# The Story of Christchurch, New Zealand/Chapter 17

Chapter XVII.
Abolition of Provinces—The four Superintendents.
With the abolition of Provincial Government, an important chapter of the History of Christchurch came to an end. The Act was passed by the Hon. Daniel Pollen’s Ministry, but as Dr. Pollen had his seat in the Legislative Council, it devolved upon Major (afterwards Sir Harry) Atkinson to pioneer it through the House of Representatives. The third reading was passed (September 29, 1875) by a majority of forty to twenty-one. Included in the minority was Mr. William Rolleston, then Superintendent of Canterbury, who opposed the measure at all points. There was practically no opposition in the Legislative Council, and on October 12, 1875, the Bill became law, and came into operation on November 1, 1876.
Many years later, on March 7, 1894, a veteran Canterbury statesman, Sir John Hall, K.C.M.G., testified to the splendid work done by the Canterbury Provincial Council. The occasion was almost dramatic, Sir John Hall, in the evening of his life—he was then seventy years of age—was bidding a final farewell to his constituents. It was the close of a political career which had extended over more than forty years. During that time he had filled, amongst many other public positions, those of head of the Provincial Executive of Canterbury, and of first Chairman of the Christchurch Town Board, and of Prime Minister of New Zealand. Speaking then, with the weight and authority of such experience, and with the detachment of one about to pass out of the area of party politics, he briefly reviewed the work of the Canterbury Provincial Council:—‘'I think,” he said, “the work ​done in the old Provincial days, and the men who did it, deserve to be held in grateful recollection, The administration, at whose head were men like FitzGerald, Sefton Moorhouse and William Rolleston, was characterised by honesty, ability and intelligent dealing with the difficult circumstances of a new country. I was a member of the first Provincial Council, and of the last. Most of my old colleagues have long since passed away. They would have done credit to any Legislature. Perhaps their parliamentary education would nowadays be considered incomplete. In their days ‘stone-walling’ was unborn, and deliberate obstruction was an unknown art. Men of ordinary physical powers could do their duty with satisfaction; and the whole proceedings of the Council would compare favourably with those of the august body to which we now look for political salvation. It has been well said that the history and character of a Government may be read in the monuments which it leaves behind. When we consider what our Canterbury Provincial Government has left behind, especially in the matter of public works—when we look at the roads, bridges, harbour works, and even railroads, by which the province was opened up; when we look on the large immigration which was secured; on the liberal education system which was erected, and on the fact, which statistics prove, that in proportion to our available agricultural area, a larger amount of actual settlement was secured, and more agricultural produce was raised than in any other part of the colony, we are justified in believing that the days of the Provincial Government were some of Canterbury’s best days. It has been said, and I think with truth, that no part of the Colonial Empire, unaided by mineral wealth, ever made more rapid progress in solid and permanent settlement than did Canterbury in the days of its Provincial Government. I will only add that if the work of other provinces had been as well done ​as that of Canterbury, provincial institutions might have remained in existence to the present day.”
It has often been asserted that at the abolition of the provinces, Canterbury was made the milch cow of the colony. This is, perhaps, not the place to discuss that question, but in justice to the founders of Canterbury—the Canterbury Association, and the Superintendents and Provincial Councillors who succeeded the Association in authority—some comment on the oft-repeated statement may fairly be offered. Canterbury had adopted Mr. E. G. Wakefield’s theory of “sufficient price” for land, i.e., dear land in comparison with other parts of the colony. While under Sir George Grey’s regulations, land elsewhere was selling at 10/- or less per acre, Canterbury settlers had to pay at first £3, and later on £2, the result was that the Provincial Council of Canterbury was a comparatively wealthy institution. Now, if we turn to Major Atkinson’s Financial Statement of July 31, 1877 (Hansard, Vol. 24, p. 112), the first Financial Statement after the abolition of provinces, we find that Canterbury alone of the provinces was made to contribute a sum, £56,000, to the Public Works Fund for railways (p. 118). A little further on, we find the illuminating passage: “Since the 1st of January, when the Financial Arrangement Act came into force . . . the (land) sales in Canterbury show an enormous excess (over the estimate), while the sales in Auckland, Taranaki, Hawke’s Bay, Westland and Otago have proved to be less by £83,000 than the sum estimated.” (p. 118.)
