One more instance of denial of justice in the Middle Island must suffice for these pages, which will not hold a thousandth part of those which are calculated to cause groans among the Maoris.

A few large cases find their way into Courts and Parliaments. Unnumbered cases which involve the misery of the poor are usually unrecorded. It is fortunate that amongst the settlers in New Zealand there has been more kindness than has been displayed by some of those who, dressed in a little brief authority, have brought their acts within the scope of these pages.

In Dec. 1852, Mr. Mantell requested that small portions of land might be granted to Maoris who were in the habit of visiting the towns of Dunedin and Port Chalmers, and needed accommodation there for their boats, &c.^* The Governor acquiesced and Mr. Mantell selected the sites. The site at Dunedin was at Prince's Street, and according to Mr. Mantell was the “only suitable piece of land now vacant.” Its extent was three acres.

There is much to be said about both reserves, but that at Dunedin is a sufficient sample for these pages.

On the 6th June, 1853, the Governor, Sir G. Grey, formally approved of the reserve “as recommended.”

It might have been thought that the small remnant of their lands

– 68 –

thus set apart for them would be permanently secured for the Maoris; but local envy was early at work to wrest it from them.

In 1853, the colony was divided into Provinces under an Imperial Constitution Act^* (15 and 16 Vict. Cap. 72), and the Province of Otago obtained a Provincial Legislature, and a Superintendent, or quasi-Governor.

The General Assembly, or Parliament of New Zealand, was not convened under the Constitution Act until 1854. It was, of course, paramount to the Provincial Legislatures, and the Governor of New Zealand being still Governor over the Provinces was resorted to for certain purposes by the Superintendents of the Provinces.

In June, 1855, Mr. Cargill, Superintendent of the Otago Province, applied to the Governor for a grant to himself officially of all the Public Reserves in Dunedin. He abstained from describing them. His net was so large and his terms were so vague that Governor Browne informed him (Nov., 1855) that grants should be “of a specific piece of land and for a specific purpose.”

Mr. Cargill renewed his assault in 1856, still keeping back particulars, and the Governor (Feb., 1856) still required them.

In this year, Mr. Mantell was in England, and was not within reach of the Maoris for whom he obtained the reserve thus jeopardized by Mr. Cargill's demand for control over all reserves.

Particulars having been obtained at last, certain grants were issued in 1858.

In 1858, Mr. Cutten, a Commissioner of Crown Lands at Otago, gave a significant intimation of the covetousness with which the Maori Reserve at Prince's Street was eyed. He thought the Governor had “exceeded his powers” in setting it apart for the Natives. His reason was so quaint, if not absurd, as to deserve notice. He seemed to think the claims of the Otago settlers anterior to those of the Maoris to their native soil.

In 1862, he supported a petition from persons desirous to rent the Reserve, and Sir George Grey (who had become Governor for a second time) acceded to the request.

The rent of frontages varied from £6 16s. to £3 19s. per foot, and amounted to £2525 16s. a year.

The rent was not handed to the Maoris, but (Cutten wrote) “paid into a separate account to be dealt with according to instructions.”

He applied for leave to pay £604 to the Town Board of Dunedin for “making a footpath along the front of the Reserve on the East side of Prince's St. Dunedin.”

The suspicions of an Assistant Law Officer were aroused, and he

– 69 –

wrote (22nd Dec., 1862): “The information given by Mr. Cutten does not enable me to see either what the Reserve he alludes to actually is, or the Ordinance under which the rate is imposed.… I suspect it is a Native Reserve. Mr. Cutten should be requested to give further information and meantime to refuse payment of the rate.”

Mr. Cutten after some weeks furnished information, and still cast doubts upon the power of the Governor to grant to the natives of the soil the use of the small patch of land which (in consequence of the discovery of gold in Otago in 1861) had acquired commercial value.

The Superintendent of the Province, and Mr. Cutten, availed themselves of a visit by Mr. (now Sir) F. Dillon Bell to ply him with arguments about the hardship they endured while the Maori rights were respected.

The Prime Minister, Mr. Fox, moved by Mr. Bell, directed that full enquiries should be made by Mr. H. T. Clarke, resident magistrate at Invercargill.

Mr. Clarke without delay “waited upon His Honour the Superintendent, and Mr. Cutten, but could not obtain any positive information on the subject.”

To a formal request in writing, he received no reply. He reported (Oct., 1864) that as the original Deed of Otago specially provided for the making of such Reserves for the Maoris he presumed that it should “set the question at rest.”

Mr. Fox vacated office as Premier, in November, 1864, and was succeeded by Mr. Weld. The Postmaster General in the new administration was Mr. J. L. C. Richardson, who had formerly been Superintendent of the Otago province.

The new Native Minister was Mr. Mantell, who had, in 1852, induced the Governor to grant the Princes Street site to the Maoris.

In January, 1865, Mr. Mantell asked for the opinion of the Attorney General upon the matter. “After Sir G. Grey's departure in 1854 (Mr. Mantell wrote) the Provincial authorities seem to have questioned the power of the Governor to make these Reserves, and in 1861 when I spoke with the Superintendent of Otago, and Commissioner of Crown Lands on the subject, it was urged that they were too valuable for the Natives. There is now no reason why the title to these Reserves should not be distinctly recorded. How can that be done?” Obstruction in the Province was going on, and (29th March, 1865) Mr. Weld himself requested the Superintendent of Otago to furnish a statement of the claims made by the Provincial Government.

Action and not evasion had become necessary to deprive the Maoris of the Reserve. The Postmaster General, Richardson, who had formerly been Superintendent of the Province, conferred with the Superintendent of the day, Mr. J. Hyde Harris.

Richardson wrote him a letter on the 13th April, 1865, which was answered by Harris on the same day. Richardson movingly told Harris that the failure of “a Mr. Clarke” to extract information from the Provincial Government in 1864 had led the General Government to conclude that the claims of the Province were unfounded, and

– 70 –

that “in the meantime steps are being taken to vest the property in the hands of Trustees for the natives of the province, and to apply the rents which have been received.”

“It will be evident to your Honour that should any claim exist in the part of the Provincial Government not a mail should be lost in making it known to the Hon. the Colonial Secretary.”

No time was lost. On the day that Richardson wrote to Harris, Harris answered Richardson lengthily, and sent the correspondence to Mr. Weld. Richardson also forwarded copies of the correspondence to the Prime Minister, but complained to Harris that the latter's silence at the time of Mr. Clarke's visit had justified “the conclusion arrived at by the Government.”

Mr. Harris wrote a long reply, which he may have thought a justification, and which is contained in Mr. Mackay's Compendium. He brought before Richardson a new fact, viz.: that £6031 18s. 9d. accumulated rents for the Reserve, had been by order of the Government, transferred from a special account to the “General Goverment account.”

Richardson was soon at Wellington, interchanging memoranda with Mr. Mantell whose replies will repay perusal.

In June, 1865 the Attorney General (Sewell) gave his opinion that the land had been “duly reserved as a Native Reserve” and that he did not “see any ground upon which either the Provincial Government of Otago, or any municipal body constituted in Dunedin, or any private individual could impugn” the appropriation.

