A Native Affair

What the first Maori Affairs minister can tell us about Maori sovereignty

Unless you have been living under a rock over the past week, the commotion regarding Maori-Crown relations and the Treaty Principles Bill has been the centre of political discussion. The Haka in Parliament, the nationwide Hikoi and all the constant whinge and complain-fest have once again reminded us of our supposed obligations towards Maori one way or the other.

Over the past few months and especially over the past week, the Maori Party and their activists have been regularly reminding us about the Treaty of Waitangi, about He Whakaputanga (the 1835 Declaration of Independence) and about that blasted pakeha David Seymour! However, we should be looking at the past for guidance on this matter, and our colonial forefathers have experienced a similar dilemma before regarding Native policy.

On May 18, 1858, the first Minister for Native Affairs, William Richmond, rose to speak on his ‘Native Districts Regulation Bill’ alongside his ‘Native Circuit Courts Bill’. With New Zealand only having recently gained political autonomy, Richmond had the rather unfortunate job of structuring an official legal framework for the New Zealand Government to both engage with and govern over Maori across a sparsely populated land in which Maori still maintained a majority of the population.

The speech he gave for these bills, both of which would pass into law, was over 8000 words long and would have taken over half an hour to speak. However, each word spoken by Richmond had great legal repercussions, as he set out to mould how future governments would address issues relating to Maori sovereignty and the enforcement of the law over still largely uncivilised people. The Zealand Heritage Foundation now presents an edited transcription of this speech for your viewing.

You may feel fatigued at reading these concepts of a theoretical framework for British governance over a completely foreign ethnic group with unique customs and religion, but it does provide an interesting insight regarding the difficulty faced by the emerging British-New Zealand government. 

‘Which way British colonist?’ Is the question being asked in this speech, at least within the context of a ~170-year-old debate on the position of Maori within what certainly was hoped to be the ‘Britain of Australasia’. However, in the time of a refreshed Maori (activist) renaissance and involvement in the day-to-day political machinations of the state, we have to reflect upon the ideas of our colonial forefathers to get an idea of how a future Maori policy might be made.

I have no intention of providing some kind of solution to increasing Maori discontent in this country here and now, but I do offer the reader some questions to consider within the context of the aforementioned speech. Is the status quo working? If not, how can New Zealand pursue a new Maori policy that results in long-term stability and racial harmony? 

On one end of the spectrum, it could be argued that a renewed Maori cultural integration effort into NZ European society could be attempted on an intergenerational level, with all of the cultural suppression it would involve. On the other end, separate development could be attempted with European oversight, similar to how the Constitution Act of 1852 sought to allow limited Maori self-governance - this could be based on an iwi or hapu basis. Perhaps a modern tribal ‘Runanga-based’ legal system similar to that of Sir George Grey’s could provide a compromise between the two, allowing for Maori ‘sovereignty’ within a European state.

To put it simply, would additional sovereignty help or hinder Maori as well as New Zealand? Or would the forceful continuation of ‘British laws superseding their own’ allow for Maori to better act ‘in a manner [consistent] with good order and morality and with the progress of civilization’?

Regardless, there will eventually be a time when we will have to decide how to address - as Mr Richmond says - ‘the Native question’. New Zealand is ultimately a bi-racial state, but because of Maori activism and cultural ‘awakening’ since the 1970s that has led up to the discontent over the Treaty Principles Bill today, there will come a time when this ever-lingering ‘question’ will need to be settled, hopefully to the betterment of both Maori and European alike.

Some more technical details included in the original speech have been edited out. Without further ado, William Richmond:

Sir, it becomes my duty to give the House some account of the views of this Administration as to the government of the Natives, and some account of their present political state. 

The subject is one which, could we have deemed it consistent with our duty, would have been gladly passed over by us, as we fully understand its difficulty. We are, moreover, of those who, with a great philosopher, hold it good ‘not to try experiments in States, except the necessity be urgent, or the utility evident.’

But we are ourselves satisfied both as to the necessity and as to the utility of what we are now proposing. I undertake to demonstrate to the House both points - to show the urgency of the necessity, and to make evident the utility - and, if I fail on either, I shall acquiesce in the rejection of the measures. And I must say that I open this subject with different feelings from any I have before experienced in addressing this House during the present session, and under a very much heavier sense of responsibility. 

