Vattel certainly speaks of Penn"s treaty as if he understood him to have purchased the sovereign rights as well as the fee simple. These are precedents which may not be considered as carrying any great authority. The question has not been very much discussed; it has been taken for granted, and I think with reason, that the savage is in a state of pupilage, and must be treated as we treat children. The only principle which it is important to maintain is this: If you go into a country at all inhabited by savages and take possession of their land and become sovereigns of it, you infringe their rights if you do not consider their benefit as well as your own. If you were treating with a child you would not infringe the rights of that child simply by acting and deciding for him, but you would infringe his rights if you acted and decided for your benefit and not his. So with respect to savages; they are compared with civilised men, like children. They are of themselves incapable of acquiring the arts and habits of civilised life; unless some interference that amongst civilised men would be considered unjust, takes place, they never can, by themselves, rise to that higher condition. The injustice to be deprecated is that of seeking our own benefit solely and not theirs; and with respect to the New Zealanders our purchase of the sovereignty of their country ought not to be represented as being the same kind of bargain as if the French, for instance, were bargained with to cede the sovereignty over any portion of their territory. When the French ceded their sovereign rights over Martinique, Guadaloupe, and the Mauritius, they strictly ceded all their sovereign rights; but in the present instance what is meant by the cession of sovereignty amounts to this--that we purchase the right to partic.i.p.ate in the sovereignty with them; we do not wish to exclude them, but pay them a price to partake in the sovereignty with them. Of course, in the first instance, the civilised man will be the only sovereign, but that is because he only will be fit and capable of exercising sovereign rights. As the savage advances in civilisation he will come in for his share; and I see no reason, as soon as the New Zealander is capable of it, against his being Chief Justice, Governor, or Bishop, or holding any other office. It is not therefore that we take the sovereignty from him; we purchase the right of partic.i.p.ating with him in the sovereignty, and by so doing we enable him to become Sovereign of the country, which he is not at present."
In the meantime the Government had unmistakably demonstrated their intention not to recognise the Company, and with all hope of political patronage gone the Company saw no reason why they should spare the Government. There was now in their opinion no possible room to doubt that the sovereignty over New Zealand rested in Great Britain, and that the Colonial Department was betraying a national trust in conceding any rights to the natives, thereby opening the door to foreign intervention. They first showered their protests against this supposed surrender of a national a.s.set upon the Colonial Office, but when they discovered themselves ignored in this direction they turned with renewed complaint to the Foreign Minister. "We are a.s.sured," they wrote to him, on November 7, 1839, "that this question of the sovereignty of New Zealand engages the attention of various commercial bodies and a large portion of the public press in France; that the sovereignty in England is denied; that the French Government is urged either to join in that denial, by protesting against the colonisation of the Islands by England, or to claim an equal right with England to plant settlements there. We are not without fear that some such protest or claim should be admitted by your Lordship"s Department, as it appears to have been admitted by the Colonial Department. It appears that the agitation of this question in France has been produced by the publication of a Minute of the British Treasury made at the instance of the Colonial Department (July 19), and also of an extract of certain instructions recently given by that Department to Captain Hobson,--two doc.u.ments by which the Crown of England seems to repudiate the sovereignty of New Zealand. The apparent repudiation consists of an acknowledgment of sovereignty in the native chiefs from whom Captain Hobson is instructed to procure, if possible, a cession to Her Majesty. It is this acknowledgment, according to all our information, which has given occasion to the pretensions now urged in France.[43] That which England, it is contended, instructs her officer to procure, if possible, she admits she does not possess, and she thereby admits the right of France either to obtain sovereign jurisdiction in New Zealand, by the means which Captain Hobson is instructed to employ, or if France should prefer that course, to sustain the independent sovereignty of the natives. The argument appears conclusive. It becomes very important, therefore, if it is of great importance to England, to prevent the establishment of a French power in the midst of the English colonies of Australasia that your Lordship should be made aware of the acts of the British Crown which lead to a conclusion directly at variance from that which may be drawn from the said minute and instructions."
The Company"s nominal[44] advocate on this occasion was their Deputy-Governor, Mr. Somes, who apparently possessed a faculty for stating strongly a weak case; and in the course of this letter to Lord Palmerston he taxed his ability to show that the right of sovereignty in New Zealand had vested in Britain since the discovery of the Islands by Captain Cook; that it had been confirmed by numerous diplomatic acts in all the years since then, and could not now be abandoned on the mere whim of a Minister.
