In the perspective of modern ideas we tend to see these campaigns in terms of slaughtered thousands, reeking umus, and decimated tribes, but we must remember that these leaders themselves and many of their contemporaries saw them in the accepted tradition of their own custom as laudable and enterprising. The mammoth exterminations of Matakitaki, Totara Pa and Patu-one differed only in degree from the affairs which had preceded them for generations. If the question of culpability comes into it at all, it must be conceded that the pakeha traders who supplied the guns were even more guilty than the chiefs who used them. Incidentally it is, perhaps, interesting to reflect that the introduction of firearms not only brought in a new concept of warfare, but also caused a change in the whole pattern of Maori living, being the main cause of the abandonment of the old hill-pa sites, as living quarters, in favour of kaingas built on lower levels. According to Dr Thompson (one of the earliest pakeha historians), this made them susceptible to an incidence of chest and lung diseases which wiped out more thousands than all the slaughter-experts put together.

THE MOTIVE OF NATIONALISM In the second group we find leaders of a different calibre who, each in his own degree, were the champions of an emergent Maori nationalism. These leaders were men who recognised that the fates of individual tribes were inseparable from the fate of the Maori as a whole people, and that their continuance, as a race, depended on their adjustments to new conditions of existence, imposed, willy-nilly, by the spreading tide of pakeha settlement. This new nationalism, like all nationalisms, went through many phases. The leaders it threw up were divided between those who believed that the future of the Maori depended on his co-existence with the pakeha, and those who believed that his very existence demanded opposition to pakeha impact and its resultant changes. Needless to say these two points of view brought many leading chiefs into opposition. Some, like Hone Heke, consistently opposed pakeha infiltration and domination, others like Tamati Waka Nene were equally unswerving in their support of the pakeha. Some, like Te Rangihaeata and Rangitaake (Wiremu Kingi), began by co-operating with, and even protecting the pakeha, and ended by bitterly opposing him. Both the King movement, and the Hau-hau movement which succeeded it, produced outstanding leaders on both sides.

THE MOTIVE OF SOCIAL WELLBEING There is a third group, much nearer to our own generation, which, at the conclusion of the war, took over the gigantic task of leading a defeated and disillusioned people to a new destiny, within the fabric of, and through the institutions of, a society dominated by the pakeha and his way of life. The names of Carroll, Buck, and Ngata are but a few of the many who worked so hard and so brilliantly for a renaissance of Maoritanga and all that it means.

TOWARDS AN OBJECTIVE VIEW OF TE KOOTI Te Kooti was the last of the militant leaders who opposed the pakeha and all he stood for Te Kooti fired the last shots in a campaign against pakeha domination which began when Hone Heke fired the first. It is most unfortunate, but true I think, that those historians who drew his picture did so in a very one sided manner. Although they were mainly contemporaries of Te Kooti, and therefore had access to a mass of primary information which would have enabled them to ascertain carefully all those circumstances and forces which produced him as a leader, they failed to take advantage of this circumstance. Almost without exception they dipped their pens in bitterness and recorded mainly those facts which would enable them to present him in, to say the least of it, a very one-sided light. Bishop W. L. Williams, otherwise a meticulous and painstaking historian dismisses Te Kooti's early life by saying “the various traders knew him as a somewhat light-fingered and troublesome fellow”. Lambert who does appear to have gathered some intereesting information about Te Kooti's early years no where gives any indication that he has come across anything to Te Kooti's credit and drops here and there such comments as that he was a ‘veritable fiend’ and ‘only a butcher’, this last, sardonically enough in comparing him with Ropata. This is not to impugn the integrity of these historians and it must be admitted that it is to the research and painstaking enquiry of contemporary writers that we have a detailed accounting of one of the most important and most interesting of all the campaigns of the Maori wars. Having read these accounts, however, one cannot but conclude that they were written with bias. Even though they give Te Kooti credit for being a shrewd and brilliant tactician, they leave no doubt that they regard him as a brutal ruffian inspired only by hatred and revenge. It is not surprising that they should so regard him, for they but reflect the general opinion of contemporary pakehas. Even Greenwood, whose fine essay “The upraised Hand” is a careful and sympathetic account of the rise of the Ringatu faith which was founded by Te Kooti, is surprisingly content to accept and repeat the careless estimate of these contemporary historians, and to sum up his career, prior to his deportation to the Chathams, in Williams' phrase that he was “well known as one who was lightfingered and always getting into trouble.” Even the devil, it is said, should be given his due te Kooti has been given much less than his. His repu-