The Attorney General was then a Cabinet Minister, and in most countries such an opinion from such a man would have been decisive.

But Maori lands have been subject to influences not common in other countries.

There were two cogent reasons for struggle. The land, and the thousands of pounds of accumulated rent.

The Superintendent of Otago begged that the Prime Minister would “let the question rest” till the Provincial Government of Otago could appeal to the Parliament, or General Assembly, of New Zealand.

The Government did not promise to comply with the request, but in effect nothing was done.

The assembly met on the 26th July; and Mr. Mantell, the advocate of justice, left the ministry on the following day.

A select committee in which Mr. Stafford sat, recommended, 25th August, 1865, that a Crown grant of the Reserve should be “issued in favour of the Municipality of Dunedin.”

In the House, Mr. Mantell strove to avert the adoption of such a report by moving (13 Sept.) that as the land was claimed as a Native Reserve the claim should be decided upon by the Supreme Court, and the Government should facilitate the trial.

Mr. Mantell might almost as well have “used question with the wolf.” But sixteen other members voted with him against twenty

– 71 –

nine. With bitter irony he afterwards wrote (1866) that though he was willing to believe the proceedings perfectly parliamentary, they warned all who took an interest in Maori rights that the “time might not be far distant when by precisely similar and equally parliamentary action there may remain in the whole Middle Island, and in any part of the Northern Island in which our perceptions of justice are not strengthened by our fears, not one acre of Maori land or Maori reserve which shall not have been appropriated to provincial uses.”

There may have been persons for whom such a consummation had attractions. But there seemed some hesitancy about openly consummating the wrong recommended by the Select Committee. The highly respected Mr. Fitzgerald became Native Minister in the place of Mr. Mantell, and his censure may have been feared.

Be that as it may, Mr. Weld's ministry came to an end on the 16th October, and Mr. Stafford became Prime Minister. The session was closed in October, and the way was open for departmental action without risk of unpleasant questions in the House.

But the mode of action adopted seemed like that of a man who thinks that by wearing a mask he qualifies his acts for the better.

On the 4th November 1865, a Crown Grant Clerk at Dunedin, sent by order, “for His Excellency's signature two Crown Grants to the Superintendent of Otago” “as per accompanying Schedule.” Without being specified one of these was the Maori Reserve at Dunedin. Its description in the Schedule was, “Piece of land situate in Prince's Street, Dunedin.” “Public utility” was assigned as the “Nature of Reserve.” (Mackay, vol. i., p. 142).

Mr. Stafford, on 21st November, wrote to Mr. Dick, the Superintendent of Otago that “As it is the invariable rule and requirement of the Act that the specific purpose for which a grant is asked should be stated, I have to request your Honour to be good enough to specify more particularly the object of the trust.” “His Honour” complied (28th December) by suggesting the words “As a reserve for wharves and quays.”

At this period of the transaction, events occurred which none of the actors have been able to explain, though an examination conducted in 1877 before the Native Affairs Committee sheds some light upon them.

What is clear, is that the Crown Grant was put before the Governor for signature on the 11th January, 1866.

Sir George Grey's evidence proves that the subject of the Grant had been previously discussed and that it was deemed wrong to sign it.

He said (in 1877) “Discussions had taken place between myself and law officers and I had resolved that I ought not to sign the Grant until the matter had been fully discussed. A number of Grants were presented… I believed that one of them… was the Grant for this land, but I could not positively identify it; and as the Colonial Secretary (Stafford) who presented the Grant to me was perfectly satisfied that it was not the Grant for this reserve, I signed it. Subse-

– 72 –

quently it turned out that the grant had been signed. It was done under a mistake… It was discovered the same day that the Grant had been signed improperly, and the Government tried to recover possession of the Grant, but it was found that the Grant had been sent off that day in a vessel going to Otago, and in that way the land passed… Mr. Stafford found out that the mistake arose from the negligence of a clerk in the Crown Lands Office. Mr. Domett, then Commissioner of Crown Lands, whom I sent for, told me how the error had occurred.”

Mr. Stafford testified in 1877, “As far as I can recollect, I think it probable that neither the Governor nor myself were aware when that particular Grant was signed… I think is very probable that this Grant may have come up inadvertently with a number of others, and in the same way may have been sent on by me to the Governor for his signature. I use the word inadvertently because I have some recollection, I will not be quite positive about it, that I had given a special instruction that that Grant should not be sent on for signature without my attention being called to the fact… I believe although I will not be absolutely positive at this length of time, that I gave such instructions… I have been informed that Sir George Grey who was then Governor has stated that he put some questions to me with regard to this Grant. I have no recollection (that he) ever put questions to me about any Grant whatever at any time. But if Sir George Grey says he is perfectly certain he did put such questions to me, I am not at this length of time prepared to say that he did not, but I have certainly no recollection of (his) having at any time questioned me as to a Grant, and I think if such an occurrence had taken placo I should have recollected it.” Two things are proved by these statements. Mr. Stafford had thought it right to give a special instruction to prevent a surprise, and the Governor had come to a conclusion, after consultation with advisers, that the Grant ought not to be signed.

Another thing is clear, viz.: that when the Governor's signature had been surreptitiously procured it was the duty of Mr. Stafford who had suspected that the Grant might be sent on without his attention being called to the fact, to take immediate steps to rescind the Grant, not at the expense of the Maoris, but by direct action on the part of the Government.

Another thing which is not so clear may be inferred from the swiftness with which the Grant was hurried away when signed. A hearsay rumour has reached me that it was this part of the transaction which gave the greatest pleasure to the actors in it, and that they were proud of having thus obtained the honoured name of the Queen to crown their proceedings.

It was then thought safe to drop the mask. Until January, 1866, the Dunedin plotters had usually spoken of the Maori Reserve, as “a Reserve in Prince's Street” or “on the east side of Prince's Street,” or “a piece of land situate in Prince's Street:” but having obtained

– 73 –

the Governor's signature they seem to have thought it safe to use the language adopted by others.

On the 29th January, 1866 the Town Clerk boldly applied for the back-rents, or “certain monies in the hands of the General Government on account of the Reserve lately known as the Maori Reserve,^* Prince's Street South, Dunedin.

This seems to have been at first thought audacious. Mr. Under-Secretary Gisborne replied, by direction of Stafford the Prime Minister, “There appears to be no power to transfer rents accruing on account of this land, previously to the issue of the Grant either to the Grantee or the City Council of Dunedin.

A Bill will be submitted to the General Assembly next session for determining doubts as to the appropriation of the land and the funds arising out of it.”

English readers may be inclined to ask why the Maoris were not asked what they wished to say upon the subject before their Reserve was thus shuffled out of their possession. Mr. Fitzgerald's and Donald McLean's efforts had not then given them seats in the Legislature, and the conduct of the actors in the Prince's Street drama does not suggest a hope that the Maoris were called upon to express an opinion. Moreover, Mr. Stafford's ministry was re-constructed, and Mr. J. L. C. Richardson, so active about the Reserve in 1865, became Stafford's colleague in 1866. According to Mr. Mackay's compendium,—quoting a report of a Select Committee,—Mr. Stafford performed a remarkable feat in the matter of the Reserve in 1866. He introduced in the Lower House, and carried through important stages in one day a Bill “to declare the Superintendent of the Province of Otago to be entitled to certain Rents received on account of a Reserve situate in Prince's Street in the city of Dunedin.” (Vol. i., p. 162).

