be paid for out of a loan raised under the Immigration and Public Works Act, and money thus devoted was inapplicable to lands selected

– 174 –

under any scrip, and could not be awarded by way of compensation. Whitaker pleaded that a bonâ fide exchange of land was outside of the scope of the Act, but Dr. Pollen would not depart from legal advice. Then followed the Piako Land Exchange Bill, which was lost in the Council, and Whitaker complained that he was “badly treated,” but he obtained no “satisfactory answer.” He returned to Auckland and “reopened negotiations” with the Maoris, “and after the dilatory proceedings which always” attended them, arranged to give the chief the Maukoro block with a Crown title in exchange for Puninga, for which the chief was to obtain a Crown title. The latter put his case before the Land Court, but so largely had civilization encroached upon the tribal domains while he was at Maukoro that he could only prove a claim to 8000 acres. This was insufficient for Whitaker. The chief then negotiated (Whitaker deposed) “with other natives, and agreed to give them 5s. an acre, which they accepted. But the next difficulty was the money; Terapipipi declaring that he had none, and urging me to pay it, and he would repay. I advanced about £2000 for survey fees, and to buy up the outstanding claims, which was done… In the meantime Terapippi has made a selection at Maukoro, and I have had it surveyed, so that I am in a position to obtain a Crown grant on application; but I do not do so because Terapipipi wishes the Crown grant to be made in his name, which I cannot agree to till my title at Puninga is made good. Thus the matter stands at present.” Whitaker did not tell the committee whether—while the matter was thus standing—interest for monies was destroying the native inheritance, but an item in his own claims for compensation, as put before the committee on the 11th Oct., 1877, aroused the worst fears for the chief placed at his mercy: “Date, Nov. 15th, 1854. Purchaser (original), Abercrombie. Acres, 5000. Price, £2000. Date to June, 1876, 21 years 199 days. Simple interest at 10 per cent., £6309 Os. 10d Compound interest at 10 per cent., £15,609 7s. 10d.” It may be remembered that in 1873 Dr. Pollen made piteous moan for a chief who, for a small amount of survey fees (£150 or £200) was, by litigation, plundered of an estate of 30,000 acres. His mind

– 175 –

had suffered change in 1877. When examined before the committee he was indignant. He was asked: “Did the government think it desirable to acquire this block of land which witnesses say is apparently worthless, and to give up this Puninga block, part of which, we are told, was sold at £1 an acre by Mr. Whitaker before he acquired it?” He replied: “That is a question you can hardly expect me to answer. I think it is exceedingly undesirable that, as chairman, you should put such a question to me. I expect courtesy at least, and not to be accused of dishonesty. My hands are infinitely cleaner of native land dealings than yours are.” “My honour (retorted the chairman), “as a gentleman, in dealing with native lands, has never been impugned. What actuated the government in making this exchange?” Dr. Pollen could give no explanation. Asked why Whitaker had been allowed “to acquire 4000 acres in addition to the 14,000 he was to get from the natives,” he replied, “I cannot say.” Yet he was able to say, “I think Mr. Whitaker has reason to complain that the agreement made with him by me, on the part of the government, has not been carried out.” Writers of fiction have drawn terrible pictures of the rapidity with which the human mind can slide down an inclined plane. Yet surely nothing more lamentable has been seen than the conversion of the Pollen of 1863 and 1873 into the apologist of 1877.¹³¹³ The picture has been necessary to show the condition of the colony. The state of the Maoris cannot be estimated without a knowledge of the arts of those by whom they were pursued, in the attorney's office, in the camp, and in council; and last, not least, where “waipiro” was brought to oppress them.

When the Parliament of New Zealand assembled in July, 1878, the Governor congratulated it on the friendly relations which Sir G. Grey and Mr. Sheehan had established with “the leading chiefs” of the Waikato and Ngatimaniapoto tribes. He added: “The question of the survey and settlement of the west coast of this island has been firmly taken in hand, and the immediate survey of the Waimate Plains has been ordered.” By what obliquity of judgment the

– 176 –

Grey ministry were led to announce so peremptorily the survey of the Waimate Plains it is difficult to understand. All men knew that McLean had guaranteed possession to Maoris who might return to the land. Nor did their claims rest only on his words and the concurrence of the government. A proclamation of peace, issued on the same day (2nd Sept., 1865) as that of confiscation, had announced—“the Governor (Sir G. Grey), will at once restore considerable quantities to those of the natives who wish to settle down upon their lands, to hold them under Crown grants, and to live under the protection of the law. For this purpose commissioners will be sent forthwith, … who will put the natives who may desire it upon lands at once…” The words “forthwith” and “at once” had indeed been neglected, but Donald McLean had so completely recognized the right of the returned Maoris to the confiscated lands, that in 1875 he had negotiated for the purchase from them of 185,000 acres,¹⁴ and full information of the conveyances to the government was regularly given to Parliament. His arrangements for acquisition of land by purchase (within the confiscated block) “with the good will of the natives,” were reported to and approved by the Secretary of State.¹⁵¹⁵ His system, if that could be called system which depended so much upon the blank charter entrusted to him, was to invite all natives to return, to promise them undisturbed occupation of lands which they might settle upon, to purchase from those who claimed, under awards of the Lands Compensation Court, land at the rate of £1 an acre, and to rid himself of the general rights of the tribe over particular areas by compensation not exceeding 5s. an acre. This rate, define