In dealing with the Native question we touch a matter of direct human concern - a vital interest of the colony. We have looked about us for light and guidance on this question. We have looked to the opinions of the eminent British statesmen who have taken an interest in this colony. We have only found vague theories. We have found a vast variety of opinion, but very little light. In truth, it is a subject on which there is no experience. 

For where have cultivated men been able to observe the development of a barbarous race into a civilized nation? We ourselves have been so raised; but there was none to stand by and mark the process. To appreciate the difficulty of the subject, we must regard the work before us as an educational work. That brings out the difficulty. Anyone who knows what a work it is to educate a single human child may by that consideration rise to estimate the task before us. It is the education of a race. 

It is not wonderful, then, that we have found little aid from the suggestions of strangers to this country. The most perfect theory of education would always require modifications, which experience could alone indicate in its application to practice. This is due to the infinite diversities of human nature in its various aspects. 

There are two principal and opposing theories as to the proper treatment of aborigines, which, before stating our own propositions, I intend to bring under your notice and to illustrate by quotation. The first of these proposes as the proper rule the maintenance and the administration by officers of the Government of such Native customs as are not repugnant to the principles of humanity. I will cite a despatch of Lord Stanley's to Governor FitzRoy, dated the 10th February, 1844 [Parliamentary Papers, 29th July, 1844: Appendix to Report of Select Committee, page 171]. Lord Stanley writes:

‘I know of no theoretical or practical difficulty in the maintenance under the same Sovereign of various codes of law for the government of different races of men. In British India, Ceylon, at the Cape of Good Hope, and in Canada, the aboriginal and the European inhabitants live together on these terms. Native laws and native customs, when not abhorrent from the universal and permanent laws of God, are respected by English Legislatures and English Courts; and, although problems of much difficulty will occasionally arise out of this state of things, they have never been such as to refuse all solution, or to drive the local authorities on the far more embarrassing difficulty of extending the law of England to persons wholly ignorant of our language, manners, and religion.’

That presents the view with great clearness; and I will now add another extract illustrative of the same view as Lord Stanley takes. It is from a letter of Mr. Protector Clarke [Parliamentary Papers, 29th July, 1844: Appendix to Report of Select Committee, page 348]. The House will understand that I am not citing these letters as authorities, but as illustrations. ‘I see no alternative,’ he says, ‘but that of legalizing those Native customs and usages which are not in themselves repugnant to humanity, by an enactment of the Legislature. Native Courts should, then, be organized throughout the land, to adjudicate in cases where Natives only are concerned, and to administer justice according to Native usages; against whose decisions, in cases purely Native, no appeal could lie.’

I now come to the opposite view - that true humanity requires that British law be enforced against the aborigines; and I will begin with an extract from the report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons of 1844, page 10 of the report - a Committee of which Earl Grey was Chairman. The Committee report as follows:

‘It appears to us that there has been a want of vigour and decision in the general tone of the proceedings adopted towards the Natives: measures have not been taken as we think they ought for making the original inhabitants understand that they are now to be considered as British subjects, and ought therefore to abstain from all conduct inconsistent with such character. The local authorities may have been guided by a desire to treat the natives of the soil with the most scrupulous justice and with the greatest consideration; but we are not the less persuaded that, not only in what has been done with regard to the ownership of land, but also in showing too much respect for Native customs, they have been led to pursue a line of policy which in its consequences must be injurious to the true interests of those out of consideration to whom it has been adopted. We agree in the opinion expressed by one of the witnesses we have examined (Mr. Earp) that the rude inhabitants of New Zealand ought to be treated in many respects like children; that in dealing with them firmness is no less necessary than kindness [...] Your Committee are firmly persuaded that an enlightened humanity and a regard for the real welfare of the Native tribes require that British power and authority should be resolutely exerted to maintain internal peace, and to prevent Native customs and usages from being acted upon in a manner inconsistent with good order and morality and with the progress of civilization.’

