Chapter One The Idea of a University at Auckland, 1854�82

HE Inter nineteenth century was n major period of university foundation in T English-speaking countries. Colleges or universities were launched, in the new worlds of settlement, in in 1869, Canterbury in 1873; Adelaide in 1874; Montreal in 1876, Manitoba in 1877. The University of California at Berkeley was founded in 1872, Connecticut University in 1881, and Wyoming in 1886. The contemporary British foundations were universities or colleges ar Leeds (1874), Bristol (1876), Sheffield and Birmingham (1880), Nottingham (1881), and Liverpool (1882), Reading (1892), Cardiff (1883), Bangor (1884), and Dundee (1883). A complete list would he lengthy, though less so than that for the next great burst of university creation in the nineteen-fifties and sixties. The establishment of a University College in Auckland in 1883 must not, then, be thought of merely as a local phenomenon, to be described and explained purely in local terms; rather, it was part of a movement as widespread as contemporary and former British Empires. It would have been surprising if the Auckland citizens had not attempted to found a college. Similarly, the British immigrants in wanted to have their town corporntions, parliament, law courts, and most of the institutions they had known in Great Britain. How they would all turn out was another matter. As early as 1848 the Otago Association in Scotland had a proposal to establish a college in the settlement it was planning. So had the English A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND in 1850.1 But almost nothing could be done during the initial years of colonization. The first person known to have discussed university education publicly in New Zealand was Hugh Carleton, Member of the House of Representatives for the Bay of Islands, in North Auckland. Carleton had been 'sent down' fr om Trinity College, Cambridge, after a 'town-and-gown' disturbance, and had later studied in and in Europe.2 In a debate in 1854 on the electoral rolls he advocated bringing more educated men into the House. He recommended starting universities in each province. They would be secular bodies, their business being examining and granting degrees. Each religious denomination might establish its own college, where teaching would take place. University Members of Parliament, as in England, would be created, and each male graduate would collect an extra vote with his degree. 3 The first proposal for a specifically Auckland university was made in 1862 in an Auckland journal, Chapman's New Zealand Monthly Magazine, in an article 'On the Establishment of a University in Auckland' by '].G.', initials still, over a century later, concealing the author's identity.4 Strangely enough, like Carleton, the author advocated creating a non-teaching university. Despite the great criticism and indeed abuse that the later University of New Zealand was to meet, there seems to have been something peculiarly receptive to a non-teaching university in the New Zealand intellectual air. This was also true across the Tasman. When W. C. Wentworth was pressing for a university in Sydney he argued for a secular, examining university with teaching colleges modelled on the University of London. Probably this was because London seemed more democratic than his own University, Oxford, and hence would have had more local appeal. 5 '].G.' asked what sort of university Auckland required, and replied that it needed one like the University of London, 'a truly national University', which presented 'to all classes, all denominations, all schools, and· all colleges throughout the United Kingdom, a given standard of attainments to which she encourages them to aspire ... .' The business of a university ought to be to direct the education of a country 'but not to become itself the educator'. The University of London set exams for all who offered themselves, and granted degrees to those who passed. It was, '].G.' said, 'The People's Universicy'-an expression later to be repetitively applied to the Auckland University College. There was no reason why a university should not be started at once. 'No grand building is required'. All that was needed to start with, as in London, was an office. '].G.' alleged that the University of London itself was to be found at the Thatched House Tavern. The author thought that students fr om two local schools, St John's College and Wesley College, might sit either for matriculation or degree examinations once the university was established. ln the same year the Auckland Provincial Council, the provincial government set up under the 1852 Constitution, appointed a Committee to consider how to employ the revenues from a Grammar School Trust which had been established by Governor Sir in 1850. The Committee took evidence from educational, church, and other community leaders who were asked, among other questions, whether 'the nucleus of an Auckland University' should be formed when funds were available. Of the thirteen witnesses, nine favoured starting a local university, three thought it premature, and one was uncertain.6 The witnesses, such as Hugh Carleton, William

2 THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY AT AUCKLAND

Swainson, the Colony's second Attorney-General, and Sir William Martin, its first Chief Justice, included some of Auckland's most prominent citizens. Some of their evidence seems prophetic, almost suggesting witchcraft or clairvoyance. The Reverend J. F. Lloyd asserted that no building was needed, merely some professor­ ships and a lecture room. To start with a single hired lecture room would do, Swainson and Carleton claimed. 'An University need not have any material existence', said the latter, for the denominational schools could affiliate to the University and do the teaching. Only the Presbyterian minister, the Reverend Oavid Bruce, spoke of the need for a site and a building. J. E. Gorst, later the author of The Maori King and a prominent English politician, was one of the few witnesses who emphasized that it was 'impossible to have a university in anything more than name until there are good secondary schools.' Most of the witnesses favoured founding a university rather than a grammar school. One Presbyterian minister, the Reverend John Macky, thought that 'a Grammar School provided at the public expense is not a pressing necessity'. It was considered-and not by him alone, for the same view was to be expressed a few years later by the Reverend Robert Kidd, who was to become the first Registrar of Auckland University College-that the state should care for primary and university education while 'the operation of private demand and supply' would provide for secondary schools. Those schools, like the British public schools and grammars, were to be kept free of state control, but the witnesses obviously felt that, without government assistance, no universities at all could be created in New Zealand.7 Not everyone shared this opinion. Early in 1867 there was talk in Ounedin, now grown rich from its gold rush, and for a generation the largest town and chief com­ mercial centre, of starting a university. The Rector of the Otago Boys' High School, the Reverend F. C. Simmons, an Oxford man, thought that this was premature. He petitioned Parliament in Wellington to establish a number of scholarships to enable to attend universities in Great Britain. A Joint Recess Committee of both Houses of Parliament was set up to look into this suggestion. It sent a question­ naire to selected gentlemen. Of the fifty-one who replied, thirty-four favoured scholarships, but half as many wanted to start a teaching university. In Auckland alone a majority of seven out of the ten witnesses wanted a local university. Some of the people elsewhere who favoured overseas scholarships, like Judge Richmond, feared that all New Zealand could produce by way of a university was 'a stunted tree': far better to remain 'a healthy branch'. Others, like Judge H. S. Chapman, pointed to the supposedly unfortunate precedent of Melbourne (and he could have added Sydney) where in the eighteen-fifties universities had been started which attracted few students for many years. Sydney University, founded in 1850, had only seventy­ four students in 1872.8 Bur there were also strong arguments in favour of a local institution. One was the fear, often and reasonably expressed then and thereafter, that a system of scholarships would simply lead to the export of many of the cleverest New Zealanders-the dreaded 'brain drain '-a term first used a century later, but a phenomenon which existed throughout those ten decades.9 When Francis Oillon Bell raised the question of scholarships in the House of Representatives similar arguments were advanced. The gloomy said that the time 'even for an Australasian University is not yet in my judgement