There were, fortunately, two Houses of Legislature; and on the 28th September, the Legislative Council ordered the Bill to be “read a second time, this day six months.”

If there had been a plot to ratify by a law in September the abstraction from the Maoris of the land (for which both the Governor and the Prime Minister testified, that “by mistake” a Grant had been procured for the Otago Superintendent in January of the same year) the plot had failed. But it is to be hoped that the attempt to pass the Bill was but another mistake—of the same kind.

The first note of the Maori feelings on the subject which Mr. Mackay's Compendium affords us, shows (Vol. I. p. 143) that Mr. Stafford had means of knowing what those feelings were, before he carried his Bill through one House in so rapid a manner. But public men are very busy during a session, and we may hope that as he testified that the “Grant may have come up inadvertently” for the

– 74 –

Governor's signature, so the Bill may have come inadvertently before the House in September, 1866.

Be that as it may, we find in Mr. Mackay's Official Documents, (Vol. I. p. 143) a letter from the Chief Taiaroa, dated 5th August, 1866, to the Governor. “… I have a word to say to you about our reserve here in the Town. I request you to make clear to us the case in respect of it. I have heard that it is being taken away by the Pakehas of the Town, that land is. It is very wrong thus to take our land away without a cause. Friend, Governor—with you is the disposal of that land. Do you, in replying to us, make clear its position. If any Pakehas importune for that land, do not let them have it without paying for it. Friend, give heed…” The Prime Minister waited apparently more than two months before writing to “His Honour, the Superintendent, Otago” (Dick), about taking away of the land “without a cause”; having in the meantime made his abortive attempt to deprive the Maoris of the accumulated rent by a special Act. On the 16th October, 1866, Stafford sent, to Dick, Taiaroa's letter and said—“After a careful consideration of all circumstances connected with the Native claim to this reserve, and with the Crown Grant referred to, the Government is of opinion that the question of the validity of the Grant should be submitted to a proper judicial tribunal.” (He proposed to test the matter by a writ of Intrusion). “The expenses attending the process will be chargeable on the contingencies of the Native Department, or on the proceeds of the reserve, according as the issue may be.” (Mackay, Vol. I. p. 143).

But trials, especially fair trials, were never palatable to that section of the Colonists, which deemed the Maoris fit objects for pillage or maltreatment. Dick replied, 30th October, 1866, “on behalf of this Government (i.e. the Government of the Province Otago) I decline to try the validity of the Crown Grant by the course proposed, on the ground that the Provincial Government cannot recognize any Maori right or title to the reserve in question, which point it was understood, had already been definitely decided by the General Assembly.”

To any one ignorant of the curious way in which people can persuade themselves that their conduct is right, when they set aside in their own favour the weightier matters of the law—judgment and faith—it may appear unaccountable that such letters could pass at such a time between Stafford and Dick:—but they stand printed in Mr. Mackay's valuable “Compendium of Official Documents” (of which I may remark that I found it difficult to obtain a copy, but of which I have taken great care, and which I am prepared to show to any one desirous to consult it).

The next important document contained in it, is a letter addressed by no less than sixteen Members of Parliament to the Prime Minister on the 12th July, 1867. Mr. Macandrew was one of them. They tell him that in accordance with his own “request” made “on the 9th inst.” they apply to him for the rents, and that in their “humble opinion” it “would be an act of injustice on the part of the General Government any longer to withold them” from the Provinceof Otago.

– 75 –

Stafford informed them (23rd July) that “the Government after a careful review of all the circumstances of the case is of opinion that the payment requested should be made, and will consider in what manner this can be legally effected.” On the 24th July he wrote to Mr. Macandrew (who had become Superintendent of Otago) and who was conveniently in Wellington. Stafford had been advised that the Superintendent of Otago must be “recognised as the recipient of the rents.”

But proceedings were threatened with a view to obtain a declaration of the invalidity and cancellation of the Crown Grant' and Stafford required, before paying the money to Macandrew, an undertaking for the return of the money, if the proceedings should be successful, or any other person than Macandrew should be found entitled to the money. On the 25th July Macandrew declined such a responsibility:— “however improbable it may be that the Supreme Court will give other than an equitable decision in this case, yet I am not warranted in committing the Province to the chances of such a contingency.” Macandrew added that after consultation with other members it was thought desirable that Mr. (now Sir) Francis Dillon Bell should re introduce in 1867 the Bill thrown out by the Council in 1866, the object of which was to enable the Otago Province to receive the Maori rents.

But an obstacle had already intervened. A Maori Chief, J. T. Patuki, had, 15th July, prayed that the Governor would “permit and enable” the Ngaitahu and Ngatimamoe tribes to try in the Supreme Court their right “to this reserve and these funds”; and on the 22nd July, Patuki had been informed that his petition had been assented to.

Mr. Mantell was courteously informed accordingly by a Minister, Mr. J. C. Richmond, 25th July, and was invited to interest himself as a friend in the matter as the Government wished “to afford these Natives every facility to test the validity of their claim, and will guarantee a payment to their legal advisers of a sum not exceeding £200 on acconnt of expenses incurred by you on their behalf.”

The sum was not large, and it would have to be paid from funds derived from the patrimony of the Maoris, but the tone of the letter was kindly.

Mr. Mantell agreed to act in accordance with it. But when application was made to the Attorney General, Mr. James Prendergast, for a Writ of scire facias in the case he replied, 6th August, “Upon the usual bond being given to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, let the Writ issue.”

Mr. Mantell (7th August) promptly requested his gracious correspondent, Mr. Richmond, “to indicate the mode in which the demands of the Attorney General are to be acceded to, and to appoint bonds-men to undertake the responsibility on behalf of the Government.”

Mr. Richmond's reply was neither prompt nor gracious. On the 19th August, 1867, he wrote:—(Mackay p. 149).

– 76 –

“Sir, referring to my letter of the 25th July last, agreeing to guarantee up to a certain amount the costs of a suit as to the ownership of the Prince's Street Reserves, Dunedin, I regret to be under the necessity of informing you that the Government having at or near the time of my promise entered into an arrangement altogether inconsistent therewith, have considered it proper to withdraw the guarantee in question so far as the future is concerned…” (They would however pay costs already incurred).

J. C. Richmond.”

The Hon. W. B. D. Mantell, M.L.C.,

Wellington.

After brief interlocutions, Mr. Mantell replied formally on the 26th August. Meanwhile, Mr. Dillon Bell had, on the 30th July, introduced his Bill to enable Otago to receive the Maori rents, and on the 6th August had withdrawn it, on the plea that “the Government had taken the matter up;”^* and on the 7th August Stafford had re-introduced a similar Bill^†

On the 10th September it was passed in the Lower House, and was sent to the Upper, where, in technical phrase, it “lapsed.”