Further on the Committee refer to Captain Grey's report on the means of promoting the civilization of the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, as containing an able exposition of the true policy on the subject. And I must not omit to notice that, as a corollary of their main proposition, the Committee recommend that a larger military and naval force be placed at the disposal of the Governor of New Zealand than had up to that time been stationed here. I will now cite a passage or two from Captain Grey's well-known report, which the House will see is quite in the same sense as my last quotation. In the 6th paragraph he says:

‘I would submit, therefore, that it is necessary, from the moment the aborigines of this country are declared British subjects, they should, as far as possible, be taught that the British laws are to supersede their own, so that any Native who is suffering under their own customs may have the power of appeal to those of Great Britain; or, to put this in its true light, that all authorized persons should in all instances be required to protect a Native from the violence of his fellows, even though they be in the execution of their own laws.’

And again, in paragraph 8:

‘So much importance am I disposed to attach to this point that I do not hesitate to assert my full conviction that whilst those tribes which are in communication with Europeans are allowed to execute their barbarous laws and customs upon one another, so long will they remain hopelessly immersed in their present state of barbarism; and, however unjust such a proceeding might at first sight appear, I believe that the course pointed out by true humanity would be to make them from the very commencement amenable to the British law, both as regards themselves and Europeans; for I hold it to be imagining a contradiction to suppose that individuals subject to savage and barbarous laws can rise into a state of civilization which those laws have a manifest tendency to destroy and overturn.’

Here, then, we have the features of the second theory very distinctly portrayed. Well, this report procured for Captain Grey the emphatic approbation of various English statesmen of great eminence, especially of Lord John Russell and Earl Grey. Captain Grey came to this colony as Governor. Did he then proceed at once to act upon the views he had so ably stated in his report? Did he act on his own doctrine of making the Maoris ‘from the very commencement amenable to the British laws both as regards themselves and Europeans’? Whatever Sir George Grey was, he was far too wise a man to attempt a thing so manifestly absurd.

He saw at once the vast difference between New Zealand and Australia, between the aborigines of Australia and our Natives. He saw that, if possible at all, the policy he recommended was possible only by the exhibition of a very large force, and at the cost of great calamities; but that such a policy would more probably result in the extermination of the people it proposed to save. Without absolutely giving up that policy, he modified it very seriously, in a way I shall presently show.

In contemplating the ways of civilized men with savages even in their efforts to benefit them, I am forcibly reminded of the dealings of children with the lower animals that fall into their power. From ignorance of the true nature of what they have to do with, their kindness is often cruelty. Had England attempted to raise the New Zealand nation after the fashion of some of these theories, she must have crushed it.

In order to point out clearly the modification of Sir George Grey's former views I will refer the House to paragraphs 20, 21, and 22 of the well-known ‘Mercy, Justice, and Prudence’ despatch of the 9th July, 1849, addressed to Earl Grey. I trust the House will not consider I am trespassing too largely on their time if I read the paragraphs:

‘It was necessary,’ he says, ‘that active measures should at the same time be taken without delay for the amalgamation of the two races; that the confidence of the Natives should be won; that they should be inspired with a taste for the comforts and conveniences of civilized life; that they should be led to abandon their old habits; that the chiefs should be induced to renounce their right of declaring peace and war; and that the whole of the Native race should be led to abandon their barbarous modes of deciding disputes and administering justice, and should be induced for the future to resort to our Courts for the adjustment of their differences and the punishment of their offenders.’

‘Thoroughly to accomplish a change of this nature would require a long series of years and a succession of generations. The utmost, therefore, that any Government could hope to do was to establish institutions which might imperceptibly but certainly lead to so complete a change of manners in a barbarous nation as was contemplated, and to secure these institutions by such laws and by such a constitution as appeared to afford a reasonable guarantee for their perpetuity. The first step to be taken to ensure these ends appeared to be to convince the Natives that our laws were better than their own, as affording more perfect security for life and property, and a much more ready means of adjusting differences which might arise either between Natives and Europeans or amongst Natives themselves. To attain these ends the Resident Magistrates Ordinance was passed, and mixed Courts were constituted for the settlement of disputes betwixt Natives.’