3 A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND come, and may never come.' The colonies would do well 'to look to the mother country as their metropolis'. In a very striking statement, E. W. Stafford, the Premier, said that soon Parliament would clearly have to spend public money on education, and not leave it to the Provinces, because 'we arc approaching ro n condition of nationality-faster, I believe, thnn some of us arc awnrc'. Much of the argument wns about whether the children of the poor would or would not have access to university education,10 an issue which was to become dominant in discussions of higher educa­ tion. A democracy should only pay for what was democratic and egalitarian. Farquhar McRac, the Rector of the High School in Auckland, wanted to start a university like that in London, which would examine while the schools taught. The Reverend David Brucc agreed. Sir William Mnrrin, one of the Colony's most eminent citizens, was not afraid to generalize: a New Zcalnnd university 'would bring the influences of the highest education into the midst of the population, and enable those influences to reach many who would not be reached on any other plan.' So far the country was destitute of universities, but rich in opinions about the need for them and concerning their role. The reason for the gap between aspiration and perfor manc e was shortage of money, yet looking over the history of insritutions, including universities, in the New World, the future has often belonged to the brave, and even to the foolhardy. How much money, how many schools, how many people did a university need? The history of the 'land grant' colleges in the United States such as the Universities of Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota, might be regarded as remarkable evidence of the view that 'where there's a will there's a \\ay'. Auckland, so far, was lacking not merely cash, but in will. In 1867, led by the redoubtable James Macandrew, whose popularity in was undiminished by the fnct that he had used provincial funds for privnrc purposes, as well as servi n g a prison sentence for debt, the Dunedin citizens, after a puhlic meeting, decided to establish a u niversity. As]. C. Beaglehole, the historian of t\\O New Zealand universities, later wrote, they decided 'that if Scotland could support seven colleges in 1707, New Zealand could support one in 1867, and thM what Victoria could Jo with a population of 130,000 (Melbourne University dated from 1853) New Zealand could do with one of 200,000'.11 The Presbyterian Synod joined with the Provincial Council to di>.cus� the idea and agreed to set up 'a College <1nd a Ne\.v Zealand University' in the new Post Office building which the general govern­ ment had constructed ahead of need. ln 1868 the veteran politician, Francis , enquired in the House what had happened to the overseas scholarships. The i Premier, E. W. Stafford, replied that the government had set aside some land, including confiscated M<1ori lands in Taranaki, as reservcs. 12 These l<1nds hecame University endowments. Thus university education in New Zeahnd-eventually, indeed, in Auckland-came to be founded on a great wrong, the confiscation of large areas of Maori land in 1863, during the Anglo-Maori wars. In 1869 the Otngo Provincial Council passed an ordinance setting up a university with an endowment of 100,000 acres.1 3 Thus the Scots, as sincere as they were deter­ mined to advance the cause of education, were first in the university field in New Zealand. These events and what immediately followed, as the Otago Scots fought to make their university a 'colonial'-as we now say a 'national'-institution and the

4 THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY AT AUCKLAND

Canterbury English successfully strove to stop them, have been recounted with much amusing and vivid detail in the several New Zealand university histories. University politics began before there were universities. All that is needed here is an outline in sufficient detail to reveal how G. M. (later Sir Maurice) O'Rorke, the chief founder of the Auckland University College, succeeded in achieving that goal. The action of the Otago Provincial Council seemed an attempt to gain a monopoly for Otago of university education, so the colonial legislature was forced either to abdicate all responsibility or to insist on its rights as representing the whole country. Parliament decided to create a 'colonial' university, which should amalgamate with the University of Otago. The University of New Zealand Act of 1870 set up a body with a Council and Senate, with power to confer degrees in arts, medicine, law, and music. It was to receive £3,000 a year from the government. Its Council, and that of the University of Otago, were given six months in which to agree to amalgama­ tion-otherwise the University of New Zealand could be established elsewhere than in Dunedin. The intention was that the University of Otago should disappear and its landed wealth should be transferred to the University of New Zealand, but that, in exchange, Otago would have a 'colonial' and not merely a provincial institution.14 From the first this proposal was strenuously opposed by Canterbury's leaders, who had plans of their own. The new university was meant to be a teaching university . The Canterbury men, like Hugh Carleton of North Auckland, believed that, as at Oxford or Cambridge, a university should examine undergraduates who had been taught in colleges, and should then grant degrees: 'the colleges reach, the university regulates', said William Rolleston of Canterbury .15 As another Canterbury man, J. E. FitzGerald, put it, 'the circumstances of the Colony were not favourable to the establishment of any central institution of a teaching character. The work of teaching must ... be conducted in the principal towns which are the centres of our widely scattered sections of population.' The only central institution must be an examining body.16 Above all, they were determined rh at Otago should not capture the sole university in the country. Therefore they wanted to prevent the University of New Zealand from being 'localized' in Dunedin. ]. C. Beaglehole began his book on the University of New Zealand by saying that whoever wished to understand it needed to be acquainted with New Zealand geography. The main towns are strung along two principal islands a thousand miles long. They were settled in very different ways: Auckland established by the govern­ ment, Wellington by the , Canterbury by another English group, and Otago by Scots. Differences of religion and tradition reinforced the isola­ tion imposed by geography upon the four main towns. Events strengthened the differences. The southerners were deeply suspicious of the motives of the northerners during the Anglo-Maori wars of the sixties. The Aucklanders greatly resented the landed wealth of Canterbury and Otago, where Maoris were few and the land relatively easily acquired. Provincialism was the dominant fact of politics and of social life. It was to mould the history of the universities in many ways and over many years. This was so for various reasons, such as the competition for limited funds, but one reason was probably predominant. To a citizen of Auckland a university in Dunedin was useless: it might as well have been in Sydney, in terms of giving Aucklanders access to a higher education.