During the course of his trenchant review of the position Mr. Somes declared that the sovereignty of England in New Zealand had been over and over again a.s.serted and exercised. Whether it could be subsequently abandoned by such doc.u.ments as the Treasury Minute and instructions was a question in const.i.tutional and international law on which his Lordship was of course far more competent to judge than they could pretend to be. But that there was recently a British sovereignty either to maintain or to abandon the Company had no sort of doubt. He pointed out that in the year 1769, Captain Cook, acting under a commission from the Crown of England, took possession of the Islands of New Zealand, in the name of His Majesty, George III. This act was performed in the most formal manner, and was published to the world.
"We are not aware," he wrote, "that it was ever questioned by any foreign power. It const.i.tuted sovereignty by possession. The Law of Nations, we believe, recognises no other mode of a.s.suming dominion in a country, of which the inhabitants are so barbarous as to be ignorant of the meaning of the word sovereignty, and therefore incapable of ceding sovereign rights. This was the case with the New Zealanders, from whom it would have been impossible for Captain Cook to have obtained, except in mockery of truth, a British sovereignty by cession. Sovereignty by possession is that which the British Crown maintains in a large portion of its foreign dependencies. In this year, 1787, a Royal Commission was granted to Captain Philip appointing him in pursuance of the British sovereignty in possession, which had previously been established by Captain Cook, "Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief in and over the territory of New South Wales and its dependencies." This territory was described in the commission as "Extending from Cape York, lat.i.tude 11 37" south, to the South Cape, lat.i.tude 43 30" south, and inland to the westward as far as 135 east longitude, comprehending all the Islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean, within the lat.i.tudes of the above-named capes."
This is the Act by which the Crown first a.s.sumed the Government of New South Wales and the other barbarous lands of which Captain Cook had taken possession in the name of the King. The Islands of New Zealand are as clearly within the prescribed limits as Norfolk Island, Van Dieman"s Land, or even New South Wales itself. On November 9, 1814, the Governor and Captain-General of New South Wales and its dependencies, acting on the representation of the Crown, by public proclamation, declared New Zealand to be a Dependency of his Government, and by regular commission of _dedimus potestatem_ appointed Justices of the Peace to act there. Some of the Magistrates so appointed were aboriginal natives of the country. It is plain that they were treated as British subjects. In 1819 again Governor Macquarrie appointed an English Magistrate in New Zealand. This Justice of the Peace exercised the authority so bestowed on him by apprehending offenders and sending them for trial to the seat of Government. In 1823 a British Act of Parliament (4 George IV. cap. 96) extended the jurisdiction of the Courts of New South Wales to New Zealand by name, and also to other places in the Southern Pacific not within the lat.i.tudes previously mentioned. Under this authority several persons, we understand, have been tried in New South Wales for offences committed in New Zealand, and we have been informed that property in New Zealand, as well real as personal, has been made the subject of the Bankruptcy law of New South Wales. The authority of the British Crown was frequently enforced by means of ships of war, and although it cannot be a.s.serted that regular government was ever established in New Zealand, far more than was essential to creating British dependency seems to have been performed. The Islands thus continued in a state of dependency until the year 1831, when a series of proceedings commenced by which the sovereignty of Britain may perhaps have been forfeited. An officer was appointed to reside at the Bay of Islands. He presented to certain native chiefs, as from the Crown of England, what was termed "a national flag." This might have been considered a transfer to these chiefs of the British sovereignty, if the Resident had not been "accredited" to certain officers of the Church Missionary Society, then settled at the Bay of Islands. By the latter act the sovereignty of the Islands would almost seem to have been transferred to these Missionaries. But in October 1835 this diplomatic agent a.s.sembled certain native chiefs residing in the Northern part of the North Island, called them a "Confederation,"
and sanctioned a declaration of Native Independence, to which their names were appended. This last act appears, by all accounts, to have been a mere mockery of its ostensible purport. The tribes of New Zealand are so entirely distinct, so utterly dest.i.tute of nationality, as to have no name for the whole country which they inhabit. A national name was invented for this occasion--the words _Na Terrene_ which express the native p.r.o.nunciation of the English words "New Zealand." The only parties besides to the so-called Declaration of Independence were the chiefs of a few tribes then inhabiting a small part of one of the Islands. These even, inasmuch as their language contains no words to express nationality, sovereignty, or independence, must have been unconscious instruments of the Resident, or of the Missionaries, to whom that officer was accredited, as if they (the Missionaries) had been the sovereigns of New Zealand. If indeed the sovereignty was delegated to the Missionaries they could, being British subjects, have held it as trustees for the Crown. If the sovereignty of the natives was then acknowledged it extended only to a small part of one Island inhabited by the parties to the Declaration.