Well, the House cannot fail to note the altered tone. Why, the despatch is covered with the words ‘induce’ and ‘lead.’ It is plain, then, we have got a third view, occupying a middle position between the two former, but more closely related to the second than to the first. I now propose to inquire what Sir George Grey did in furtherance of the views thus stated by him. For if we are going to piece to this policy, - to pursue or develop it, - it behoves us to see exactly what it was and what it affected. What, then, are the permanent institutions that Sir George Grey left behind him, embodying his peculiar policy?

The only one that I know of is the Resident Magistrate's Court. The importance he attached to this Court is evident from all his despatches. Thus, in the despatch to Earl Grey of the 15th December, 1847, in which he deprecates the disallowance of the ordinance, he says, ‘Perhaps the most important principles of the whole scheme’ - that is, of his scheme of Native treatment - ‘are embodied in the Resident Magistrates Ordinance.’ I have heard this ordinance described in this House as ‘a blot’ upon our Statute Book. I do not assent to that as a just designation of this law; but neither do I regard it as a gigantic effort of statesmanship, as it is sometimes represented to be.

As establishing a Court of conscience, and introducing a summary mode of trial in civil cases and for minor offences, there is, of course, nothing novel about it. The characteristic feature is the institution of Native Assessors. The association of Native chiefs with the European Magistrate was a very obvious mode of creating confidence in the tribunal and giving weight to its decisions. It had been suggested by Mr. Clarke, and, I dare say, by many others. I think Lord John Russell had indicated something of the kind. However, in politics, that an idea is obvious only proves the more that it is practicable and useful, and the Native Assessorship is a most valuable and essential institution in this country. Again, let us see how the author of this measure comments upon it and describes its effects. In the despatch last referred to Sir George declares:

‘The general line of policy I have endeavoured to adopt in reference to the subject of legislation for the mixed races inhabiting this country has been to convince the Natives that their traditional customs had, in reference to their own present state and that of the country generally, become obsolete and useless, and it would be to their own advantage to adopt our laws and to resort to our tribunals. With this view, I felt it would perhaps be better not to require our Courts in any way to recognise the barbarous customs of the Native race, as I feared that if they were required to do so a mixed class of laws might grow into existence, which, ultimately becoming mixed up with the tenure of property, the customs of trade, and the prejudices of the people, might be found difficult to dispense with or abolish, although very serious inconveniences might result from them. I therefore have hitherto in as little as possible noticed or interfered with the Native laws or customs, as exercised amongst themselves, and the result is that they are rapidly becoming obsolete and forgotten.’

Really I must ask the House to mark the last sentence. Native customs in 1847 were rapidly becoming obsolete and forgotten! There is a good deal of strong assertion scattered up and down these despatches, but I declare I think, amongst many daring statements, this is the most audacious. I confess I feel something of indignation in reading statements of this kind - so magnifying of self, so far passing all bounds of sobriety and truth, and so thoroughly unjust to those who come after, and upon whom really devolves the labour which is represented as all but complete.

[...]

Amongst the Natives themselves ten years’ working of the Court has done next to nothing. Their disputes are still too often adjusted by the primitive methods of the tomahawk and the musket. Let us freely confess it - all is yet to do.

So far, then, we have before us three systems, the last of which, Sir George Grey's, has had a certain amount of trial. The first system is to recognise Native customs; the second, to enforce British law; the third, to insinuate or induce the acceptance of British law. The objection fatal, I think, to the first system is well put by Captain Grey, and may be condensed into the dogma that barbarous laws perpetuate barbarism. I assent entirely to that opinion. The system is based upon a confusion of two things entirely distinct - a low type of civilization and pure barbarism.

The Hindoos and the Chinese are examples of a low civilization, and to races in that state Lord Stanley's rule may properly apply; but we agree that it is a great mistake to act upon that principle with a race of primitive barbarians. As to the second system - of enforcing British law throughout the country, without reference to the opinions of the Native people - which was the view of the Committee of 1844, and may be called the Cook Strait view, I think all rational settlers here are agreed that here, in New Zealand, it is neither humane nor possible. 

Under existing circumstances, as we have now got representative institutions, and looking to the change which that has introduced in our relations with the Mother country, I repeat it is impossible to adopt a policy which involves the subjugation of the aborigines. I do not say it is not possible and right to enforce British law within the limits of British settlement, and, perhaps, to a certain distance beyond. I am speaking of the plan of proclaiming it throughout the colony; and I say that policy is neither humane nor practicable.