5 A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND

Provincial rivalries and a dilatory government effectively prevented the Councils of the two universities from reaching an agreement on amalgamation. The University of New Zealand Council did not want an agreement. A Canterbury contingent, led by H. J. Tancred, William Rolleston, and E. W. Stafford, a truly formidable trio, backed up by Carleton, managed to take over the University of New Zealand. Ta ncred was elected Chancellor and Carleton Vice-Chancellor. Tancred was a wealthy Canter­ bury landowner, who had been educated at Rugby and had served in the Austrian army, 'quelling nationalist risings'. In New Zealand he had been a cabinet minister, but a speech defect kept him a manipulator behind the scenes rather than a leader. The other Canterbury leaders were Oxford or Cambridge men. Stafford and Rolleston were two of the principal political leaders in the country. One of Tancred's chief interests was education-he had himself the portentous title of Hulsean­ Chichele Professor of Modern History at the local Christ's College-one of two posi­ tions which were, so far, all that had materialized of the Canterbury Association's plans to have a 'Collegiate or Upper Department' of its secondary school. The advocates of an examining university (without benefit of an Otago presence) had secret meetings in the 'Maori House' in the Wellington Museum and decided that the University of New Zealand should do the examining while the teaching should be performed by affiliated colleges.17 Applications to affiliate came in promptly. One of the first was from the Auckland Grammar School, a boys' school which had been started with Grey's endowments, in 1869. It intended to establish 'a Collegiate branch' and to increase its staff to provide for teaching additional subjects.18 Wellington College and Nelson College also affiliated. They were to teach the 'college' students while the new University would examine them. In the Fellows of the boys' secondary school, Christ's College, and the Tr ustees of the Canterbury Museum united under the name 'Canterbury Collegiate Union' with the intention of providing for higher education. The Union was the nucleus of Canterbury's university. The struggle to control the University of New Zealand went on. Tancred wrote to Carleton, in February 1872, asking, 'Is it possible to stir up the Provincial feeling in Auckland to resist the monopoly of all the Educational or rather University endowments by Otago? The University there', he added, 'is I believe a complete sham ... .'19 Though not in answer ro this lerter, Carleton wrote to him, a few months later, about the site of the new university: 'Otago will find herself isolated in this matter in the House. She will not get many votes from Auckland.' Personally, he favoured the idea of a 'floating university'.20 One prominent Aucklander had ideas of his own on this subject. The six months prescribed by the Act had passed, so the University of New Zealand could now be established outside Dunedin. And why not in Auckland, so that each island should have its university? O'Rorke tried to capture that university for the North. Like Tancred, G. M. O'Rorke was a prominent but not quite a front-rank politi­ cian. He had graduated B.A. with Honours in Classics at Trinity College, Dublin, in 1852 and migrated first to Victoria and then to Auckland, where he farmed for a time. In 1857 he became clerk of the Auckland Provincial Council and in 186 1 he was elected by a majority of one vote to represent Onehunga in Parliament. He took up law under an Act which permitted graduates tO become barristers and solicitOrs by

6 THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY IN AUCKLAND

AUCKLAND PU8LlC LIBRARY

founder The chief of the College, Sir Maurice O'Rorke passing an examination. During the Anglo-Maori wars he served in the Auckland Regiment of Militia, rising to the rank of captain. In 1859 he married Cecilia Shepherd, daughter of a fo rmer Colonial Treasurer. In 1872 he was Chairman of Committees of the House of Representatives as well as Speaker of the Auckland Provincial Council, to which he was elected in 1865. On 31 July 1872 O'Rorke arose in the House to move a series of resolutions. He said that at fi rst he had not been in fa vour of the University of New Zealand, because he thought the schools needed improving before a university was created. But now there was a university, it should be made as good a one as possible. The University of New Zealand, a university without a place, was simply a sham. O'Rorke spoke of Auckland's great grievance-that the capital had been moved from Auckland to Wellington in 1865. Surely Auckland had a claim on the House fo r compensation. If Government House in Auckland could not be the seat of Govern­ ment, perhaps it could be 'a seat of learning fo r all time fo r the North Island'. O'Rorke moved: (1) That the New Zealand University should be established in Auckland and (2) that to finance this without cost, the Government House and grounds in Auckland should be dedicated to the University, on condition that if ever a Government House be needed in Auckland, the town would spend £10,000

7 A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND erecting a suitable residence. (3) All money voted by Parliament for university educa­ tion should be divided equally between the university at Dunedin and that proposed in Auckland. (4) The University of New Zealand should be a teaching and not merely an examining body. (5) That the Albert Barracks in Auckland and some adjoining land should be made a university endowment. O'Rorke struck directly at the heart of the Canterbury plans: it was, he said, 'an utter sham that they should have a University without a local habitation, without professors, without courses of lectures, without periodical examinations'. Auckland should become the home of the University of New Zealand, up to that time a 'houseless and homeless University that, like a ghost, haunted the House session by session.' For his part, he hoped to make it 'a great teaching body'. The history of the University of Auckland, both in its origins and its growth over a long period, suggests that O'Rorke had made a disastrous error of judgement by link­ ing the fo unding of a university with what was to prove to be the most sensitive issue in Auckland politics and public opinion: the future of Government House. This building, originally erected in 1840-1, when the British colony began, burnt down in 1848, rebuilt in 1855-6 and deserted in 1865, when the capital, Governor Grey, and Parliament moved to Wellington, was the symbol both of Auckland's lost eminence and of its hoped for revival and future greatness. The adjacent land occupied by the Albert Barracks (part of which later became Albert Park), also had strong sentimental associations for Aucklanders. Maori stone-masons had built a substantial defensive stone wall, with embrasures for musket fire, round the barracks after the war against Hone Heke in 1844-6. The barracks had for years been the headquarters of the British 58th Regiment, which had enlivened Auckland's social life. The immediate responses to O'Rorke's proposals were mainly hostile. Reader Wood, an Auckland M.H.R., immediately raised the objection that the Governor ought to be able to reside in Auckland whenever he wished, and he suggested that a new Government House should be erected in the Auckland Public Domain (a park) before the old Government House was handed over to the University. Almost a century was to pass before such a solution was to be fo und. O'Rorke's fr iend, T. B. Gillies, another Auckland M.H.R., supported his proposal to some extent, but several others, including Rolleston of Canterbury, questioned the proposal to turn Government House into a university. One Aucklander, William Swanson, the Member fo r Newton, fe ared that O'Rorke's proposal would give Auckland the 'pre­ sent of a white elephant'. Several Members asked whether the Colony needed or could afford two universities. The debate was adjourned.21 In Auckland itself the Government House question again clouded discussion of the educational issue. at once seized on this point. Its editorial column said that the Herald supported the idea of placing the University of New Zealand in Auckland-but what connection had that, it asked, with the use of Government House? The Herald hoped to see the Government of New Zealand, or at least of the North Island, return to Auckland. The possession of a suitable residence for the Governor might be an important factor. Surely some other building could easily be fo und which could be adapted to the likely needs of the University over the next ten or twenty years. 'Mr O'Rorke would have the province sell its birthright fo r a mess of pottage but we trust the good sense of our Auckland members will prevent a