A Select Committee of the Lower House reported in 1868 thus:^‡ “The loss of the Bill appears to be attributable to the following circumstances:—On the 22nd August a petition from a native chief, named John Topi Patuki, claiming to be interested in the reserve, was presented to the Legislative Council. Its prayer as described in the journal was that the Dunedin Princes Street Reserve Bill be not passed, but that ‘the whole question be dealt with by a judicial tribunal.’” (Similar had been Bishop Selwyn's and Sir W. Martin's prayer in 1860, about the land at Waitara and the Chief Te Rangitake.) The Legislative Council resolved 17th September to accede to Patuki's prayer, on the ground that the matter ‘could only be equitably and satisfactorily decided by the Supreme Court.”

The significance of Mr. Richmond's abandonment of the promise made by the Government to the Maoris is more easily understood by observing that after the promise was made on the 25th July by Richmond, his colleague, Mr. Stafford, as Premier, introduced his Bill to sanction the payment of the accrued rents to the Province of Otago.

It was while the Bill was before the Lower House, that Mr. Mantell formally replied, 26th August, to Mr. Richmond's astounding announcement that a promise not so old as “one revolving moon” would be repudiated. Some warmth of expression was perhaps natural… “I cannot understand the mode in which the Government

– 77 –

can reconcile with any reputable idea of honour and good faith the limitation and withdrawal of the guarantee of 25th July, intimated in your letter of 19th August. (Amongst other details, Mr. Mantell mentioned that he had recommended Mr. Izard, the Maori legal adviser, to tender Patuki's bond for £500 to satisfy the demand of the Attorney General.)

“Whether that unfortunate chief can ‘withdraw’ this guarantee with the facility which you appear to believe attends a similar but far less justifiable act on the part of the Government, the Attorney General can inform you… It seems scarcely necessary to inform you that after this experience of the ways of your Government towards the weak, I decline to take any further action in this matter on behalf of the Government. You will, of course, address any further communication to Mr. Izard, who, with Mr. Allan, on your letter and guarantee, undertook the conduct and charges of the case —my correspondence with you ending, I trust, here.

“To me the case is but too clear; on the one hand the Natives require from you, out of the funds received by you as their self-constituted guardians, sufficient to enable them, as encouraged by the Queen's Representative and by yourselves to try in the Courts of the Colony to recover property long recognized as theirs,… . on the other, a demand for these funds is made on behalf of the body which now holds that grant, supported by no argument that has not yet been fairly met, but preferred by sixteen members having votes in the Legislature.… And in this dilemma the Government proposes now to assume a position of absolute passiveness, withholding from suitors of its own creation enough of their own money to pay their expenses… Of the choice thus made by the Government there is, I fear, but one opinion open to any man who cares for the reputation of the Colony and his own honour.” Mr. Richmond retorted that some of the “topics” in Mr. Mantell's letter were of “a purely personal kind, and call for no official reply; although the injurious character of some of your remarks and insinuations will require notice when time shall enable a more temperate view to be taken on the subject.”

The manipulation of the matter required almost the art of a Joseph Surface, and it is well that Mr. Mackay's “Official Documents” reveal the facts.

On the 25th July, Macandrew refused to enter into an obligation to refund the rents if the Supreme Court should decide that he ought not to have received them.

On the 27th August he proposed to hand over another piece of land to the Maoris instead of the Princes' Street Reserve, and Mr. J. C. Richmond was the go-between he made use of.^*

In September the Bill to enable him to receive the accrued rents was arrested in the Upper House.

On the 12th September a Committee reported to the Legislative

– 78 –

Council that Patuki's “petition (against the Bill for handing the accrued rents to Macandrew) should be acceded to.”

On the same day Mr. Richmond wrote to Macandrew that another member of Parliament had suggested “in conversation” with Richmond, that Macandrew would probably accept the rents, and give (what he had formerly refused) a guarantee “to refund the same if the result of proceedings at law or in equity should be to upset the Grant.” (Mackay, Vol I. p. 157.

On that same day, and apparently in a hurry, Macandrew informed Richmond “officially” that he was .‘prepared to give the necessary undertaking to refund the accrued rents,” and naturally enough suggested that if he could thus obtain possession of the funds, there would be “no object in pressing the Bill now before the Legislative Council.” If pressed, it might have been defeated in accordance with the determination to accede to the prayer of Patuki; and as its object was to put the money into Macandrew's hands, he did not require the Bill if Richmond would give him the money without it.

Accordingly, on the 24th September, 1867, the accrued rents (£6,031 18s. 9d.) were paid to the Superintendent of Otago, he giving the required guarantee.^*

If Banquo had been in New Zealand, he might have said to the successful Province:—

” ‘Thou hast it now!’ land, rents, and favouring aid
From sublunary powers; and should Heaven grant
That no historic eye shall spy the matter,
The Maori wrongs shall vanish in the past,
As Maori lives in present. They depart
Like mist-wreaths of the morning; but a book
Which graves the stubborn facts on winged leaves;
Guard thou 'gainst that! for it shall tell the tale
To countless generations, and 'twere better
To do no wrong than let the wrong be proved
In the eternal blazon of the truth.”

But there was no Banquo at hand.

Patuki's petition to the Queen was presented by Mr. Mantell to the Governor on the 19th August, 1867.

It was not until the 5th October that Mr. Richmond furnished a memorandum to be forwarded with it to the Secretary of State.

Both Sir George Grey and Mr. Richmond alluded to the manner of the Grant. Sir George Grey said: “My responsible advisers at a meeting of the Executive Council inadvertently advised me to sign a Crown Grant dated 11th January, 1866.” Mr. Richmond said: “In the meantime inadvertently as regards His Excellency and the Colonial Secretary (Stafford) a Grant which had been prepared on the authority of the resolution of the House of Representatives was presented for signature and issued.”

– 79 –

Mr. Richmond's memorandum obscured the facts. The Governor wrote that he had “sincerely desired” that the case should have been “compromised in a generous spirit towards the natives of the Middle Island, who parted with large tracts of land to this Government for an almost nominal consideration.” The Secretary of State dismissed Patuki's petition by saying he was “unable to advise Her Majesty to take any steps in relation to it.”

Sir George Grey encountered difficulty in endeavouring to arrange the matter before quitting his post as Governor.

He told Mr. J. C. Richmond that he “thought the expenses of a suit for testing the validity of the Grant should be borne out of the accrued rents of the reserve,” and Richmond replied: “That fund is no longer in the Treasury,” ^* but suggested that proceeds might be abstracted from other native reserve funds, and on the 26th October, 1867, a formal order was made, in the Executive Council, to take £400 from Ngaitahu Reserve Funds to enable the Ngaitahu tribe to contend against the injustice done to them by “inadvertently” taking their land, and very “advertently” sequestering their rents.

Mr. Mantell was persuaded in November to watch the case, and the disbursement of funds on behalf of the Maoris.

Soon after these arrangements were made in 1867 the Native Lands Court sat (April, 1868) at Christchurch, and Mr. Hall (a colleague of Stafford, J. C. Richmond, and J. L. C. Richardson, in the ministry,) made that singular Order of Reference which the New Zealand Parliament was fain to validate by a special Act, with regard to the Ngaitahu Deed, and the extinction of Maori titles.

From Christchurch the judge proceeded to Otago, and there the question of the Maori Reserve at Prince's Street was raised before the Court.