Again later on (p. 120) Major Atkinson enunciated two propositions, (1) that the land funds should be localised; (2) that the cost of immigration, roads and bridges was a proper charge against the land funds. Apparently, however, these propositions were to be modified in the present case, for the Colonial Treasurer proceeded to say (p. 128): “We recognise that at the present moment the refund of the charges” (for the ​opening up and settlement of the country) “is beyond the immediate power of the less wealthy districts; but, as respects the Provincial Districts of Canterbury and Otago, no such argument can be urged.” The meaning of the passage quoted seems to be that as Canterbury had been provident enough to build up out of its land sales a fund to pay for roading, bridging and other local purposes, and as other parts of the colony had not been so provident, and had parted with their lands at 10/- per acre to speculators, therefore Canterbury, which had saved its cake, should share it with other provinces which had been less careful.
If we turn now to a table (p. 125) containing an estimate of the receipts and expenditure of the Land Fund for the year 1877–78 for the nine provinces, we find a somewhat startling proposition. In six of the provinces, it was proposed to expend £82,052 9s. 10d. in excess of the amount raised from land sales, licenses, rents, etc., within these provinces. In the other three provinces, it was proposed to spend £528,369 9s. 10d. less than the moneys received. The details of the latter, omitting shillings and pence, are as follow:—
That is to say, it was proposed to expend £215,627 of the land revenue of Canterbury in opening up the lands of other provinces and for the general purposes of the Central Government.
But, striking as are the estimates of the then Colonial Treasurer, the outcome was even more so. The total land revenue from the nine provinces for the first six months of 1878 was £650,068, out of which £458,965 ​came from Canterbury, this province thus providing more than two-thirds of the land revenue of the colony. The proportion was more than maintained during the second half of the year, and in its report for the twelve months ended June 30, 1878, the Crown Lands Department stated:—
“For the twelve months there have been sold of Town Lands 467 acres, Suburban 2,023 acres, and Rural 828,336 acres. Cash received £1,450,251; scrip £27,228. Of this Canterbury Provincial District represents no less than 554,169 acres rural sold to 4,151 purchasers, and 96 acres of town lands sold to 377 purchasers, realising a total of £1,128,823, or, if stated fractionally, seven-tenths the area sold, nearly seven tenths the number of purchasers and nearly eight-tenths of the cash realised for the whole of the colony. The more immediate causes of this are: the Crown lands in this district are all open for selection, the extension of the railway system over the plains, the bridging of the large rivers, and practically their annihilation as obstacles to traffic, and the arable lands brought either actually or in prospect within easy reach of a railway station. These facilities and the remarkable advances which have been made lately in agricultural machinery—the double furrow plough and the reaping machine—have converted the level, grassy plains, which a few years ago seemed destined for ever to graze sheep, into wheat fields for the London market.”
So far the relative positions of the provinces have been considered merely from the standpoint of land revenue, of which Canterbury contributed more than seven-tenths of the whole amount. We may now turn to the assets and liabilities taken over by the General Government from the separate provinces. The whole position is clearly expressed in a comprehensive statement prepared by the Treasury in Wellington, and dated August 28, 1878, The following figures are taken from that ​statement. Canterbury and Otago were the sole provinces possessing railways. The lines were taken over by the General Government, the values being, Canterbury £781,759, Otago £372,622, After these amounts had been credited to the provinces concerned, the net provin cial liabilities assumed by the General Government were summarised thus:
| Auckland | . . . | . . . | £1,019,581 |
| Taranaki | . . . | . . . | 112,477 |
| Wellington | . . . | . . . | 500,697 |
| Hawke's Bay | . . . | . . . | 119,779 |
| Nelson | . . . | . . . | 267,838 |
| Marlborough | . . . | . . . | 32,192 |
| Canterbury | . . . | . . . | 70 |
| Westland | . . . | . . . | 340,490 |
| Otago | . . . | . . . | 1,191,621 |
| Total | . . . | . . . | £3,584,745 |
Canterbury, with a net liability of only £70, had to take its share in shouldering liabilities of more than three millions and a half incurred by the other provinces. The province, it must be remembered, already possessed, besides its tunnel (part of the cost of which had been paid out of revenue) a considerable mileage of open railways, and more in course of construction. The comparatively great advancement of the province was due not only to the natural facilities for development offered by a flat country, free from bush and from-native complications, but also to the prudence of its founders in establishing, and in maintaining in the face of great opposition, the “sufficient price” of land, to enable development to be carried on side by side with settlement.