8 THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY AT AUCKLAND step so suicidal in the true interests of Auckland from being taken.'22 The 'mess of pottage' was a university; the 'birthright' was Auckland's destiny to be the capital city, as it had been from 1840 to 1865. The other local paper, the Daily Southern Cross, concurred: 'This province has no intention of surrendering its claims to the seat of Government. We can bide our time, and await the natural course of events .... But we are resolved that our just preten­ sions shall not be prejudiced in the interval by any such inconsiderate act as the voluntary surrender of even the visible emblems of the right to which we lay claim.'23 A 'mess of pottage' or a 'white elephant'? With such labels was the idea of a university in Auckland fi rmly launched in the Press and in Parliament. When the adjourned debate was revived in September 1872 John Sheehan, Member fo r Rodney, moved an adjournment, saying that there were few Auckland Members pre­ sent, but that he believed that fo urteen of the sixteen of them opposed O'Rorke's resolutions as a whole. Julius Vogel, fo rmerly an Otago politician, and now Member fo r Auckland City East, said that he would vote for the fi rst, third, and fourth resolu­ tions, but not fo r those referring to Government House and the Barracks. On Vogel's advice, O'Rorke dropped the second and fifth resolutions, and the others were passed. Most of the Auckland Members, a good number from Otago, and a fe w from Wellington and Taranaki voted affirmatively on the three resolutions. The core of the opposition came from Canterbury men, including Rolleston and Stafford, and a few Wellington Members. The House had resolved that there should be a university in Auckland, that government fu nds should be divided between Auckland and Dunedin and that the University of New Zealand should teach as well as examine. Later in the month O'Rorke's Auckland University Bill was read fo r the first time. The second reading was on 2 October. O'Rorke argued that, once the University had 'a fixed habitation', it would receive private benefactions, as his old university, Trinity College, Dublin, had done. Those who had made 'princely fo rtunes' in the Colony would willingly spend money on the university. O'Rorke lamented that the other Auckland M.H.R.s would not support him over the Government House site, and hoped that a new Government House would one day be built in the Domain. John Bathgate, a Dunedin Member, weighed in on O'Rorke's side, rejoicing that the University of New Zealand was to disappear, fo r it was 'an abortive institution'. Macandrew said that 'neither the spirit nor the letter' of the intentions of the legislature had been carried out in the University of New Zealand Act. Rolleston said that he would attack O'Rorke's Bill in every way that he could because it would be 'doing a great wrong' to the cause of education. But O'Rorke got his Bill through with majorities of thirty-five to fo urteen and thirty-one to thirteen against what was largely a Canterbury minority.H A few days later O'Rorke became Minister fo r Lands and Immigration-an impor­ tant portfolio during the immigration boom fo llowing Vogel's public works policy of 1869-70. The new Premier was G. M. Waterhouse, a Wellington Member of the Legislative Council who had been a politician in Australia. His was a weak govern­ ment in which the real leader was Julius Vogel. Although Watcrhouse was keenly interested in education, he gave little help to O'Rorke. When the latter's Bill came up in the upper house, the Legislative Council, even his new-found power could not save it. It was criticized by the Canterbury Councillor who moved the second reading, and

9 A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND denounced by a Hawke's Bay Councillor, who said that it was a fr aud: it was not a serious attempt to launch a university in Auckland (which 'must prove an abortion') but simply an attempt to get rid of the University of New Zealand. The Council threw the first Auckland University Bill out.25 Events now moved quickly, but ignoring Auckland, and happening mainly in the south. The University of New Zealand petitioned the Crown for imperial recognition of its degrees, and the Otago University fo llowed suit. The Secretary of State, Lord Kimberley, declined to approve the grant of two charters: the value of New Zealand degrees would be impaired by the establishment of a variety of degree-granting institutions.26 Despite further efforts to become the 'colonial' university, the Otago University now had little choice but to give up its Auckland alliance and come to terms with the University of New Zealand, which meant, in practice, with the Canterbury leaders.27 In 1873 an Ordinance of the Canterbury Provincial Council established a Canterbury College, based on the earlier Collegiate Union. Auckland, or rather O'Rorke, had sought state aid, but the sturdier Otago Scots and the English Canterbury citizens had acted, the first to set up a University, the second a College. In the same year, common sense prevailed. The two institutions agreed to affiliate with the University of New Zealand. Otago gave up its pretensions to award degrees, but kept its title of University; both kept their landed endowments. The University of New Zealand was to be an exclusively examining body: it was not to interfere with the affiliated institutions, but it was to examine all qualified candidates put forward. It was to award degrees not lower in standard than those of the University of Melbourne. It was to be administered by its Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor and a Senate of twenty-four members at fi rst appointed by the Government and later by the Senate itself and a Court of Convocation of graduates. The Canterbury idea of a university had triumphed, and perhaps because it was right. Given the circumstances of New Zealand life, teaching colleges spaced out periodically along the long islands were highly desirable; but Kimberley and his advisers were not wanting in a sense of another reality. One colonial university might hope to grant degrees comparable with those in Victoria or New South Wales, but it was difficult to believe that several New Zealand degree-granting bodies, dispersed among a scattered population of 299,000, would achieve any international or imperial credibility. Later New Zealand university reformers, infuriated by and obsessed with the faults of a federal university, were to mistake some rotten wood for the solid trees. The weakness and faults of the University of New Zealand, notably external or overseas examining, indeed the whole emphasis on examining, were one side of the matter; on the other was the powerful argument of the need for a strong and consistent educational standard. If this general view is questioned, at least it had time on its side, for the University of New Zealand was to last fo r nearly a hundred years, 1871-1961, under almost constant assault from academic woodsmen, and sometimes backwoodsmen.

