A TALE OF TWO CITIES

New Zealand Listener, Volume 16, Issue 416, 13 June 1947, Page 16

A TALE OF TWO CITIES

| Written for "The Listener" |

by

ALAN

FULTON

N visiting Auckland recently, : Wellington’s Mayor, Mr. Appleton, trod the battleground of an old feud which has waxed and waned through New Zealand’s hundred-odd years. This feud was waged between Auckland and Wellington and concerned the location of Parliament and the capital city. New Zealanders to-day do not question Wellington’s right to this honour if only because of its central position, but when the capital was situated at Auckland the rivalry was strong, hot, and more than somewhat bitter. Faced continually with the possibility that the capital would be removed from Auckland, the colonists of that district waged a mighty pen-and-paper war in support of their city, but the decision was never much in doubt. Many arguments were used to prove the need for maintaining the capital in the north and the following extract, written in the quaint round-about style of the first half of last century, is typical of them all. It is extracted from the Auckland newspaper The New Zealander of November 11, 1845:

"That the seat of government was placed on the shores of the Waitemata has been the source during the last five years of the ebullition of the most acrimonious feelings from all the southern settlements founded by the New Zealand Company. Even after it was acknowledged that Wellington was neither the most eligible nor the most accessible harbour in the Northern Island for a capital, it was urged that-as there had emigrated to that settlement such numbers as to far exceed the population of the government settlement on the Waitemata in the year 1840-the capital should be fixed where the greatest number of Europeans are located. "Our readers will remember with what envious exultation our Southern contemporaries did for the years 1841, 1842 and 1843 put forth the number of shipping inwards as well as the great value of their imports. As soon as the whale fisheries on the coast and in Cook Strait were productive, corresponding publication was made of the great amount... . to disparage the Northern district with a view to influencing the Home Government in the belief that erie rw R

Port Nicholson was the only place in the three islands fit for a seat of government." Hard Words When on June 17, 1845, Sir Robert Peel, in the House of Commons, criticised Auckland in favour of Wellington, The New Zealander interpreted this

as "one of those artful political strategems in debate, to neutralise wavering opponents, for which he is celebrated!" and the paper added, "We shall only observe that if the Home Government ever sanctions such an atrocious breach (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) of faith towards the purchasers of land in the town of Auckland it will be an act of direct fraud and robbery unparalleled in the history of civilised nations." Supporters of Auckland at times wert to great lengths to further their cause but seldom further than when they quoted from Captain Fitzroy’s "Remarks on New Zealand" a section concerning the suitability of Auckland and Wellington as capitals. Fitzroy of course was all for Auckland, and this is what he said of it:

"Auckland has many advantages in point of situation, but it wants more food and running water. A better position might have been selected in the same part of the island and one less exposed to the wind and the rain would have been more agreeable though possibly not so capable of defence as Auckland might be made, If Auckland is not now in the position for the capital the only one superior is within 20 miles of that place. The harbour sis very good and the land around it not high and there is a spacious outer roadstead, land-locked from prevailing or indeed almost all winds, where fleets might anchor in safety. The adjoining coast is usually a weather shore with smooth water. Within the harbour which is long but narrow there are more than four square miles of. good anchorage. Any ship may enter or depart under sail." Of Wellington Fitzroy said, "Words could not express the surprise and disappointment with which Port Nicholson and the town of Wellington were seen for the first time. The port is too large to be sheltered even from prevailing winds and it has a long narrow entrance from the open sea between threateningly and really dangerous rocks, making it almost a blind harbour. It is nearly surrounded by high hills covered with dense forest and appears to have but little cultivable land in its immediate neighbourhood, The stormy climate, and the depressing prospect of the future in such a locality during at least the present generation, might well cause sorrow that such a situation should have been chosen." Hobson’s Choice And next, consider the following piece of fine writing: "It is a singular thing that after ail the efforts made by the New Zealander Company and its supporters both at home and abroad to

vaunt the superiority of Wellington over Auckland, that everyone who has had the opportunity of judging and who gives an unbiassed opinion on the subject should confirm ‘Hobson’s choice.’ Captain Hobson knew full well that Wellington wanted what Auckland possesses and which is essential for the prosperity of a large commercial town -an available country around it and a harbour safe and easy of access, for it is the country which makes the town, not the town which makes the countrv.

"Now when we look on this picture and on this as given us by Captain Fitztoy, we feel that we have in him considerably strengthened our cause. He is an officer of deservedly high standing in Her Majesty’s Navy, and one who has spent most of his years in active service in that branch of his profession, which eminently qualifies him to be a judge on such questions. His opinion, therefore, is not likely to be treated as careless or prejudiced-prejudiced it cannot be; he has nothing to lose in Auckland, and nothing to gain in Wellington, by any change that might take place:' and we feel confident, that if all who have spoken or written about the townships of Auckland and Wellington had done it as conscientiously as Captain Fitzroy, the question as to the removal of the principal seat of Government from hence to Wellington, had long since been settled-in fact, it would never have been mooted." The Editor of The New Zealander, which . printed the above fine writing with such glowing accompanying praise, overlooked the fact that less than 18 months previously his paper had rather boldly stated, "that His Excellency was either badly advised or entertained mistaken views and prejudices, but how he could deliberately place on record such erroneous trash, to give it no harsher term .... we cannot with all our reflecting powers imagine." Wellington Rejoices The Wellington papers completely ignored Fitzroy’s fine writing and criticism of their own, and for a _ good reason. During his sojourn in New Zealand Fitzroy made himself so unpopular with the inhabitants of the southern settlements that it was unsafe to mention his name. When news of his recall reached Wellington in October, 1845, it was hailed with as much enthusiasm as the end of a war. Reporting the

event-and an event it was-the Wellington Spectator wrote: "On Saturday night there were illuminations in Wellington in honour of the joyful news of Captain Fitzroy’s recall and several bonfires were lighted in different parts of the town. On Monday night the Governor’s effigy, after being paraded through ‘the town carried by three Maoris, was burnt in a large bonfire. . . . Everyone appears to be satisfied that the worst is past and confidence and hope are rapidly reviving."