We think Sir George Grey's practice is the only possible practice; and here I may declare that nothing that I have said, or ever shall say, in this House on the subject of the Governor's administration is intended to rob him of one particle of honour or praise which is his due. Sir George Grey was unquestionably a very able administrator. It would ill become us, who stand here burdened with a part of the charge which was upon him, to detract from the merits of a predecessor in the Government. But it is only right that he should be stripped of assumed merit. I protest against those exaggerated statements of his, where all is represented as progressing without a check or doubt, and difficulties vanishing into air. Those smooth despatches helped him at Home with statesmen who took it all on trust. In England they may have made his fame the greater; but here, where we know the facts, it will be for ever the less. 

Sir George Grey did very little of a permanent character. His policy was a temporising policy: he played for time. He was quite right, and we to a certain extent must do the same. It is now fit, however, to lay the foundations of something more enduring. Adopting Sir George Grey's view that the Natives should be induced to accept British institutions, I propose to note in what respects we think his means to that end deficient. In the first place, the institution of the Resident Magistrate's Court, with its Assessors, does not place the administration of justice on a sufficiently broad and popular basis. The Maoris are a good deal like ourselves: all wish to have a finger in every pie. We think the jury one of our institutions which promises to suit them exceedingly well. This, then, is the first deficiency - that his Court, from its structure, was not well fitted to command popular confidence. I shall revert to this presently. 

I will now state the second deficiency. Sir George Grey talked, and we have all talked, a great deal about extending British law to the Natives. Now, by that we all mean the great foundation principles of British law and its free spirit. We do not mean every detail of rural or municipal police. Here in New Zealand we settlers are all living under British law; but the particulars of our Statute Book are very different from the particulars of that of England. We have adapted English institutions to our circumstances. I agree with those who ask, ‘What can you invent for the Maoris so good as British law?’ I fully agree there is nothing one-half so good that we could invent. But it needs adaptation in its details; and for this no provision has yet been made. This, then, is the second deficiency I note.

Before going into the details of the Bill by which we propose to meet the first deficiency in our existing institutions for the Natives, I will briefly develop the course of reasoning by which we were led to that measure. On the part of the Crown the promise has been made to the Maoris that they shall be one people with us - one people under one law. The magnitude of that promise is hard to realise. It overwhelms me when I think of it. It implies a gigantic labour. But the promise binds the British Government in honour and conscience. It is a sacred promise; and I will say of our Government that when we use those words, conscious as we are of their deep import, we mean what we say. But is the promise possible of performance? Are the Maori people capable of the promised union? No man dare answer that question in the affirmative; neither ought any man to answer it in the negative.

There appear to me legitimate grounds of hope when I consider the characteristics of this remarkable race. I find the, in the first place, a reasoning and a reasonable people, little swayed by passion when not under extraordinary excitement. Secondly, by nature venerators of law - for a savage people, that is they do pay remarkable respect to law and rule. Thirdly, the structure of their society is aristocratic, verging upon democratic. They are not a people who brook despotic rule. As a consequence of this they have always been accustomed to debate their affairs in popular assemblies. These are striking coincidences with the qualities that have ever distinguished the race from which we ourselves sprang - striking resemblances to the Teutonic peoples. I know there are also wide differences; but the resemblance is such that I say we ought not to decide that there is any antecedent impossibility in the case. 

We are, then, to suppose the Maoris capable of elevation to our level, and of union with us. How, then, did we raise ourselves from a barbarous state? How were we developed, from a rude, red-haired horde on the banks of the Elbe, into the foremost rank amongst the nations - amongst the first in power, and in all that ennobles and beautifies life? What was the road we followed ? - for, if these people can ever join us, it must be by the way we took. I do not say that they ever can; but, if they can, this must be the way. 

This reasoning threw us back on our own primitive institutions. These, we thought, should for the present suit the Native people better than our modern improvements. Now, amongst the judicial institutions of the Saxons we find the County Court, otherwise known as the Hundred Court or Public Leet. This Court, Mr. Hallam tells us, was the principal safeguard of the civil rights of English freemen. Here, then, we determined to look for a model. The summary jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace is, as every lawyer knows, a modern introduction, very much suspected at first. Even so late a writer as Blackstone, if I remember rightly, shows jealousy of the summary jurisdiction. It is not properly an English institution.