Why did Auckland fail to set up its own university college, and so fall behind the in higher education? The fault lay not in the machinations of southerners, but in the character of Auckland itself. Auckland was originally a government town, established by Captain William Hobson, the first Governor, in

10 THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY AT AUCKLAND

1840. It is not quite true that it was founded without ideals, with none of the high aspirations of the Otago Presbyterians, the New Zealand Company in Wellington, or the Anglican Canterbury Association. But it is true that the ideals of the founder-to govern both races in harmony, to found a peaceful, bi-racial community, in the spirit of the T rcaty of Waitangi-were not shared by many of the European settlers. In 184 1 one of the town's first settlers, John Logan Campbell, a Scots doctor and one of Auckland's chief merchants, wrote to his father that the 'whole and entire object of every one here is making money, the big fishes eating the little ones.'28 Much the same was said elsewhere; indeed, Francis Dillon Bell argued in favour of overseas scholarships in 1868 on the ground that high principles were not readily learnt in a colony 'where the object to amass material wealth is the principal occupation of the people'.29 But it was widely believed that Auckland was more commercial, more materialistic, in that gross materialism was unleavened by high ideals, whether spiritual or cultural. The inspector of the Bank of New South Wales wrote of Auckland in 1876, 'The province is rotten to a degree and the inhabitants as a rule are a lot of sharpers and thieves of the "praying" order.'30 Was it true that the Aucklanders were more barbarous than the people in the southern settlements? The accusation was often made, usually, but not invariably, by southerners. When Sidney and Beatrice Webb visited Auckland in 1898 a leading lawyer, Theophilus Cooper, told them that 'Socially Auckland was a nondescript place with no intellectual circles. At Wellington there were the government officials, who formed an intellectual set. At Christchurch the Anglican Church had led the way to another type of culture. At Dunedin the Presbyterians had done likewise. But Auckland was made up of all sorts and conditions and had not developed any mental life of its own. Football, racing and cricket were the principal subjects of conversation. '31 That Aucklanders were less cultivated than southern settlers is difficult either to prove or disprove. It does seem to have been the case in the period of the Provincial Governments, 1854-76, that the education system in Auckland was relatively inferior. Of the six Provinces, Auckland had the !�west proportion of children attending school-46.18 per cent-in 1864; Canterbury was nearly as bad; Nelson led with 69.51 per cent at school. In Auckland the public school system was neglected while the denominational schools were subsidized. Nearly half the children attended neither day schools nor Sunday schools.32 Such evidence sounds convincing, yet if it were accurate it had curiously little effect, for by the time of the 188 1 Census a slight­ ly higher proportion of the Aucklanders could read and write than of the population of Wellington, Canterbury, or Otago, though the difference was not great.33 Westland and Nelson were first and second in this respect. In other measurable-or datable-respects the northerners were not backward. They founded a Society of Arts, said to be the first in Australasia, in 1870, and in 1890 opened the first Art Gallery in New Zealand, which received a large bequest from a local merchant. There was a School of Design in the late 1870s. In the 1870s the libraries were very small, but a public library was established in 1880. A wealthy citizen left a handsome £12,000 for books. In 1887 a fine library building was opened.H There was a Choral Society by 1855, which in 1871 built a large Choral Hall to seat 1,000 people. Like the southern towns, Auckland had its prominent educated leaders, though probably

11 A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND fewer than in Christchurch. Among them were some of the leaders of early colonial days, who had retired in Auckland, like Sir William Martin and William Swainson. Sir George Grey, who had been Governor twice and Premier once, also lived in Auckland. It is obvious, however, Auckland had suffered badly when the capital was moved to Wellington. It lost not merely government expenditure but the educated public servants, potential as well as actual, who would have provided in Auckland a counter-weight to the predominant commercialism. Probably the most important difference between Auckland and Otago and Canter­ bury was that Auckland was relatively poor. The province had not, by the 1870s, found any staple export, such as wool provided in the South and in parts of the North Island. Its economy was neither agricultural nor pastoral, but of a very mixed character. Extractive industries were important-timber, gold, and kauri gum. With its two harbours, the town was also an important entrepot for both coastal and overseas shipping. Above all, Auckland lived by commerce, and its leaders with few exceptions were businessmen-merchants, lawyers, shopkeepers, company directors.35 But commerce had not, in the late nineteenth century, yielded up to many people the wealth that came from southern wool and gold. In 1882, for exam­ ple, Auckland's exports were worth £1,069,000 but Canterbury's were worth £1,766,000 and Otago's £2,069,000. What is of especial importance as far as education is concerned is that the Auckland Provincial Council was almost always in financial difficulties, for in both Otago and Canterbury it was a Provincial Government Ordinance which established the universities. In 1856 a 'compact', infamous in Auckland, had handed the revenues from land sales over to the Provinces. The North Island had made a very bad bargain, for in the South Island there were huge areas of grassed and open land, almost unoccupied by Maoris, ready for settlement, whereas most of the North was covered with dense forest, with trees unbelievably larger than any that the British immigrants had seen, or with tenacious scrub, and was occupied by some 56,000 Maoris. The result was that the southern provinces grew rich on land revenues and pressed ahead with colonization. In the north the governments had very little revenue from land, and from 1860 to 1872 the island was the scene of the intermittent fighting during the Anglo-Maori wars. Auckland had its own gold rush, to Thames and Coromandel, with a gold boom in 1870- 1, but its pro­ gress was slow. Its share in the Vogel investment in railways was very small in the 1870s.36 Nevertheless, there was some substantial development, based on the kauri timber industry, gold, private borrowing abroad, and the establishment of 'great estates' in the Waikato, the upper Thames valley, and further south,37 as the defeat of the Maoris there and the confiscation of great areas of land opened up what the Europeans called 'lands for settlement'. Auckland was different in a number of ways from the southern provinces: it had a differenteconomy; it had little natural open grass lands; it was warmer; relations with the Maoris were of crucial importance in political, economic-and defence-matters. Moreover, its European inhabitants felt themselves to be different. There was a deep disillusionment with the constitution of 1852 which, many of them believed, caused their problems. Repeatedly, from 1853 onwards, there had been public movements and petitions asking that the North Island, or Auckland alone, should have a separate government, that is, become a distinct colony. In 1864-6 Auckland and