And in either case this mockery of an independent sovereign nationality has been set at naught by the power in whose name it took place, inasmuch as the jurisdiction of British law, and the armed authority of British warships have been exercised since in the same way as before the Bay of Islands" Declaration of Independence.
"I beg leave," continued Mr. Somes, "to a.s.sure your Lordship in the name of my colleagues that we intrude on you with the greatest reluctance. But we have felt that it was inc.u.mbent on us especially during the recess of Parliament to convey to your Lordship the information that we have received as to the state of feeling in France on this subject, so that if unhappily the British sovereignty of New Zealand were lost it should be through no fault of ours. We fear that the measures recently adopted by the Colonial Department may, unless promptly remedied, lead to very disastrous results. We are deeply concerned for the fate of a large and most respectable body of our countrymen, who have emigrated under our auspices. Connected as several of us are with the commercial and shipping interests of the country, and knowing therefore how much importance they attach to the British possession of New Zealand, as they have frequently stated in memorials to the Treasury and Board of Trade, we have felt that it was a duty to express to your Lordship the apprehensions which we entertain. We have been told that a French frigate recently sailed for the South Seas with sealed orders, and some of the French newspapers report, with expressions of satisfaction, that the Government of the United States of America has appointed a Consul in New Zealand, to be accredited to "the Confederation of chiefs," and has sent him to his destination in a man-of-war, which is to remain under his orders.
These statements may be untrue, or only premature, but in either case Captain Hobson"s instructions which attach two conditions, either or both of which may be unattainable, to the exercise of any authority by him in New Zealand, namely possession of the land by British subjects, and cession by the natives of the sovereignty over such land, are calculated to invite foreign pretensions which otherwise would never have been imagined."
This protest was taken most philosophically by Lord Palmerston, who merely pa.s.sed it on to Lord John Russell, who had now succeeded Lord Normanby at the Colonial Office. Lord John treated it even more philosophically, for it was not for several months (March 11, 1840) that he deigned to reply, and then only after he had been reminded of the omission by the Foreign Office. In the meantime all need of further argument had been obviated by the success of Captain Hobson"s mission, and so the Colonial Secretary wasted no words in rhetoric, but forwarded to his colleague a memorandum couched in concise official terms, setting out in sequence the events which in the light of International law would be used as evidence against any claim to British sovereignty, and which contained all the information it appeared necessary to afford in answer to the communication from Mr.
Somes.
It is easy to understand the indignation of the Company on learning of the Minister"s repudiation of British sovereignty in New Zealand, because it sapped the very foundations of their scheme, seeing that it was illegal for British subjects to establish colonies outside the limits of the Empire without the sanction of the Crown. They had always presupposed the existence of a British sovereignty over New Zealand and upon that supposition all their calculations had been built. Now the basis of their building had gone, they adroitly pretended that what grieved them was not so much their loss as that the repudiation of British authority was a national calamity, and that what was the neglect of Britain became the opportunity of France.
The position taken up by the Government was, however, perfectly sound, and was the only logical one they could occupy. Whether previous Governments had acted wisely and well in declining to embrace the opportunity to colonise which Cook"s discovery had opened to them, may be a debatable question, but the fact at this date was that the golden opportunity had pa.s.sed, and that by subsequent diplomatic acts, deliberately taken, the independence of the Maori people had been clearly and emphatically acknowledged. "The answers," wrote Lord John Russell to Lord Palmerston, "which would be made by foreign nations to such a claim as that put forward by Mr. Somes are two. First that the British Statute Book has, in the present century, in three distinct enactments, declared that New Zealand is not a part of the British Dominions, and secondly that King William IV. made the most public, solemn, and authentic declaration which it was possible to make that New Zealand was a substantive and independent state. The resolution by the King, Lords, and Commons of Great Britain of the fact that New Zealand is not a part of the British Dominions will be found in the Statutes 57 George III. cap. 53, 4 George IV. cap. 96, sec. 3, and 9 George IV. cap. 83, sec. 4."