Let it be added that this chapter is not intended to re-open any alleged grievances of Canterbury. The abolition of provinces may have been a necessary development of the colony as soon as facilities of communication made it possible. What has been written here is intended ​solely to secure recognition of the pioneer work of Edward Gibbon Wakefield, carried out faithfully by the Canterbury Association under John Godley, and afterwards defended by Mr. J. E. FitzGerald, Mr. Henry Sewell and others.
In concluding the story of the Provincial Council days of Canterbury, it seems fitting to insert a few notes on the four Superintendents who guided the destinies of the province during that most critical period.
Mr. James Edward FitzGerald was an Irishman, the possessor, perhaps, of the most brilliant and versatile personality of any of the founders of Canterbury.
To use an Irishism, he started his New Zealand career in the Canterbury Association rooms at the Adelphi in London. It was there that he took the lead first, and drafted and carried the somewhat exclusive constitution of the Society of Land Purchasers. He sailed in the “Charlotte Jane,” which also brought Mr. Charles Bowen and Dr. Barker and his family to Lyttelton. On the voyage out, Mr. FitzGerald wrote “The Night Watch Song of the ‘Charlotte Jane,’” the first of the “Canterbury Rhymes”:—
Mr. FitzGerald’s landing in Lyttelton—the first of the pioneers to step ashore—has already been described. There is a story which may be apocryphal that Dr. Barker was in the bow of the boat and about to land; in doing so, he bent forward and unconsciously presented a “back,” over which Mr. FitzGerald promptly leaped. The story is not confirmed, but it is given as being ​characteristic of the man, whose ready Irish wit missed few opportunities.
On arrival in Canterbury, Mr. FitzGerald became the first Editor of the “Lyttelton Times,” and, amongst other activities, performed the duties of Immigration Agent and Police Inspector for the settlement.
His career as first Superintendent of Canterbury has been described elsewhere. He was also a member of the first House of Representatives and the first Premier of New Zealand in 1844, and it was greatly awing to his stand in its favour that responsible government in its present form was established in 1856. In that effort, he was ably supported by Mr. Henry Sewell.
After the term of his Superintendency expired, he went to London, as Immigration Officer for Canterbury, and on his return in 1861, founded the “Press” newspaper. For some years later, he remained in politics, but afterwards took the position of Controller of the Public Accounts, an appointment which he still held at the time of his death in 1896. Of him it may be said that he was a real orator, and a brilliant writer, possessing great gifts from which much was expected.
Mr. William Gisborne, in his “New Zealand Rulers and Statesmen,” described him thus:—“A thorough Irish gentleman, he was, like his countrymen, quick, impulsive, witty and winning in manner and conversation. There were no rising statesmen of the day in New Zealand of whom greater expectations were formed. The pity of it is that those expectations were not fulfilled. In politics, Mr. FitzGerald has been a brilliant failure; his Parliamentary career has been the flash of a meteor—dazzling for the moment, but leaving no lasting trace behind. . . . Had he possessed more persistency of purpose, he would, if he had devoted himself to Imperial politics, have attained one of the highest positions.”