12 THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY AT AUCKLAND

LN I Vt.H.'i iT V Or C ANTERBU RY

'In this new land of ours, female intellect and female studiousness have scope .... ' The first women graduates; from left, Lillian Edger, Helen Connon, Kate Edger

Otago joined forces in demanding the right to secede.38 Separatism produced nothing of substance, but the progressive weakness, poverty, and indeed failure of the provin­ cial governments at their chief tasks did, in the mid 1870s, lead to their abolition by Julius Vogel.

By 1874, then, Otago had its University and Canterbury its College. But higher education in Auckland and in some other towns was not tOtally neglected. The application of Auckland Grammar-the only public secondary school north of Wellington-to affiliate with the University of New Zealand had been accepted. It received a subsidy of £300 a year.39 By 1879 there were three other affiliated institu­ tions in Auckland, the Wcsley College at Three Kings, St John's College, and the

13 A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND

Church of England Grammar School, but they were very small and had scarcely any matriculated students. For instance, St John's had only one.40 Auckland Grammar School changed its name to the Auckland College and Grammar School, which was at least one way of securing a 'College' for Auckland! For two years a few lectures were given in the evenings to some students who paid five shillings a quarter. After that the subsidy was simply spent on staff salaries, and the 'college' students, men or women, sat in with the sixth-form class. In 1878 there were only two such students, seven in 1879.'11 The standard of work, needless to say, was miserable. In 1873 the examiner reported that Greek was badly taught, Latin was not advanced. The only bright spot, the inspector was 'agreeably surprised' to report, was the logic class where the lectures would have passed muster at Oxford. The students were all about twenty-five-young people who worked in town during the day.42 The lecturer was the Reverend Robert Kidd, who had graduated M.A., LLD. at Trinity College, Dublin. Kidd was the author of a book, A Delineation of the Primary Principles of Reasoning (London, 1856). In the years up to 1879 three of the four graduates from 'colleges' (that is, secondary schools) came from Auckland Grammar. The most famous was Kate Edger, who graduated B.A. in 1877. It was mistakenly believed that she was the first female graduate of a British University, and she was, indeed, the first to gain her B.A., but a girl had graduated B.Sc. at Mt Allison University, in New Brunswick, in 1875.43 Nearly 1,000 people crowded into the Choral Hall for Miss Edger's graduation ceremony. The New Zealand Herald wrote at length about the event: 'Let us hear no more of the intellectual inferiority of women. For generations their education has been neglected'; 'The sex have too long been deprived of that opporrunity to excel without which excellence is scarcely possible' ; 'in this new land of ours, female intellect and female studiousness have scope in which to display themselves ....'44 These graduation ceremonies provided opporrunities for the educational leaders to press Auckland's case, as the Reverend David Bruce did in 1880, when one of New Zealand's first law graduates, Robert Henry Rattray, B.A., received his LLB. Bruce said that the University of New Zealand, with no local habitat, was made 'imperative' by 'the physical necessities of the country and the local idiosyncracies of the colonists', for their provincial jealousies would not allow a national university to be fixed in one province.45 Not all the views heard loudly in Auckland, however, favoured universities. One of the most successful merchants, ]. C. Firth, in 188 1 held forth on the need to fit the majority of young men for success in commerce, rather than to train one or two up to honours standard. He was by no means in favour of 'that over education which is one of the curses of this age'. Indeed, he had met men with university honours who were blackguards. "'6 At a time when almost no one went to secondary school these views were not, of course, merely ignorant. Nor was Firth an .ignoramus-hewas to write an opinionated book, Nation Making. A Story of New Zealand. Savagism v. Civilization, published in London in 1890. The New Zealand Herald strongly supported his view in 188 1. It had earlier said that it thought a good grammar school more important than 'a pigmy university'. Now it said that Firth's views were 'practical, and sound, and entirely devoid of the affectationof superior intelligence' and 'untainted with the vulgar pretentiousness of the advocates of classical education'. Education should meet the public need not fit the views of 'pseudo-classical authorities' . The curriculum should not be dominated

14 THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY AT AUCKLAND by the classics. 47 The Evening Star said that these views were 'a monstrous libel on the community', and did not represent educated opinion, but simply the views of those whose 'pursuit of happiness is idealized in one maxim, "make money" '. However, it lamented the fact that the absence of a university did not seem to trouble Aucklanders.48 A year later, Or J. Hector, the leading geologist, said, at the University of New Zealand Senate, that he had heard that public opinion in favour of a university was growing in Auckland.49 This was apparently true. The principal founder of the College at Auckland, Sir Maurice O'Rorke, had been given a further opportunity.

