VII

In 1902, long after Parihaka was closed and forgotten, the whole story was revived by Mr (later Judge) Alpers. He alleged that, when Rolleston handed over the portfolio of Native Affairs to Bryce in October 1881, he did so in order to escape from the personal odium and risk of taking strong measures against Te Whiti. This belated and unjust attack called forth a devastating reply from Mr John Bryce in defence of Rolleston, who was ill. "How little Mr Alpers understands the true nobility of Mr Rolleston's nature", wrote Bryce. He recounted Rolleston's unceasing efforts to effect a peaceable settlement, and Te Whiti's vainglorious rejection of all approaches. He quoted Te Whiti's utterance, "I am the Father, I am the Son, I am the Holy Ghost—there is no one behind me", as evidence of his fanatical derision of the pakeha.

Prior to the request that I should resume office, Rolleston had made all suitable arrangements to secure, by a display of force, a peaceable termination of a disagreeable and dangerous drama. Volunteers were enlisted for the special service and were on their way to supplement the forces of the constabulary. Rolleston, in the greatness of his heart, had insisted that, as Government had now adopted the plan, the refusal of which had caused my resignation, I, and I alone, should carry it out. He would stand back, but give me every loyal support. How well, how generously, how magnanimously he kept his word I can understand, though Mr Alpers cannot.

He gave in detail the sequence of events—how Rolleston, before resigning, had insisted on signing "that terrible page 161Proclamation giving the Parihaka natives fourteen days' notice in which to accept the terms offered"—how Rolleston had insisted on going with him to Parihaka in spite of Bryce's pleading that he might be killed and that Mrs Rolleston would then have good cause to reproach him (Bryce).

Rolleston's voice was slow and emphatic as he replied: "If anything happens to me, Mrs Rolleston will be grieved, but, rather than see me in these circumstances evade a danger which you are to incur, she would prefer to see me dead at her feet." We went into Parihaka next day together, and it was he who wrote, in my name, the first telegram announcing our success. How steadily, unfalteringly, and generously my friend kept his promise of loyal support no one knows so well as I do.

The Parihaka affair involved Rolleston in several controversies which at this distance of time call for only the briefest notice. The first was with Bishop Suter, of Nelson. The Bishop was a strong believer in Te Whiti, and accused the Government in its treatment of the natives of being actuated by political considerations with a view to influencing the forthcoming elections. Rolleston was furious at what he called "gratuitous and unwarranted slander of men acting under a heavy sense of responsibility". He complained that the Bishop "had not thought it inconsistent with his sacred office to privately slander his neighbour and impute to public men base motives in action involving possibly the lives of large numbers of their fellow creatures". The Bishop protested against being called on to give an account of private conversations. "We might as well be in Russia at once", he declared. J. C. Richmond, a former Native Minister, joined in the fray. "No man in the country", he said, "is fitter to be trusted than Mr Rolleston in such a matter as this. Highly educated, exactly informed as to every detail of the history of Maori affairs—a man of stern conscience if New Zealand contains one—he is as certain to deal justly and considerately in the page 162future as he is incapable of the offence imputed to him in the past." He quoted very aptly the opinion of several English Bishops to the effect that "Bishops rarely possess the judicial mind and the power of giving an impartial unbiased decision". After a wordy newspaper controversy, the affair died down without either side being convinced that it was wrong or its opponent right.

Sir Robert Stout then made another serious allegation. He declared that the Parihaka Proclamation had been pushed through late at night on the eve of the Governor, Sir Arthur Gordon's return to the Dominion. The suggestion was that the Governor would not have sanctioned the Proclamation. Rolleston indignantly denied this accusation. "Ministers", he said, "had not individually or collectively received any information that the return of His Excellency to the Colony within any stated time was probable." Rolleston's reply seems clear and final in spite of the fact that Rusden and others have preferred to impute bad faith to the Government.

The reader will probably consider that enough has been said about the Parihaka affair, even although the story has been told only in bare outline.

But the moral of the story is that, had Rolleston's wise proposals of 1869 been adopted, this grave crisis would never have arisen.