An official return ^† states briefly how it was dealt with.

It was not unnatural that the Maoris should think the Native Lands Court the proper tribunal to resort to, with regard to their land; but they are not the only persons who have formed erroneous notions as to the redress obtainable in a court of law.

– 80 –

They did not understand the law, but they knew something about equity and about human nature. They collected, as best they could, funds with which to sustain their cause; and the account was called “The Naboth's Vineyard Account.”

After a time the case went before the Supreme Court at Dunedin, and Judge Ward decided on technical grounds against the Maoris.

They were not allowed to put the merits of their case before the Court, and therefore none of their champions could complain of being treated more shabbily than they were. There were the usual technical proceedings; and Judge Ward decided that the Maori “declaration” was bad.

There was an appeal to the Court of Appeal sitting at Wellington, on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th November, 1869. The declaration had set out a writ in form of a scire facias, and long arguments were used on both sides. Much mint and cummin were expended, but some weightier matters were not dwelt upon. The case was called The Queen, Plaintiff in error v. James Macandrew, Defendant in error:— but the solemn act to which the Queen had been a party in New Zealand—The Treaty of Waitangi—morally conclusive as to Maori rights, was not allowed to be the measure of their claims. The Judges decided that the declaration was bad; and, on application of counsel for the Queen, reserved leave for him to apply to amend the declaration before the close of the sittings.

The proceedings occupy a score of pages in Mr. Mackay's copious compendium, where those who do not shrink from the unsavoury task can read them.

Mr. Mantell and Mr. Izard, a legal adviser, petitioned for a hearing before the Privy Council. Taiaroa journeyed to Wellington to consult about the necessary funds; others assisted, and the “Naboth's Vineyard Account” increased.

The appeal was in progress in 1872, and it may be that an exposure of the facts in England was not deemed desirable. It may have been thought that an English tribunal would closely investigate the Maori case; and deal with its merits, rather than stifle it in the wrappings of technicalities.

Messrs. Stafford, Richmond, and Richardson, were not at this time in office. Mr. Fox with Mr. Vogel and others acceded to office in 1869, and with them Donald McLean for the first time became Native Minister.

Mr. Stafford expelled the Fox ministry in September 1872, but was himself driven from office in the next month. McLean again became Native Minister in a Waterhouse Ministry in which Mr. Vogel was Treasurer and for the first time, Maoris were made Executive Councillors.

Mr. Vogel informed Mr. Izard that “the Government were desirous that the action should be stopped,” and that the Provincial Government of Otago shared the desire and “wanted possession of the land.”

Mr. Izard had “every hope of succeeding” in the appeal, but consented to compromise, and after sketching terms with Mr. Vogel,

– 81 –

consulted Mr. Mantell. The result was that a telegram was sent to England to stop the appeal on payment by the Province of Otago of £4,560 and £500, which would provide, after certain deductions, £5,000 for division among the Maori claimants and leave the Province in quiet possession of the land which it had coveted so long.

Mr. Izard wrote to Patuki that though he did “not think the Maoris entitled to anything less, in strict justice, than the whole of the land,” —the chances of success must be considered, and he had made the best bargain he could with Mr. Vogel

Mr. Mantell also wrote to Patuki that the compromise represented not the Maori rights, but their prospect of obtaining them. He believed the rights unquestionable. “On considerations of public policy (he wrote) in the true interests of the colony, I should and do desire that the case should go on before the Privy Council whatever the result; for I am not absolutely without hope.… that an authentic exposure of all the facts relating to this case might at last arouse some English statesman to a sense, that in delegating powers to colonists the Imperial Government is bound in honour and duty to insist upon the honest fulfilment of every engagement made by Her Majesty's representatives on behalf of Her Majesty, and in Her Majesty's name, prior to such delegation; and that of this duty the Imperial Government cannot divest itself before God, though it may succeed in doing so before man—as man goes. But you will say… what is the best in a pecuniary point of view, that I can do for myself and my tribe in this matter? In this view I conscientiously believe that by accepting the proposed compromise you will obtain the full value of your chances, as far as I can see them. The law is always uncertain… no proper care has been taken when promises have been made to your tribe, or benefits guaranteed, so to bind the Crown as to give you a claim irrefragable against it in the Courts of Law.… The decision of the Privy Council may be adverse, or may not be final, and the case may have to be begun again, if you can go on with it; and whence are the funds to be derived?”

Whence indeed when there is a powerful syndicate leagued together to wage war with combined funds against the Maoris and their friends?

Mr. Mantell wrote also to Taiaroa, who told Mr. Izard that he could not say the compromise was bad, although it was known that the land was rightfully the property of the Maoris.—“However I will consent in order to save my property and that of all my people—lest we lose the case in England as we have lost it in the Supreme Court of New Zealand.”

Thus the title to the land passed away—at a time when its value was estimated at £100,000, and when a member of the New Zealand Parliament said that the condition of the Maori victims of “unfulfilled promises” in the Middle Island was a disgrace to any Government.

In the absence of some apprehension that an English tribunal would do justice without fear or favour, it may even be doubted whether the Maoris would have received any compensation at all.

– 82 –

When Taiaroa afterwards moved for a Select Committe on “Unfulfilled Promises,” Mr. Macandrew complained that the composition of the claim to the Reserve for £5,000 “seemed only to have had the effect of giving a taste for blood.”

What, then, must have been the appetite of the Province of Otago which had swallowed almost all the land of which the Reserve was but a fragment, and sought that sweet morsel in the manner by which Sir George Grey's signature was obtained for the grant?

Is it to be wondered at, that, seeing how his people groaned, Taiaroa sometimes used strong language? There was a report by Judge Fenton upon a petition from the Ngaitahu about the failure of the Government to afford the hospitals and schools promised when they parted with their land.

The Report said that “even failure in this respect cannot be the subject of pecuniary compensation. Such compensation would be as incapable of calculation as the consequential damages in the Alabama claims.” It quoted a legal maxim to support the rejection of the groans of the Ngaitahu people.

Taiaora obtained leave to lay a written comment on the report upon the table. He criticized it as “confused.” “You refer to the Europeans having brought peace. I reply to that, I would be rather dead than live to witness the distress and pain which my people suffer through the deceitful and unfulfilled words of the false-speaking race the Europeans. You say qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus; but I have not seen any benefit derived by myself and my people from the Europeans.… The words of the report are merely grumbling words; they have no force. They are deceitful and delusive; (Kahore e pono) they are not true. Mr. Fenton refers to that vessel “the Alabama.” Is the same course to be taken with the Middle Island as with that vessel? What was done about her? Did not England pay on her account to the American Government, because she was built on English soil?” Sensitive people may blame such language, but can they wonder at it?

Having obtained for his suffering people the money paid by the Otago Province to stay the appeal to the Privy Council about the title, Taiaroa naturally applied for the arrears of rent which had accrued before the “inadvertent” grant of the Reserve to the Province.

In 1874, Donald McLean and Mr. Vogel gave no answer to his appeals.

In 1875 Mr. Mantell supported him, but McLean was uncompliant.