The Waterhouse Ministry, in which O'Rorke had become Minister of Lands and Immigration in 1872, had lasted only a few months, but O'Rorke had continued as a Minister in the Fox Ministry in 1873 and then in Vogel's, which was formed a month later, as Minister of Immigration and Secretary for Crown Lands. Those were the days of the 'Continuous Ministry' when cabinets were formed by reshuffl ing much the same groups of politicians. Immigration was a major and very difficult portfolio. There were endless complaints from the competing provinces about not receiving enough immigrants, and much dissatisfaction with the Agent-General, lsaac Featherston, who was in charge of recruiting in England. It was difficult to effect any quick improvements, because after instructions were sent to Featherston it took six months for the immigrants to arrive. After O'Rorke had been Minister for a year and had shown no initiative, Vogel took over the portfolio himself. All that can be said is that O'Rorke had failed to make any great impression as a cabinet minister. In August 1874 he resigned from the Government altogether when Vogel decided to abolish the provincial governments. O'Rorke made a dramatic, indeed melodramatic, speech in the House:

Were l to vote for such a scheme, l should feel that I deserved to be branded as a base political traitor, and although great names may be quoted for political apostacy, l do not want to shelter myself under any of them. I obtained admission to this House on certain principles, and l do not feel that lam at liberty to fling them to the winds, either for the sake of offi ce or to suit my own caprice. He said that he had unswervingly adhered to the principles of the 1852 Constitution Act, which Grey had originated:

To my mind every invasion, every alteration of that Act, has been prejudicial, especially to the Province of Auckland, and, f think I may say, to the whole of the North Island. That Act, Sir, did not give a monopoly of political life to any one portion of the colony. It established in the several portions of the colony nurseries of political thought, and it cannot be expected that in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, l am going to belie the whole tenor of my previous political life. My position on this bench was not of my own seeking, and 1 must say this-that I should never have occupied this seat had I known that the honorable gentleman at the head of the Government had in his copious armoury this treacherous dagger to stab the provinces, which I thought he and I were sworn to maintain. O'Rorke assured the House, as he wrote to another Minister, Donald McLean, that he had not resigned in collusion with the Opposition, but solely because of his strong views on provincialism.50 Vogel had not known that O'Rorke was going to resign and

15 A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND was sarcastic. He said that notwithstanding the loss of his services, the Government would be able to get through the departmental work and that the House could then judge whether the Government had lost much assistance. O'Rorke was one of the strongest provincialists in the country-as late as 1906 he was still moving in the Legislative Council for a revival of the provincial governments.51 Sir George Grey emerged from retirement to lead Auckland in a fight against aboli­ tion, and approved of O'Rorke's sacrifice, he told him, in trying 'to stem the torrent that swept away our Provincial legislature.'52 Grey-and O'Rorke-lost that battle, but in 1877 Grey, the former Governor, and his supporters were elected to power. He had attempted to create a Liberal Party and his Ministry included a few men who called themselves Liberals, like and . In 1879 Grey had O'Rorke elected Speaker of the House. He was to continue in that position until 1890 and again in the years 1894-1902, a longer term than any other Speaker in New Zealand. In this role he achieved a considerable reputation. In 1890 a leading politician, M. J. S. Mackenzie, wrote to him when he lost his seat in the House, that many men knew the forms of the House aftera fashion, 'but no one can pretend to exercise the influence over the House that you did'.53 He had a reputation for occasional out­ bursts of bad temper. Certainly he was firm in standing up to the leaders, even to the Prime Minister, R. J. Seddon, who was called 'King Dick'. 'Seddon is offended because I would not make an ex-policeman of a shady character a clerk', O'Rorke wrote to his wife in 1900.54 O'Rorke had a resonant Irish voice, not easily ignored.55 He also had a reputation for an addiction to the bottle. Charles Trevelyan, later an English politician, met O'Rorke in 1898 and wrote:

He is fi rst rate as a speaker, and very strong. He has the geniality of the Irish race ....But he has a serious failing. Sometimes 'the Speaker has the influenza', and does not appear fo r two or three days. He is then to be fo und in the back parlours of public houses, watched by a judicious attendant who interferes if he begins to disclose state secrets. But in spite of this trait which everyone knows and deplores they will not sack him, because he is so popular and so efficient. 56

O'Rorke was an extremely stubborn man, determined on getting his own way, even in small matters. 57 He was to prove a great hater if he were crossed. He had a patriotic attachment to Auckland. Being away from home so often in Parliament, he wrote to his wife Cecilia many loving letters. In 1873 he wrote that he missed her so much 'I hardly know whether it is my doating on you or my dotage that is affecting me.'58 There was a passionate and stormy man beneath the dominant but generally reserved manner of the Speaker. Politically O'Rorke regarded himself as a Liberal-in 1893 he stood as a Liberal Association candidate-but he was not a 'Liberal' in the sense of having radical opinions, like William Pember Reeves or John Ballance. Nor was he conservative. He was friends both with Ballance and with a conservative leader, . Without doctrinaire views, he did strongly believe in improving the condition of the ordinary citizens.59 Above all, O'Rorke was dedicated to improving education in Auckland and throughout the country. In this respect, his contribution was outstanding. He served from 1880 to 1916 as Chairman of the Board of Governors of Auckland

16 THE lDEA OF A UNIVERSITY AT AUCKLAND

Grammar and from 1883 to 1916 as Chairman of the Council of the University College-for a third of its history! He fought to get another Grammar School started in Onehunga.60 In 1878 he was largely responsible for the Public Libraries Act which provided fo r a pound for pound state subsidy based on a £5,000 fund.61 His feelings in educational matters were involved to a degree that modern readers might think surprising. In 1875 he declined a seat in the University of New Zealand Senate because the special function of a real university, reaching, was specifically prohibited by law !62

Sir Maurice O'Rorke said at the opening ceremony of the Auckland University College in 1883:

When I failed in 1872 in procuring a university for Auckland I felt perplexed but not disheartened. I not only fa iled of success, but I fa iled to awaken the sympathies of Auckland for the cause that was so dear to me, but at last I saw my opportunity (cheers). In the year 1878, the Government of which Sir Gcorge Grey was Premier, saw fit to appoint a Commission ro enquire into the working of the Grammar Schools of the colony and the University of New Zealand ....1 was offered a seat on this Commission, and I clutched at it with avidity, for I felt that at last there was within my grasp a lever wherewith I could raise Auckland from its debasemenr to a level with the institutions of the South.63

There were many obvious problems in higher education in the Colony. There were no university colleges in the North Island. There were few secondary schools, and some of them were providing an inferior substitute for higher education. Robert Stout, one of Grey's leading ministers, was responsible for appointing a strong Royal Commission to report on these issues.64 The members included five professors from Dunedin and Christchurch and four Members of the House of Representatives. W. J. Habens, the Secretary of the Commission, was the Inspector-General of Schools. O'Rorke was the chairman. Between them they had experience of the universities of London, Oxford, and Cambridge, as well as of Scottish, Irish, and German universities. They were a hard-working group. The Commission sat for 144 days and examined 108 witnesses. They travelled round the main towns. O'Rorke had not forgotten the feud with Canterbury. He wrote to his wife, 'You will be sur­ prised to hear where I was asked to dine today namely Tancreds. I met him just before going to dinner at the Christchurch Club ... . 1 had previously apologized to him for nor having returned his call'.65 O'Rorke pushed his own (anti-Tancred) views very hard on the other members of the Commission. He wanted to place the University of New Zealand permanently in Dunedin, 'at which Canterbury is indignant.' He believed that he had a majority of one on his side.66 A few days later he wrote to Cecilia:

I have managed to get all my views with regard to University education throughout the colony given effect ro by the Commission and if Parliament will only sanction the scheme I will not grudge the labour though I shall my absence from you.