“Punch” in Canterbury, published in 1865 some provincial biographies; in one of them playful reference ​was made to the versatility of the first Superintendent. He was described as having “left Great Britain to its fate at the early age of nineteen, finding that the affairs of the Old Country were altogether unattractive, and its resources almost exhausted. He, therefore, embarked for New Zealand, where he practised, day by day, his various professions of Law, Medicine, Architecture, Lecturer on Constitution, and general representative of the working classes.”
Probably Mr. FitzGerald reached the zenith of his career and popularity the day that he drove his tandem over the far-famed Sumner Road.
Whatever disappointment may be felt at the failure of his later career to come up to the rosy anticipation of his many friends, early Canterbury owed much to the energy, ability and enthusiasm which he brought to bear in his brilliant youth to help to mould the destinies of the young settlement.
Mr. William Sefton Moorhouse, the second Superintendent, arrived in Canterbury in 1851, but was tempted away for a time to the Victorian goldfields, then recently discovered. He returned to Christchurch in 1853, and took a prominent part in supporting Colonel Campbell in opposition to Mr. FitzGerald in the election of Superintendent for that year.
On the retirement of the first Superintendent, Mr. Moorhouse became a candidate for the position, his opponent being Mr. Joseph Brittan. The latter was a good speaker, and had been prominent in Canterbury affairs, having occupied the position of Provincial Secretary. Mr. Moorhouse made up for what he lacked in oratary by other qualities—he was strong and tenacious, of the bull-dog breed, a good organiser and canvasser, and, after a hard struggle, he defeated his opponent by a substantial majority.
There could hardly lave been a greater contrast between any two men than that between the first two ​Superintendents of Canterbury. Mr. Moorhouse, by profession a lawyer, was a big, strong, determined man, without much imagination, but a practical colonist with sound and progressive business instincts. His name has come to be indelibly associated with the Lyttelton Tunnel. He was not the originator of the idea, but having once taken it up, he drove it through all obstacles, material or political, with the full force of his character and vitality.
As Gisborne said of him:—“He showed ability, enterprise, foresight, courage and perseverance in working a great idea into a great fact.”
During his later term as Superintendent, he was always an advocate of extending and still further extending the railways of Canterbury, and so played an important part in the settlement of the province.
The Canterbury “Punch,” in its provincial biographies, published in 1865, from which an appreciation of Mr. FitzGerald’s versatility has already been quoted, has this to say of Mr. William Sefton Moorhouse:—“An eminent jurist, navigator, navvy and statesman, who has also distinguished himself in the horse-dealing and engineering sciences. The precise date of his birth is not known, but it is probable that he will be borne in triumph at the opening of the Lyttelton and Christchurch railway tunnel, through which he was able to see several years before the rest of the world. It is easier to say what this extraordinary genius is not than what he is. He is not Superintendent, but he has been so; he is not an able seaman, but he has been one; he is not a Resident Magistrate, nor a Justice of the Peace, nor a navvy, nor a member of the General Assembly, nor an editor, nor a digger, nor a shipowner, but he has been each and all of these.”
“Punch” also furnished him with a crest, a locomotive with steam up, and a motto “Holus bolus; let us a loan.”
​As a member of the House of Representatives, he, with other Canterbury members, assisted to force the transfer of the seat of Government from Auckland to Wellington—an important matter in those days of difficult communication. He retired from Parliament in 1870 to become Registrar-General of Lands in Wellington—an office which he held till 1872, and after that was again a member of the House of Representatives. He died in Wellington, in September, 1881. His statue faces the Hereford Street entrance of the Domain Gardens.
Of him the “Encyclopædia of New Zealand” said:—“He was the forerunner of Sir Julius Vogel in his Immigration and Public Works policy, and his energy and zeal enabled Canterbury to lead the way in these respects for the rest of New Zealand.”
Mr. Samuel Bealey, the third Superintendent of Canterbury, was born in Lancashire in 1821, and, after taking his Degree at Trinity College, Cambridge, he came out to Canterbury in 1851, and took up land in conjunction with his brother, Mr. John Bealey. He was a member of the first Provincial Council, and held office in Mr. John Hall’s first Executive, in 1856.