In 1876 Taiaroa asked in the House whether McLean would restore to the Maoris the rents “due before the issue of the Crown Grant.” They exceeded £6000, McLean postponed his reply in order to consult his colleagues; and, when again questioned, refused to re-commend the restoration “inasmuch as it was understood that the claim was settled or compromised by the payment” in 1872.

If that had been the case it would have been easy to say so in the first instance; and in that case also it would have been supererogatory to endeavour to procure Taiaroa's signature to a document which had

– 83 –

not been shown to Mr. Izard. This was proved in 1877, when the persevering Chief renewed his efforts, and the matter was examined by the Native Affairs Committee.

Donald McLean, so powerful in the House on Maori questions, had then retired. The intricate methods resorted to in previous years to deprive the Maoris of the Reserve, and withhold from them the rents, were discussed before the Committee, but need not be mentioned here. Taiaroa gave cogent evidence. Mr. Fox and Mr. Macandrew warmly opposed the restoration of the arrears of rent. But the Committee nevertheless recommended it. Fox and Macandrew protested. Sir George Grey had become Prime Minister in October 1877, Mr. Sheehan was Native Minister. Mr. Macandrew was their colleague.

A sum of £5,000 was put on the Estimates as “Final settlement of Native Claims to the Dunedin Prince's Street Reserve,” and was passed on the 6th December by 28 votes against 23.

Taiaroa, though present during the evening, did not vote. The three Maori members for the North Island voted for the grant. Mr. Macandrew, consistently with his former opinions voted against it. So did Mr. Bryce a North Island member, who was Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee which had recommended the vote. Sir George Grey supported it. His ministry had only recently been formed, and it is possible that some votes were given on party grounds and without much enquiry.

Numerous avocations,—public and private,—prevent large numbers of persons from examining closely all the questions on which they are called upon to vote, and the duty of making no unfair demands upon their supporters ought to weigh heavily upon ministries.

Such was the end of the Maori Reserve at Dunedin, so small, so coveted and—to use Pistol's language—so conveyed.

Speaking of the proposal of certain theorists “to confiscate, either openly, or under the thin disguise of a predatory use of the taxing power, every man's freehold, Professor Goldwin Smith remarks:— “That the State has, by the most solemn and repeated guarantees, ratified private proprietorship, and undertaken to protect it, matters nothing; nor even that it has itself recently sold the land to the proprietor, signed the deed of sale, and received the payment. That such views can be propounded anywhere but in a robber's den or a lunatic asylum, still more, that they can find respectful hearers, is a proof that the economical world is in a state of curious perturbation.”^*

What language would the learned Professor have used about the Maori Reserve at Dunedin, if the facts had come within his knowledge? There, not only the ordinary obligation to do right existed. England had only obtained a footing in New Zealand by a Treaty in which she guaranteed to the Maoris all the rights of British subjects, and acquired a power of pre-emption by the Crown of such lands as the Maoris might wish to sell. Under that Treaty the Crown acquired by Deeds of cession all the land in the Middle Island at a nominal cost,

– 84 –

guaranteeing at the same time large reserves to the Maoris by promises which are admitted to be “unfulfilled.”^*

The Prince's Street Reserve, however, was specially allotted to the Maoris.

It cannot be denied that the elaborate and curious manner in which it was wrested from them after “solemn and repeated guarantees” and pledges of protection from the Crown, deserves exposure in these pages. It has caused many groans, some pathetic, and some indignant.

The exposure of wrongs done is easy when circumstances have caused them to be officially recorded. A chief like Taiaroa having a seat in Parliament could drag the question of the Dunedin Reserve into light.

Some Reserves were lost in gloom; but those who should have been the beneficiaries were no less pillaged and had no less cause for grief than the Ngaitahu of Otago.

In 1882 in debate on a Native Reserves Bill, Captain Fraser (New Z. Hansard, Vol. 43 p. 637) said in the Upper House that “four Native Reserves were totally lost in Hawkes' Bay; nobody knew what had become of them.” And a newspaper remarked, “In spite of trustees, laws, regulations, red tape … they have been blotted from the map Not a creature from the Native Minister (Mr. Bryce) down … has the faintest notion of where they are.”

And yet some people are willing to swear that the Maoris are under great obligations for the justice and kindness with which they have always been treated ! and some other people without further enquiry, believe them.

Well might the old chief Parore say in a petition to the Queen in 1882:—"These things, and many of the laws which are being carried into effect, are, according to Maori ideas, very unjust, creating disorder amongst us, giving heart pangs and sadness of spirit to your Maori children, who are ever looking towards you, Most Gracious Queen; and it is averred by men of wisdom that these matters, which weigh so heavily upon us, are in opposition to the great and excellent principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”

Lord Kimberley, forgetful of, or vilipending the Treaty, and the oft-repeated and solemn assurances of his predecessors that it should be religiously and scrupulously respected,—arrested the course of their petition, and told its bearers that “it was not the duty of the Colonial Office to advise the Queen in reference to local matters like the present.”^†

– 85 –

The seizure of the Maori Reserve at Dunedin was special, and the arts of a Provincial, aided by the powers of a General, Government succeeded in abstracting from the Maoris, under the forms but against the spirit of law, the coveted vineyard of Naboth.

But even the forms of law were not always respected; and the time came in 1881, when deeds were done for which it was not even pretended that there was any legal sanction.

When my censure of those deeds provoked indignation against me, I hoped that by showing how unlawful they were, I should justify a certain portion of what I had written; but, the contention of my counsel on this point was overruled in 1886, in a court of law, on the ground that though the seizure of dwellings at Parihaka might have “been a very arbitrary act” the Judge thought (counsel on the other side) “quite justified in saying ‘I will not go into that question.’” In another part of the summing up, the learned Judge said: “No doubt that Parihaka affair would open, and did open, a strong observation about the position of the Natives and about the repressive measures which were to be taken against them. With reference to that I think it would be advisable as far as we can, to keep clear of all that discussion.”^*

It is the manifest duty of all loyal subjects to obey the law, and I do not desire to complain here, of the manner in which the law was laid down by the learned Judge in 1886.

Accepting implicitly the condition that the arbitrariness or unlawfulness of acts done at Parihaka in 1881 could not be represented on my behalf before an English jury in 1886 as I wished, I may still present the facts historically to that tribunal—public opinion—for which these pages, are written.

If critical censure were prohibited there would be practically no check upon brutal or unlawful acts; for there is no process of Impeachment possible in a colony.

The far-seeing William Wentworth did indeed urge in a petition from New South Wales in 1844 that a tribunal for Impeachment ought to be created; and he cited in proof of the necessity, the judgment of the Privy Council in 1842,^† which pronounced that, as to a Colonial Assembly, the right of Impeachment was “a claim for which there is not any colour of foundation.”

The colonial office saw no way to comply with Wentworth's demand, and no such way has since been found.

To the wider court of public opinion, therefore, must all friends of their fellow-creatures resort when they seek to denounce, and thereby to prevent, oppression.

In previous pages (31, 32) I have shown under what circumstances, in 1865, a Proclamation of Confiscation—saving the rights of loyal holders—was issued with regard to the West Coast, and simultaneously with it another Proclamation guaranteeing to “at

– 86 –

once restore considerable quantities of land to those of the Natives who wish to settle down upon their lands.”