He added:

1 hope in a year or so to see a handsome college erected in the domain of dear Auckland and a

17 A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND staffof fi rst-rate Professors brought out from home to give a genuine academic Education. I have also succeeded in repealing the present University Act to which l always bore such hostility and to crown all I caused by a majority of one a resolution that the seat of the new University should be at Dunedin. The Canterbury members are infuriated at this but I am determined eo show my preference for Dunedin.

He told her:

I am up to my eyes in work putting the result of our long labours into the shape of a Report and a Bill to give effect to our recommendations. I felt it my duty as Chairman to undertake the task myself although I could have easily shirked it as I think our Secretary would like [to] have done it himself.67

The evidence and two reports of the University Commission were voluminous. Some of the evidence has already been considered in connection with Auckland Grammar School. The Commission reported that there were now 106 under­ graduates, forty-nine at Otago, twenty-six at Canterbury, and the rest in affiliated schools and Colleges. The University of New Zealand had given valuable service, particularly by instituting scholarships, but it had been too optimistic about the possibility of schools teaching at university level. 'lt is evidently impossible successfully to combine school and University work in the same institution.' In a very damning conclusion the Commission observed that the University of New Zealand Senate had recognized this and had 'endeavoured to meet it, as far as was possible, by adapting the standard of its degree examinations to the level of school work'. The Commission disapproved of affiliating schools. Its principal recommendations were that university colleges should be established at Auckland and Wellington. Five pro­ fessors should be appointed at each college. The Government should select suitable sites and spend £12,500 each on buildings. Landed reserves should be set aside to bring in £4,000 a year income for each college. The three colleges and Otago Univer­ sity should be colleges of the University of New Zealand, which should have a fixed seat in Dunedin. On the last point the Report recorded that the Commission had voted seven to six.68 O'Rorke's one-vote majority was not, however, to win him this point. The Bill which O'Rorke drafted to repeal the New Zealand University Act, reconstitute the University in Dunedin, and create the new colleges, came before Parliament in 1880. By now a severe depression had begun and the new Government was led by John Hall of Canterbury. The Minister of Education was Rolleston, another Canterbury man. Hall was not unfriendly; he had seconded O'Rorke's nomination as Speaker, and said that being political opponents had never affected their personal relations; but it was clear that O'Rorke's hostility to Canterbury and to the University of New Zealand was a hindrance to achieving his chief objective. J. A. Tale, M.H.R. for Eden and a friend of O'Rorke's, introduced the Bill. Rolleston simply said that he saw no possibility of the funds being found at present, though the Government would proceed as soon as fu nds were available. In Commit­ tee, where the Speaker could speak, O'Rorke suggested that the erection of buildings in Auckland could be deferred for four or five years and a suitable house could be rented. Sir George Grey added that the greatest university met in a grove.69

18 THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY AT AUCKLAND

ln 1881 Tale presented another Bill drafted by O'Rorke, but ignoring the problems of the University of New Zealand. By this time the Senate of the University of New Zealand had resolved that colleges should be started in Auckland and Wellington, temporarily in rented premises, so the new Bill merely asked fo r fu nds fo r staff.Senate recommended that £1 ,500 should be granted to each of the new colleges. The Minister of Education, Thomas Dick (Dunedin City), said that the Government now considered that it was time that Auckland should have its College. The Bill received its second reading, and the House voted £1,500 towards the salaries of professors,7° but the Government did not proceed to a final reading. Next year Dick said that Wellington would have to wait but that Auckland should receive £4,000 since it had no endowment fo r a university.71 By now, though Dick was still Minister of Education, the Premier was an Aucklander, . He was a leading Auckland lawyer, businessman, and land speculator who had helped to start, among many businesses, the Bank of New Zealand. He did not speak in the debate on the Bill (except in Committee) though he had earlier expressed the opinion that higher education was inferior in Auckland, which ought not to be so: standards should be uniform throughout the country.72 He did not speak, but he acted. When he died, in 1891, O'Rorke said that Whitaker 'never came fo rward, but, unostentatiously, he had the Bill brought fo rward.' According to O'Rorke, Whitaker should be regarded as the fo under of the College.73 The only opposition was in the Legislative Council where a Councillor lamented the cost and said that the children of the rich would benefit mostly, so the Bill was simply 'greasing a fat sow'. Others said the University was a 'little toy fo r Auckland'. No doubt intentionally, Whitaker had had the Bill intro­ duced in the House well after midnight, when very few Members were present.74 Eventually, the Bill was read fo r a third time and, on receiving the Governor's signature, became law on 13 September. The newspapers welcomed the event. The New Zealand Herald was especially pleased that the Mayor and the Chairman of the Education Board would be members of the College Council, otherwise the manage­ ment of the College 'would be apt to fall into the hands of a "set" who had narrow and restricted notions of university teaching, who would endeavour to make the university a mere gerund-grinding institution for the glorification of sucking parsons, a weak imitation of the antiquated systems of Oxford and Cambridge. The university ought to be made a living fo rce, a power by which the whole community should be advanced and refined.'75 George Grey decided that the passing of the Act was a fitting time fo r him to donate his splendid library to the city of Auckland. The Evening Star said that this would give Auckland students an advantage over all the others in New Zealand.76 So, after a decade of effort and two decades of talk Auckland was at last to have its College.

19