On the resignation of Mr. Moorhouse, in January, 1863, a requisition was signed by Mr. Bealey and others, and presented to Mr. Robert Wilkin, asking him to stand for the Superintendency. Mr. Wilkin, however, declined, and Mr. Bealey was then urged to come forward himself, and on March 5 was returned unopposed.
Mr. Bealey’s election seems to have been a compromise between the Moorhouse and FitzGerald parties. The latter gentleman would not have been averse to another term of office, but stipulated as a condition that he should not be opposed.
“His Statue faces the Hereford Street Entrance of the Domain Gardens.”
Plate 23.
​sound judgment, and many years afterwards, Sir John Hall, at the Jubilee Celebrations of Canterbury, 1900, paid a tribute to the shrewd common sense and cool headedness which enabled Mr. Bealey to grapple with the difficulties of the first gold rush to the West Coast—then part of Canterbury—which occurred during his Superintendency.
The record of his term was one of quiet progress; some considerable improvements, for instance, were made in Lyttelton Harbour, but there is no striking event with which Mr. Bealey’s name is connected. He was not one, in short, who sought the limelight of publicity, and if, therefore, the least picturesque of Canterbury Superintendents, he left behind him a record as a good office man and safe administrator, After his term of office he was succeeded by Mr. Moorhouse, and retired into private life, returning to England to educate his family. Tre died on May 8, 1909.
The Hon. William Rolleston, the last of the Canterbury Superintendents, was a son of the Rev. George Rolleston, M.A., vicar of Maltby, Yorkshire, and was born in September, 1831. He was a Foundation Scholar of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where he graduated with classical honours in 1855, and arrived in Lyttelton in the “Regina,” in November, 1858.
Mr. Rolleston became Provincial Secretary in 1863, and succeeded Mr. Moorhouse as Superintendent in 1868, an office which he continued to hold till the abolition of provinces in 1876.
His advent into office was marked by a temporary cessation of the activity that had characterised the Public Works policy of Canterbury during Mr. Moorhouse’s term of office. Canterbury land revenue was no longer buoyant, and Mr. Rolleston assumed office as the representative of the party of caution, who had been alarmed at the rapid growth of the Public Works Account in the Provincial Budget. Three years before, in 1865, he had resigned ​from the Executive Council because he considered the time premature for the contract then entered into for the construction of the Southern Railway.
Mr. Rolleston was one of the foremost New Zealand statesmen of his time, and his services to the colony in education, land legislation, and many other fields, cannot be adequately described in the short space here available. It is to be hoped that while material is still obtainable, someone will be found to write his life, and do justice to the part he played in the history of the Dominion.
Soon after his arrival in Canterbury, he took up a run near Lake Coleridge, and the Rolleston Range bears his name and perpetuates his memory. He, it was, who bestowed those classic names on the Acheron and Rubicon Rivers, on Mount Algidus and Mount Olympus in the upper water of the Rakaia River.
Later on, he bought a farm in South Canterbury near the mouth of the Rangitata, where he died in February, 1903.
There was a very general desire to recognise the services which Mr. Rolleston had rendered to Canterbury and to New Zealand, and a meeting was called for this purpose on March 18, 1903. At that meeting, the Hon. C. C. Bowen paid a fine tribute to the services of his old friend, but added that the desire to perpetuate his memory was “not altogether on account of his great ability and industry—although they were remarkable enough. Nor was it owing to the long experience Mr. Rolleston was always ready to devote at all times to the country. It was because the people had a conviction of his absolute singleness of purpose in regard to the public services, and the utter absence of self-seeking when dealing with public affairs.” The meeting resolved to erect the statue which now stands in front of the Museum, which Mr. Rolleston opened thirty years before. It was unveiled by another old friend of Mr. Rolleston's—Sir John Hall—on May 26, 1906.
William Rolleston.
The last of the Canterbury Superintendents.
Plate 24.