MAORI MEMORIES

Taranaki Daily News, 10 February 1934, Page 13 (Supplement)

MAORI MEMORIES

GREAT TRIUMVIRATE

(By

J.H.S.—Copyright).

After Governor and Lady Grey had welcomed the Canterbury pilgrims at Fort Cooper on December 16, 1850, Auckland was alarmed by -the most serious demonstration of Maori hostility during Sir George’s first reign. A Maori chief, excited by rum, was lightly tapped on the head by a police baton. Twenty canoes with 250 armed Maoris landed on the beach and demand utu (satisfaction) for the insult. Our 500 land pensioners were promptly mustered by Sir George, who boldly ordered the Maoris to leave the town or give up their arms. They dragged their canoes over the mud flat at low tide and stayed the night at _ St. John’s College, four miles out. In the morning the Bishop brought their apology and three valued greenstone axes as atonement (whakahere).

The secret of Sir George Grey’s wonderful power was his well known alliance and personal friendships with Te Whero Where and Waka Nene, the Waikato and Ngapuhi chiefs. They were his trusted advisers, and he never offended their Ahua Rangatira (dignity) by taking any action in regard to the Maoris without consulting them. To such men he lent money, which they honestly administered and repaid. It was used for cultivation, flour mills, bridges and schools. Such a measure was stigmatised as “the sugar and blanket policy,” but when reversed, we learned to our cost that it had been the only economic, humane and. efficient course with men so brave, intelligent and honest as those chiefs. The Maori’s Saviour.

As a civilising influence upon the Maori race, the sorry failure of the New Zealand company, and the splendid results of Sir George Grey’s administration, encourage us to look once more into the official records of old. Concerning the company’s notorious claim and Earl Grey’s concession of £268,000 from New Zealand taxpayers, Mr. Commissioner Cowell was candidly outspoken. “The New Zealand Company,” he said, “succeeded by gross frauds, concealments and misrepresentations, practised upon Earl Grey and the Chancellor of the Exchequer." Following the surrender of land Constitution Act, 1852, framed by the company’s charter was the New ZeaGovernor Grey in the light of five years’ experience and study, but seriously mutilated by Earl Grey, whose 11-advis-ed alterations were mostly blemishes. Bitter experience had taught the Maoris to distrust those words they could not understand. They correctly foretold danger and confusion from the stated intention to remove their trusty and trusted friend Kawana Kerei who talked with them and consulted their chiefs. In their eyes, as in those of all good colonists, his bold suspension for five years of Earl Grey’s very faulty Constitution of 1846 was a specimen of his prompt, silent, decisive and courageous action. In his day Alfred Saunders said of Sir George: “Quick to detect danger, full of resources to avert it, he seemed to delight in confronting it. Still he could conceal or be silent, arid be less just to his equals or rivals than to his inferiors or helpers. He was fond of power, still more of fame, but wisely sought them by worthy means rather than expediency. He was slow to make enemies. When he did/ they were there for life. He could charm an audience and put every opponent to ridicule without uttering a sentence that could bear criticism. He was charmingly unselfish, and worshipped women and children by instinct.” Many Maori leaders would have deemed it a privilege to die for their Kai Whakaora (Saviour of Men). Others were ready to cry “Ripeka” (crucify).

The Ending. To Alfred Saunders, the oldest M.P. in New Zealand; we must ever be indebted for his comprehensive grasp of the virtues and faults, of the men who made history in New Zealand, of whom Sir George Grey was the foremost. Mr. Saunders said: “Whatever diffe K nces of opinion exist, there can be none as to the result of Grey’s first eight years’ rule in New Zealand. He found the Government at war with the Maoris; he left it in the enjoyment of profound peace. He found European powers despised and ridiculed by the Maoris; he left it respected, honoured and beloved. He found that defeats at Wairau, Bay of Islands, and Ohaewai had clouded our history; he followed them by victory, of Ruapekapeka (the bat’s nest), the submission of Heke, the alliance of Waka Nene and Te Whero Whero, and the humiliation of Rauparaha. He found European workers pleading for employment at 2s per day; he left them refusing 6s. For less than Hobson paid for a town site that was never used, and to which the seller had no title, he made more than half New Zealand the undisputed property of the Crown. He found 12,000 Europeans who were fast leaving New Zealand; he left 31,000 with a good stream of immigration coming in.” A Mock Trial.

It happened in ’56, when the New Colonial Government found “a credit balance of nine pence in the Treasury,” with liabilities estimated at £500,000. Nelson was in the throes.. of electing a superintendent. Dr. Monro was a deservedly popular- candidate. Mr. Travers stood as a Liberal, but was charged with having been previously elected as a Provincialist and then voting as a Centralist. The electors decided to decline his services without thanks. After hearing both candidates they resolved “that neither the doctor nor the lawyer would suit them.” The fight was left to the doctor and a mechanic, John F. Robinson, in which pakeha tactics were dis- ‘ cussed and unsparingly ridiculed by the Maoris, who outnumbered us by five to one, but had no electoral rights. On Saturday in the last issue of “The Examiner” before the election, .George Hooper charged Robinson with gross dishonesty. The victim of the libel addressed the entire populace on the sdme evening and to their satisfaction and merriment explained his conduct, and undertook to take Supreme Court action against Hooper. The election was conducted like a mock trial without the slightest ill-will, and the doctor was defeated by 16 votes. Mr. Robinson’s case in court was ably conducted by Mr. Travers. It was proved that Hooper did not understand a single entry in his own books upon which he had based the charges. He had sent Robinson to the Bay of Islands with casks of beer which turned sour in the warm climate and were unsaleable. So latei- on he sent some better beer, accompanied by a letter, produced, telling Robinson to mix good beer with sour beer for the “Sodgers” who would be willing to drink it. This Robinson refused to do, so Hooper charged him with dishonesty. The verdict of the jury was “That the Grand Jury of the people, having proved Robinson’s innocence of the charges by electing him, we therefore award damages to Hooper on the lowest scale.”