The desolation of the district in 1869, as described by Sir William Fox and Sir F. Dillon Bell in 1880, and the resumption of the duties of humanity under Donald McLean, have also been recorded. McLean's instructions, and arrangements recognizing Maori possessory rights at the West Coast, and his purchasing their lands there, under deeds of cession, and the exultation of Governor Sir George Bowen, and the approval of the Secretary of State of Mc Lean's [sic: McLean's] proceedings have also been mentioned.

It is necessary to explain briefly now in what way the Government, with armed men, invaded the peaceful homes thus seemingly secured for the Maoris, trampled over tilled fields, destroyed stores of food, haled away women and children; imprisoned their beloved chief (or, as they deemed him, prophet); denied him a trial; and, when they nominally released him under a special Act, retained under it the power of re-arresting him and imprisoning him without even an allegation of his having in any way offended.

The story of Te Whiti is too long to be repeated in these pages. It is sufficient to say here that he had established such a reputation amongst his countrymen that those who were gathered round him at Parihaka on the West Coast, within the territory on which Maori possession had been so completely recognized by the Government, religiously accepted his advice.

Their numbers increased so much, that it was stated that at no part of New Zealand had there ever been, within European knowledge, so large and compact an area of land cultivated by Maoris.

The Governor, Sir Arthur Gordon, described Te Whiti, in a Despatch to Lord Kimberley (February, 1881),^* as having at all times refused to join in fighting against the Government, as “deeply versed in the Scriptures,” and while “professing not to have abandoned the Christian faith preaching a vague and mystical religion of which he is himself the prophet. Eloquent and subtle, and animated by an unquestionably earnest patriotism, he has for many years exercised a powerful, and for the most part beneficial, sway over the hearts and lives, not only of his own tribe, but of a large section of the Maori population. Where his influence extends drunkenness is unknown, industry is exacted, and peace sedulously inculcated.”

Two Royal Commissioners, Sir W. Fox and Sir F. Dillon Bell, formally reported in 1880 much to the same effect, e.g. “The influence of Te Whiti has always been exercised against war;” ^† “in his addresses at the Parihaka meetings he has frequently lamented the mischief that has ensued among his people from the drink which they can get in the European settlements; and according to Major Brown he has been successful in doing what neither the wisdom of the Colonial Parliament, nor the vigilance of the Executive Government

– 87 –

have done elsewhere, he has prevented the sale (and to a great extent the use) of intoxicating liquors within his own particular district.”^*

The Governor, Sir Arthur Gordon, told the Secretary of State at a later date (13th February, 1882)^† “In any general estimate of Te Whiti's character and career, the salient points should never be over-looked that he has, with unvarying consistency, for a long course of years, advocated peace and non-resistance, that morally and materially he has benefited those for whom he has worked, and that his main offence has been, I believe, disclosed by Mr. Bryce, viz., that he is opposed to the passing of land from Natives into European hands. That he is so, there can be no doubt; but this is not unnatural, nor indeed from his point of view can I pronounce him wrong; for, that the alienation of their land, the introduction among them of public-houses, hitherto proscribed, and the cessation of regular industry, hitherto exacted of them, will produce injurious effects in the Maoris of Parihaka, cannot be doubted.”

Testimony as to the industrious character of Te Whiti's people is abundant.

When, by advice of his Ministers, Governor Sir Arthur Gordon despatched his aide-de-camp, Captain Knollys, with a letter to Te Whiti in December, 1880, Captain Knollys reported: “At a distance of three or four miles from Parihaka we passed through some large and good fields of potatoes, maize, tobacco, &c. These had the appearance of being well looked after, were carefully fenced, and the crops were looking very promising.… These fields, I was informed, are in the land proposed to be put up for sale by the Government. … Parihaka shows no sign of fortification” (p. 109). “Te Whiti also prohibits any spirits to be taken to Parihaka” (p. 113, Blue Book, 1882, C. 3382). The same Blue Book (at page 226) contains the report of a newspaper correspondent that “the slur cast upon the Maoris by their rabid foes, that they do not cultivate the land they hold, proceeds from deep ignorance of the facts. There are square miles of potato, melon, and cabbage fields around Parihaka; they stretch on every side, and acres and acres of the land show the results of great industry and care.”

Parihaka was therefore situated thus:—in compliance with Mr. Cardwell's injunctions the Governor in his Proclamation of 2nd September, 1865, ^‡ declared that “no land of any loyal inhabitant” within the district would “be taken,” (except such as might be needed for) “security of the country, compensation being given for all land so

– 88 –

taken,” and that the rebels who might come in within a reasonable time and submit would receive “land in the said district under grant from the Crown.”

Construing this Proclamation, Sir F. Dillon Bell publicly declared in Parliament in 1879 that the land ‘never had been confiscated.^*

“It was untrue to say that the whole of the land between the Waitotara and the White Cliffs had been confiscated. It never had been confiscated. The only instrument by which the claim of confiscation was ever set up, was the proclamation bearing the signatures of Sir George Grey as Governor, and of Mr. Fitzgerald as Native Minister, in Mr. Weld's Government. What did that say? It confiscated the land of those in rebellion: but it not only did not confiscate the land of those who remained loyal, it conserved their rights, and made the express promise to them that their land should not be taken. That was an undeniable fact. He could not conceive how any one acquainted with the history of the country could deny that these promises existed from the very inception of the confiscation. And it was equally true that none of the promises had been kept. They remained to this day in the same state in which they were in 1865, and the natives who were at that time in loyal obedience to the Crown, and had never been in rebellion since, had never had their land given to them yet.”

After other Native ministers had done more or less mischief, Sir Donald McLean encouraged the Maoris (not only the loyal like Te Whiti, but others who had been in arms) to occupy the country, and he so completely recognized their title that he paid money on behalf of the Government in purchasing lands from those who were called returned rebels.

The Governor reported McLean's arrangements “for the acquisition by purchase, with the goodwill of the Natives, of such portion of land as they hold within it, but do not require for their own use, and which appear desirable for European settlements.^†

McLean's “arrangements” were approved by the Secretary of State. The district was largely occupied; and especially under Te Whiti's moral control at Parihaka, industry and sobriety were remarked.

How it came to pass that in 1881 a notable tragedy was enacted and his village was laid waste by the New Zealand Government must now be briefly told.

– 89 –

After McLean's retirement and death the district to which he had restored peace underwent rapid change.

In 1877, Major Atkinson being Premier, Whitaker Attorney General, and Dr. Pollen Native Minister, preparations were made to survey the lands for sale, with little regard for, if not in contempt of, Maori rights and occupancy. The preparations were continued after Sir G. Grey became Premier in 1877, with Mr. Sheehan as Native Minister.

It was certified by a public officer (Mr. Brown, Civil Commissioner)^* that in 1879 “one road was surveyed through cultivated and fenced land belonging to Titokowaru.” The Royal Commissioners, Sir W. Fox and Sir F. Dillon Bell, declared that “this unlucky step alienated Titokowaru, and lost us the benefit of his friendly influence,”^† and without doubt similar steps caused groans among many Maoris.