The Act of 57 George III. cap. 53 is ent.i.tled "An Act for the more effectual punishment of murders and manslaughters committed in places not within His Majesty"s dominions." It sets forth--"Whereas grievous murders and manslaughters have been committed at the settlement of the Bay of Honduras in South America, etc.," "and the like offences have also been committed in the South Pacific Ocean, as well on the high seas as on land, in the Islands of New Zealand and Otaheite, and in other Islands, countries, and places not within His Majesty"s dominions, by the Masters and crews of British ships, and other persons who have for the most part deserted from or left their ships, and have continued to live and reside amongst the inhabitants of those Islands, etc.," and the Act then provides for the punishment of offences so committed "in the said Islands of New Zealand and Otaheite, or within any other Islands, countries, or places, not within His Majesty"s dominions, nor subject to any other European State or power," etc.
The Statute 4 George IV. cap. 96, sec. 3 enacts that the Supreme Courts in the colonies of New South Wales and Van Dieman"s Land may try offences "committed in the islands of New Zealand, Otaheite, or any other Island, country, or place, situate in the Indian or Pacific Oceans, and not subject to His Majesty or to any European State," if such offences were committed by British subjects.
The Statute 9 George IV. cap. 83, sec. 4 repeats that enactment in the same words, adding only that the punishment of the offence shall be the same as if the crime had been committed in England.
The recognition by King William IV. of New Zealand as a substantive and independent state is shown in the following narrative:
"On November 16 a letter to King William IV. from thirteen of the chiefs of New Zealand was transmitted to Lord G.o.derich, praying the protection of the British Crown against the neighbouring tribes and against British subjects residing in the Islands. On June 14, 1832, Lord Ripon despatched Mr. Busby as British Resident, partly to protect British Commerce, and partly to repress the outrages of British subjects on the natives. His Lordship sent with Mr. Busby a letter to the chiefs, in which the King was made to address them as an independent people. Their support was requested for Mr. Busby, and they were reminded of the benefits which they would derive from "the friendship and alliance with Great Britain."
"In the month of June 1832 a Bill was brought into the House of Commons for the prevention of crimes committed by His Majesty"s subjects "in New Zealand, and in other Islands in the Pacific not being within His Majesty"s dominions." The Bill was rejected because Parliament could not lawfully legislate for a foreign country.
"On April 13, 1833, the Governor of New South Wales, in obedience to Lord Ripon"s (formerly Lord G.o.derich) orders, addressed instructions to Mr. Busby, in which New Zealand was expressly mentioned as a foreign country, and Mr. Busby himself as being accredited to the chiefs. That doc.u.ment throughout a.s.sumes the independence of New Zealand.
"On April 29, 1834, General Bourke transmitted to Lord Stanley a proposal from Mr. Busby for establishing a national flag for the tribes of New Zealand, "in their collective capacity," and advised that ships built in the Island and registered by the chiefs should have their registers respected in their intercourse with British possessions. Sir R. Bourke reported that he had sent three patterns of flags, one of which had been selected by the chiefs; that the chiefs had accordingly a.s.sembled with the commanders of the British and three American ships, to witness the inauguration of the flag, at which the officers of H.M.S. _Alligator_ were also present. The flag had been declared to be "the national flag" of New Zealand, and being hoisted, was saluted with twenty-one guns by the _Alligator_, a British ship-of-war.
"On November 21, 1834, a despatch was addressed to Sir Richard Bourke by Lord Aberdeen, approving of all these proceedings in the name of the King, and sending a copy of a letter from the Admiralty, stating that they had instructed their officers to give effect to the New Zealand Registers, and to acknowledge and respect the national flag of New Zealand.
"If these solemn Acts[45] of Parliament, and of the King of Great Britain, are not enough to show that the pretension made on behalf of Her Majesty by this Company is unfounded, it might still further be repelled by a minute narrative of all the relations between New Zealand and the adjacent British colonies. It is presumed, however, that after the preceding statement it would be superfluous to acc.u.mulate arguments of that nature and the rather because they could not be intelligibly stated without entering into long and tedious details."
While this discussion was proceeding in England, Captain Hobson was happily on his way to Sydney, with his instructions rendered still more explicit[46] by further explanation from Lord Normanby, thus eliminating, as far as human forethought could provide, the possibility of misunderstanding as to the extent of his authority, or to the sincerity of the broad humanitarian principles which were to govern his conduct towards the natives.
Reaching Sydney late in December 1839[47] he immediately reported himself to Sir George Gipps, who entered into the spirit of the enterprise with his characteristic enthusiasm for the service of the Empire. During their official negotiations the final arrangements were completed agreeably to the intentions of the Colonial Secretary.
Captain Hobson was placed in the possession of the Proclamation under the Great Seal, by which the Government of New South Wales was extended to any territory which might be acquired as the result of Hobson"s mission "in those Islands commonly called New Zealand."