Nowadays we could not dispense with it; we could not all be running to Sheriffs' Tourns and Leets, and be vexed with perpetual jury service. In large towns especially the public service could not otherwise be maintained than by the modern arrangements. We have also the Press to overlook the exercise of a summary jurisdiction. But, though convenient for ourselves, Police Magistrates are not that part of our judicial institutions best fitted to inspire confidence in a primitive people of the habits and temper which I have attempted to indicate. We thought it better to revert to our earlier arrangements. 

[...]

It is true of several English institutions that the immediate and visible end of the institution is not its most important effect. One may perhaps say this of our present form of government - I mean of representative institutions and Ministerial government. Perhaps its greatest value is in the educational discipline it carries with it. So it is of trial by jury. It is not because it is a very perfect instrument for determining the effect of evidence, but because it induces a popular confidence in the administration of justice, that it is so valuable. In the last resort, and in extreme cases, the people feel that they are the judge. This is exactly the kind of confidence we want to induce in the case of the Natives.

[...] 

Now, I think I hear honourable members saying to themselves, ‘This all sounds very well, but how are you going to enforce it all? Will you not get us into difficulties with your juries and your constables?’ Well, in the first place the House has seen that the Bill is permissive only. The Governor is not bound to create districts, and can abolish them as he thinks fit. Now, we mean to go on this principle: we shall tell the Natives of a district, ‘We have no desire to force this upon you. When you really wish for it, and we are satisfied that you are ready for it that you are all of you ready for it - all of you, for there must be no division amongst you then we will proclaim the Act. But mind this do not count upon the Queen's soldiers coming to support the Magistrate. You yourselves must enforce the law against great and small. To you it is committed, and, if you break faith, we shall withdraw our Magistrate. This is the way we English do. Every man reverences the law and aids the constable, and this is what you must do if you intend to become like us. This is a great boon we bring you. It is no favour to us; it is a favour to you.’

That is the way we mean to enforce the law; we mean to throw ourselves upon the Maori people. We want to have no more of these New Zealand men-of-war without guns, mere Consuls of a foreign Power sent amongst the Natives to control the squatters.

To speak now of Sir George Grey's second deficiency: Hitherto there has been no attempt to meet the special and local wants of the aborigines by that kind of regulations which British citizens all the world over are allowed to frame for themselves. Between the Provincial Councils and the General Assembly the wants of the Natives in this respect have slipped through, and been wholly neglected. I have heard, however, of one solitary attempt upon the subject, made I believe by a northern colonist, whose opinions on Native matters, from his long experience, are entitled to great respect. He introduced a Bill, I believe, into the Auckland Provincial Council, for establishing a sort of Native municipality; but in some way, I know not how, the attempt failed.

The Bill to regulate the local affairs of Native districts is proposed to supply this great void in our Statute Book. A power to make local by-laws for Native districts on various subjects of rural and municipal police is proposed to be vested in the Governor in Council. The preamble recites that: 

‘[...] it is expedient, in order to promote the civilization of the Native race, that the Governor in Council be enabled to make and put in force within districts over which the Native title has not been extinguished such regulations on matters of local concernment, or relating to the social economy of the Native race, as may appear adapted to the special wants of the inhabitants; all such regulations being made, as far as possible, with the general assent of the persons affected thereby.’

And, again, the 6th section enacts that all such regulations shall be made, as far as possible, with the general assent of the Native people affected thereby, their assent to be ascertained by such means as the Governor shall think fit. We did not consider the Maoris ready for the exercise of a direct legislative power - we feared they might entangle themselves in difficulties and absurdities if the actual technical process of law-making were intrusted to them; but it is intended that all the reasonable propositions of the Native inhabitants of proclaimed districts should have legal effect given them by the Orders in Council to be made under the Act. 