Te Whiti's people at once, but without violence, deported the trespassers across the Waingongoro River, and the Government of the day (Sir G. Grey's) instituted inquiry. Mr. Sheehan, the Native Minister, said afterwards in Parliament (N.Z. Hansard, 1879, Vol. 31, p. 185): “I was not aware in 1878, nor was the country aware, nor do I believe the House knows as a fact, what the exact position of those lands on the West Coast was. It has only been made clear to us by the interruption of the surveys. It turns out that from the White Cliffs down to Waitotara the whole country is strewn with unfulfilled promises.”

In May, 1879, Te Whiti's people ploughed up lands in various places. It was alleged by some persons that this step was taken to raise the question of confiscation, and of title, in the courts of law, and Te Whiti appears to have given colour to the allegation. The West Coast Royal Commissioners reported somewhat to the same effect.^‡

The ploughmen were arrested, and submitted to imprisonment without murmuring. Te Whiti said:—“Go, put your hands to the plough. Look not back. If any come with guns and swords, be not afraid. If they smite you, smite not in return. If they rend you, be not discouraged.”

Before many weeks had elapsed nearly 200 captives had been sent to various prisons.

When the Parliament assembled in July, 1879, a vote of censure was carried against the Government on the motion of Sir W. Fox;

– 90 –

and a dissolution was resolved upon. Before it took place Mr. Sheehan, the Native Minister, in concert with some members of the opposition, brought forward two Bills bearing upon the Maoris.

Mr. Swanson declared that Mr. Sheehan was obeying the behest of Major Atkinson in the matter: “I am ashamed of such a measure . . I never thought I should live to see such Bills introduced.”^*

One empowered the Governor “to fix the date and trial of certain Maori prisoners,” and thus delayed if it did not deny justice.

This Bill was passed by both Houses, and was called a law. Mr Macfarlane protested against it as “abominable.” Mr. Stewart called it a gross infraction of the Great Charter.

The other Bill was called a Peace Preservation Bill. It belied its title. It enabled the Government—to issue Proclamations ordering Maoris to withdraw from their abodes; to imprison the non-compliant with or without hard labour; it denied bail; it denied trial without an order from the Governor; and specially suspended the Habeas Corpus Act. The lower House passed the Bill without delay.

When it reached the Upper House, Sir F. Dillon Bell declared, “We are asked to pass an Act such as no Legislature in the world I believe, has ever been asked to pass. We are not only to create a new offence but to enact that a native who commits that offence is not bailable. … Sir, I can hardly trust myself to speak upon such a measure. … I say you are absolutely mad to think of proposing an Act like this. I warn you that so surely as you are guilty of so great an outrage on our civilization, so perfidious a reversal of the promises of the Crown, so gross and unwarrantable an injustice to those who have never committed a crime as to pass such an act as this, so surely will you have bloodshed the moment you try to enforce it. I will not say, as members of the other House have said, that I shall wash my hands of it, but I shall record my protest against so utterly shameless an Act.… Until I hear the statement made (that the Governor had promised his assent) I shall not hesitate to say that under the Royal Instructions he cannot give his assent to the Bill. It is of a nature expressly violating all former Royal Instructions.”^†

Mr. Waterhouse declared the Bill to be “the most monstrous, the most iniquitous proposal that was ever submitted to the Legislature of any country. Hundreds, even thousands, of people occupying a large tract of country under the assurance conveyed by a Proclamation of the Governor (would under the Bill be made) liable to a year's imprisonment. I would sooner submit to have my right arm cut off than be a party to it.”

By sixteen votes against six, the Upper House supported these noble protests, and for a time the honour of the country was saved.

The Parliament was prorogued on the 11th August, with a view to immediate dissolution; and as Te Whiti's followers were still ploughing

– 91 –

and being arrested,^* several leading Maori chiefs, members of Parliament and others, sent an urgent manifesto to the tribes on the West Coast, urging Te Whiti and all others to abstain from all causes of offence, and to leave all disputed questions about lands to be decided by the Supreme Court, from which there was an “appeal to the great Court of the Queen in England.” They had formed a committee which would “take steps for bringing all questions touching your claims to the confiscated lands before the Supreme Court.”^†

This Panui, or manifesto, was not only sent to Te Whiti and the tribes, but printed in Maori and English, and sent to every member of the Parliament. The Royal Commissioners of 1880, Fox and Bell, reported that the ploughing “entirely ceased at the end of August.”^‖

If, therefore, there had been a desire to test the legal position of the Government and of the Maoris, no difficulty was to be apprehended.

But some persons prefer making new laws to obeying those which exist.

– 92 –

After the elections, Sir George Grey's ministry encountered an adverse vote, and a new ministry was formed in October, 1879. Mr. John Hall was Prime Minister. Mr. F. Whitaker, the Attorney General, was the person who in the same capacity had supported the Suppression and Confiscation Bills of 1863. Mr. Bryce was Native Minister, and Major Atkinson was Treasurer. Mr. Rolleston and Mr. Oliver filled other offices.

In December, 1879—the Maori prisoners not having been tried— a “Confiscated Lands Enquiry and Maori Prisoners’ Trial Bill” was passed.^* It enabled the Government to keep the Maoris indefinitely in prison without trial. It was opposed in the House. One member, Mr. Stewart, said that the Government “were afraid, apparently, to go to trial to ascertain whether the Maoris were guilty.” Another, Mr. Turnbull, denounced the treatment of the prisoners as “not only barbarous, but cowardly.” Another, Mr. Tole, declared that the Bill “took away all the rights held dear by British subjects.”^† As that was the object of the Bill, his protest was in vain. Mr. Bryce said that “If the House declared that these trials were to come off in due course, that was next month, he would not like to take the responsibility of remaining in office.” The Bill was passed.

(By various Proclamations the trials were postponed to April, June and July, 1880, and were then further denied by a new and singular measure).

The Confiscated Lands Inquiry part of the Bill of 1879, enabled the Governor to appoint three Commissioners to conduct an enquiry on the West Coast.

One was to be a Maori. Sir W. Fox, Sir F. Dillon Bell and Tawhai were accordingly appointed. When the latter saw the terms of the Commission he declined to act, feeling that he would be powerless. He liked not (he wrote) to be driven by two Commissioners sitting in a conveyance heavy laden with Maori grievances; and no good could be expected from a Commission which did uot [sic: not] authorize enquiry as to the root of the matter—the unjust Waitara war.

Fox and Bell were therefore the only Commissioners and they with the full knowledge of the Governor, Sir Hercules Robinson, stipulated, before accepting the task, that pending their enquiry and report the status quo should be maintained as regards titles, reserves, claims &c. This the government agreed to.^‡

This stipulation appears to have been broken almost as soon as made. The Commissioners commenced their labours in January 1880, and in that month the Native Minister sent a large armed force into the district. The newspapers commented upon the action as a direct provocation to disturbance or war.

No official remonstrance against it by the Commissioners has, so far as I know, been published.

– 93 –

One can only surmise that some objections must have been made. Sir F. Dillon Bell had clear views as to the condition of the district, for on the 23rd Dec. 1879 he had said in his place in Parliament,^* “It was untrue to say that the whole of the land between the Waitotara and the White Clif