Simultaneously he was presented with his own Commission as Lieutenant-Governor of any such territory, and with the proclamations he was to issue in New Zealand, as circ.u.mstances rendered necessary or advisable. He was also placed in possession of further instructions from Sir George Gipps, who laid special stress upon the financial relations existing between the two colonies. "My responsibility for the due expenditure of the public money of this colony," he said, "is one of which I cannot divest myself, and where responsibility is there also must be control. The extent to which establishments are to be erected in New Zealand, the salaries to be paid to public officers, and the expenditure of public money on public works, must for the present be fixed by myself on estimates and reports or proposals to be forwarded by you." Close enquiry was also made into the legal question which Captain Hobson had raised with Lord Normanby when seeking fuller information regarding his powers of administration. Hobson desired the power to appoint and suspend Magistrates; to pardon offences and remit sentences, and to exercise original control, which the insular position of New Zealand seemed to demand, but which was seldom conferred upon those holding the subordinate office of Lieutenant-Governor. To this request Lord Normanby had replied that all the powers necessary for the proper conduct of his office would be conferred upon him by acts of the Governor and Legislature of New South Wales. Hobson was unconvinced, but deferentially refrained from pitting his lay opinion against that which he naturally a.s.sumed was based upon the wider knowledge possessed by the Department. Sir George Gipps had no such reservations, and at once declared his inability to delegate to another powers which had only been delegated to him.
In communicating his final instructions to the Lieutenant-Governor, Gipps wrote: "With respect to certain powers or prerogations of the Crown, with which Governors of colonies are usually entrusted, it is necessary for me to point out to you that though I am myself authorised by Her Majesty to exercise them in her name, and on her behalf, I have no power to delegate the exercise of them to another.
From this, which is an inherent maxim in law, it will, I believe follow:
"(1) That you will not have power to pardon offences, or to remit sentences p.r.o.nounced on offenders in due course of law, though you may stay the execution of the law.
"(2) That you will not be authorised to suspend officers holding appointments direct from Her Majesty, though you may recommend to me the suspension of them. With respect to persons holding appointments from me you will have the power of suspension, and over such as hold appointments from yourself a power of dismissal unless they may have been previously recommended by you for confirmation in the service, in which case your power will extend only to suspension.
"(3) You will not have power of appointing Magistrates, though of course you will recommend to me such persons as you may think fit to be appointed.
"(4) In the event of the enrolment of a militia, the same will hold good respecting the appointment of officers."
A staff of officials for the due conduct of the civil business of the country was also appointed,[48] even to a small force of policemen, and with an almost prophetic punctiliousness for detail, a Commission was prepared for his successor in the event of Hobson"s death, so that there might be no break in the continuity of official control.
With these preliminaries settled, Governor Gipps, on January 14, issued three proclamations: (1) extending the boundaries of New South Wales to New Zealand; (2) proclaiming Captain Hobson Lieutenant-Governor of those Islands, and "calling upon all British subjects to the aiding and a.s.sisting of the said William Hobson in the exercise of his said duty"; (3) to put an end to the speculation in New Zealand lands then being openly carried on in Sydney.
The _Herald_, a frigate of twenty guns, commanded by Captain Nias, lay in Spring Cove, waiting to convey the Queen"s representative and his party to New Zealand.[49] At six o"clock on the evening of Sat.u.r.day the 18th the staff appointed to accompany the Consul joined the vessel, and at a somewhat later hour Captain Hobson himself went on board. Under the influence of a fine N.E. wind, a full moon shining down upon the harbour, the _Herald_ left Port Jackson and headed for the Bay of Islands. Fine weather was experienced in the Tasman Sea and on Sunday the 26th, while a gentle breeze filled the sails and soft zephyrs whispered through the cordage, Captain Nias conducted Divine service on the gun deck, which was attended by the whole ship"s company, and "a more beautiful and impressive scene I never witnessed," is the description of the ceremony given by Mr. Felton Mathew, who was coming with Hobson as the Surveyor-General to the new colony. At daylight on the following morning the Three Kings were sighted, and shortly after the mainland came into view. Two days were spent in beating up the coast, and again at daylight on the 29th, the _Herald_ entered the Bay of Islands, drifting with the tide, there being not a breath of wind. All the morning was spent in this tedious process, and it was not till eleven o"clock that the anchor was cast in front of the little town of Kororareka.[50] Across the Bay the Union Jack was flying in front of Mr. Busby"s residence, but what most attracted the attention and excited the interest of those on board was the French tricolour floating from a staff upon the hill-side above the township. "What this may indicate," wrote Mr. Mathew in his diary, "we have yet to learn--whether it is merely a French Missionary establishment or whether a French frigate is at anchor in the Bay and has antic.i.p.ated us, we shall soon discover."