This measure is as flexible as the other I am applying for leave to bring in. Districts may be proclaimed and abolished at pleasure. The subjects on which regulations may be made are enumerated. They comprise the common subjects of provincial legislation, such as fencing, impounding, cattle - trespass, and so forth, the suppression of nuisances, and other police regulations, the regulation of the sale of spirits, the suppression of drunkenness, and, lastly, the suppression of injurious Native customs.

[...] 

And now let me say once more we would gladly have escaped the burden of the responsibilities these measures involve. We took the subject up, feeling it to be our plain inevitable duty to attempt something towards meeting the real and growing wants of the Native people. We disclaim any credit for ingenuity or originating-power in the devising of these measures. The Native people forced the cards upon us. These Bills propose no more than what this active-minded people is already attempting for itself without our help or guidance. I propose to offer to the House proof of the fact. All over the Waikato country for more than a twelvemonth the villages have been at work law-making in their own fashion. Here is a specimen, by no means remarkable, from Taupiri:

‘An Assembly to consider whether pigs shall be fastened by the leg or conveyed to another place.’ [...] ‘After this Assembly all pigs going at large or devouring crops may be caught. Any one who sees the pig may catch it. When a man has caught a pig at large or trespassing, he must go and inform the owner, and the owner shall pay him one sixpence, and fetch the pig that has been fastened,’ and so on. Here is another from Whaingaroa:

‘This is a paper containing the laws followed by the Assessors and the Twelve [jury] of Whaingaroa.’ [...] ‘If a person comes on a visit, and has a horse when he arrives at the village [kainga], the men of the village are to take charge of his horse. If through their neglect it dies, then it must be paid for. If a horse comes and eats at a stack of wheat, or potatoes, or pumpkins, if the fence is bad no damages will be awarded; but if it is good, and what it contains is destroyed by horses or cattle, then payment must be made.’ And so it goes on to regulate other matters. It concludes, ‘These are the things settled by the Assessors of the Queen and the Governor. These laws will be effectually carried out. From the Assembly [Runanga] at New Plymouth, Whaingaroa.’ 

I might go on multiplying proofs from the extraordinary correspondence the Native Office carries on with the aborigines. We are besieged with inquiries for guidance and aid in ‘the work of the law.’ I will only refer to one or two more facts. We have been applied to to receive into the Treasury money which has been levied in fines by a Native chief of his own head. ‘I have come,’ he says in his letter, ‘to give you the money of the fines; but you must uphold me in my work of a magistrate. The evils are, speaking untruths, and theft, and adultery, and many other evils. I have come that you may explain the law to me.’

Lastly, I will on this point refer to the fact that the Natives have at their own cost erected a number of courthouses for the European Magistrate on the Waikato. This has been required of every village applying to be included in an experimental circuit, which has been established in that district. It has been required as a substantial evidence of the sincerity of the desire for the introduction of law and order. Not less than six such houses have, I learn, been erected.

I think I have established my position that the Natives are anxious and prepared for the introduction of some better system, such as we are preparing. They are, moreover, fully conscious of their dependence upon us for light and guidance. ‘Who,’ asks one, ‘who is to take these pikari [birds just out of the shell]? - who is to teach them to swim? If they are left to themselves they will sink in the water.’ 

There is an anecdote I cannot help narrating which well illustrates this feeling. At the great Native meeting last year at Taupo, held to promote the Maori King movement, various extreme proposals were broached. ‘New Zealand for the New Zealanders’ was the cry, and some hotheads from Wanganui River would have nothing less than a clean sweep made of the pakehas - Governor, missionaries, and all. One excited orator was on his legs haranguing to this effect at what we may call an evening sitting, held in a large building erected for the purpose and lighted by many candles. Whilst this speech was going on, a shrewd chief of Waipa, Tarahawaiki, walked quietly round putting out one candle after another till the last light went, and the orator was brought to a full stop in total darkness. ‘Don't you think,’ said he, ‘you had better light up the candles again?’ ‘Certainly,’ rejoined the interrupter; ‘it was very foolish to put them out.’ With Native quickness the assembly apprehended the wise reproof conveyed by this symbolical act. The excited speaker sat down completely quelled - not a word left in his mouth.

Right well the Maoris know who are the lights of New Zealand. Could they be extinguished, those who put them out would be the first to ask to have them lightened again. We cannot mistake this cry of a whole people for law and government. What but this is signified by the King movement to which I have adverted? ‘Organise us,’ they say ‘or we shall organise ourselves.’ 

This is just the dilemma in which they place the British Government. It is high time that we should have done with the miserable shifts to which we have been put - have done with our diplomacy with savages. Inaugurate the reign of law, and cease to rely on mere personal influences. The Native people, I say, are fast preparing for this consummation.

But now come in certain objectors, great friends of the Natives - sincerely anxious for their good, I believe. They come in and say, Why lead the Natives into these empty follies? Why encourage their silly notions of assemblies and lawmaking? These things are not their real wants. Their real wants are better food, clothing, houses, and farms - not running after runangas. I agree, these are the real wants of the Natives. Can a man fill his belly with the east wind? I will not myself answer these objectors. I will give them a Native answer. 

An old Native at a meeting on the Waikato, who was, as it were, groping his way, put this very objection; and you shall hear how the objection was answered by that shrewd chief Takerei, of Waipa. ‘It is wrong, it is wrong,’ says the old man; ‘I am thinking where is the road, that I may come to your side. I don't quite see, for I don't understand. I understand all about the house’ - that is, the courthouse - ‘but I understand nothing about the farm’ - material advancement. ‘Tell me where we are going to. There are two matters, the courthouse and the farm. Tell me about these things, for it is useless to have laws and no property. I am seeking for this. Tell me about it. Is it one road or two? Tell me about the second.’ 

You see he was, very rightly, looking after the main chance. To which Takerei responds: ‘This is a plain road, grounded upon religion and love, and ending in property. When men know that the law system is thoroughly established in a place, then will the pakeha give his friendship to the farm. But what is the good of having a farm without any laws to protect it? How can dogs be prevented from devouring the sheep? The law first: then other things will follow [...] I am weary of poverty. And when I look at the size of my land, and what is growing on it, I say we are a foolish race. But I have now learned knowledge, and shall strive to put down all Maori ways and become like the white people. I am also anxious to get a pakeha who can teach us all about agriculture, and prevent us from wasting our labour. Now, law and all these good things go together. What do you say to it all?’ After some more interlocution, the old Native replies: ‘Now for the first time I know and understand the road. Yours is a liberal work. I see love in it. I am perfectly clear now. Law first, and growth afterwards.’ And that is our answer to these objectors - ‘Law first, growth afterwards.’ ‘Barbarous laws perpetuate barbarism.’ If we want to civilize these people we must give them institutions.

[...]

We believe that the Natives cannot be efficiently governed without their cooperation. We, at all events, have not attempted, nor ever shall attempt, to dispense with that cooperation. The ends of Church and State are identical, though their means are different. I use the term Church in the largest sense, as comprising all religious influences; and I say the true ends of the Church and the State are one. For I hold no man a statesman who maintains that anything short of the highest welfare of man can be the ultimate object of the State. Christianity and civilization must go hand in hand.

The principles of these measures have been some time matured in our minds. For my own part, ever since I visited Waikato, in April of last year, I have been persuaded of the necessity of such a policy, and that it is the only road open to us. But it were unwise to be oversanguine of the success of any measures on such a subject. Dr. Livingstone, in his most interesting work on South Africa, well observes that ‘we must not indulge in overwrought expectations as to the elevation of those who have inherited the degradation of ages;’ and the experience of our own missionaries confirms the admonition. 

One danger I greatly dread is Native indolence, perhaps an incident of the tropical origin of the race. Another danger is their newfangleness. I trust these are faults due only to their barbarous condition, and capable therefore of correction. I admit, however, that I have my fears for the fate of the race. The indications of the population statistics are certainly unfavourable. We must not, then, be over-sanguine. But let us not, on the other hand, ‘give way to a despair of success which must render success impossible.’ At least let us go on striving, if not hoping. The highest works are ever the hardest. 

The Constitution Act reposes in the General Assembly an immense trust - a power which has been regarded with great jealousy by some friends of the Natives. But I hold that the Native needs no protector against this House. I know the House will not betray that great trust; it will not be slack in its performance: and therefore I stand confident that the House will give the measures I now lay before it a full, fair, and impartial consideration.