[40] Captain Hobson had acquired some distinction in the Navy by the capture of a band of pirates in the Mediterranean, the personal bravery displayed by him on that occasion being decidedly meritorious.
He was afterwards engaged with the sloop-of-war _Rattlesnake_, and first attracted political notice by his report to the Government on the state of Society in New Zealand. Major Bunbury, who had considerable personal knowledge of him, describes him as an officer who wrote a good despatch, was fluent of speech, and was not without abilities, but had not the necessary grasp of thought to seize the main point of a question--to separate the grain from the chaff. He was very jealous of his authority and obstinate, particularly as disease made encroachment on his frame and intellect. He was of social habits and had the faculty of making private friends and also of creating public enemies. Mrs. Hobson is described as "an interesting person."
[41] This Proclamation was not enclosed amongst the official correspondence delivered to Captain Hobson upon his leaving England, and the deficiency was supplied by one drafted by Sir George Gipps and his Executive.
[42] _Vide_ his instructions to Captain Hobson, August 14, 1839.
[43] The _Journal de Havre_ was particularly active in discussing New Zealand at this time.
[44] It is suggested that the real advocate was Edward Gibbon Wakefield.
[45] These Acts were quoted as evidences of Britain"s repudiation of sovereignty in New Zealand, by M. Guizot, the French Foreign Minister, during the debate on the sovereignty question in the Chamber of Deputies on May 29, 1844.
[46] After perusing the original draft of his instructions, Captain Hobson referred several matters therein back to the Minister for further explanation, and on August 15, 1839, Lord Normanby replied in a memorandum which amplified his intentions, but in no way changed their spirit.
[47] On arrival at Sydney Captain Hobson was waited on by a deputation of New Zealand landowners, who requested to know his views regarding their lands. With his answers to their questions the deputation was in general satisfied, as he encouraged them to occupy their lands and proceed with their improvements. Subsequently an address of Welcome was presented to him at Government House, and he appeared highly flattered by the compliment paid him.
[48] "Captain Hobson is accompanied by several officers, selected for their known incompetency by Sir George Gipps. What a.s.sistance he is to expect from these persons I do not know, but they are evidently sent to New Zealand because Sir George Gipps has no use for their services here, and was consequently anxious to get rid of them." Dr. Martin"s _New Zealand Letters_.
[49] The ship _Westminster_ was also engaged to convey stores to New Zealand so soon as word should be received of the success of Captain Hobson"s mission. The _Westminster_ reached the Bay of Islands on March 17, 1840, bringing with her Mr. and Mrs. Burrows and Mr. and Mrs. Matthew for the C.M.S. Mission.
[50] I am indebted to Mr. H. M. Stowell (Hare Hongi) for the following note on the origin and meaning of _Kororareka_; the ancient name of the town of Russell.
_Kororareka_ has several original native names:
1. _O-kiato_: _kiato_ means confined, of circ.u.mscribed area; and this describes its situation exactly.
2. _Wai-taha-rua_: This means, two-sided water, or, the double waterside. This also describes its situation for it has a fine frontage to the Bay itself, and an arm of the Bay runs up to its back-door (so to speak).
3. _Kororareka_: _Korora-reka_, means Sweet-penguin. This has remained its favourite name, and it originated in the following incident: An old high chief lay here dying. He expressed a wish to taste a little of the penguin bird before dying. Now this bird is a rarity in those waters. So many young men of the tribe went off in their canoes and scoured the headlands, isles, and islets for miles around the Bay. At length two young men were fortunate enough to discover a penguin, a real _Korora_, or blue penguin, which they managed to capture. They hastened back with their catch, and the bird was feathered and cleaned and boiled in the ancient manner of boiling.
This was to place the bird in a deep wooden bowl, cover it well with water, and keep that water boiling by dropping red-hot stones in it from an oven by its side.
The bird being cooked in this way was served up to the old chief, but being unable to chew or to eat any portion he begged for a little of the water (soup) in which it had been boiled. This was brought to him, and having been a.s.sisted to a partially seated position he drank some of the "soup," after which he sank back on his pillow, murmured: "_Ka reka te Korora_" and immediately expired. Now, _Ka reka te Korora_, means: How _sweet_ is the Penguin.