ncea level 3 history (90657) 2012 assessment schedule · web viewthe governing class tended to...

NCEA Level 3 History (90657) 2012 — page 1 of 42

Assessment Schedule – 2012

History: Examine a significant decision made by people in history, in an essay (90657)

Evidence Statement

Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence

Through the candidate’s response

to the first part of the essay

question, they have accurately

described factors that contributed to

the decision.

(See content guidelines for

examples of relevant historical

information that could be included

in the candidate’s answer).




explained factors that contributed to

the decision.







question, they have accurately and

perceptively explained factors that

contributed to the decision.






to the second part of the essay


described the consequences of the

decision.






to the second part of the essay

question, they have evaluated the

consequences of the decision.





Through the breadth, depth and/or

range of ideas in the candidate’s

response to the second part of the

question, they have

comprehensively evaluated the

consequences of the decision.





The candidate has structured and

organised their information using an

appropriate essay format:

introductory paragraph

relevant, structured and logically

sequenced paragraphs

conclusion.



appropriate essay format:




conclusion.

The candidate has provided an



appropriate and effective essay

format:




conclusion.


argument.

IE, the candidate has stated a view

and supported it with relevant and

accurate evidence (probably most

obvious in the evaluative part of

their essay).

The candidate has provided a

convincing argument.

IE, the candidate has a clearly

articulated view and has supported

it with sound reasoning and

relevant, accurate, and significant

evidence (probably most obvious in

the evaluative part of their essay).


Topic One: England 1558 – 1667

Essay question (a)

Explain the factors that men from different social classes considered when deciding to marry in early

modern England.

Evaluate the consequences of marriage for women.

The candidate’s response to the first part of the essay question could include:

The stability of society was enshrined in the ideas about marriage and the sanctity of family. A man maintaining a

sexual relationship with a woman outside of marriage was unacceptable to respectable elements of society.

Types of acceptable marriage were: marriage in church, handfasting and betrothal de futuro

Young men were subject to the head of the house, and had obligations to their families that lasted beyond when

they physically left home or were no longer economically dependent. In particular, this would involve heeding

advice given on who and when they should marry

The legal position of women was similar to that of children. They were meant to be either in the care or protection

of their father, brother or husband. The doctrine of coverture stated that 'Man and wife were one person, and that

person was the husband’. As a feme covert, a married woman became at one in law with her husband – he now

became responsible for her. A boy was therefore only able to legally consent to marriage at 14, compared with

12 for a girl

Marriage was the key medium of social advancement and could well have a considerable effect on personal

wealth and property because the woman traditionally brought a jointure or dowry into the marriage. Sons of

nobility often married daughters of the wealthy so that a double advantage could occur — impoverished noble

families might in time be relieved of debt and the rich family might receive social elevation

Love and sexual attraction alone were not popularly regarded as sufficient reason for marriage. The age, wealth,

social connections and religion of the marriage partner were considered to be more important factors in the

decision. Love was expected to grow after marriage

Heads of families frequently interfered to prevent unsuitable matches. The most used penalty for disobedience in

this important area was disinheritance. Incompatibility in families could bring public humiliation and lawsuits.

Examples include Bess of Hardwick and Anne Clifford

Marriage was a life-changing decision that would initiate a family unit providing for the couple’s economic, sexual

and companionship needs but also permit the begetting of heirs to inherit the family property. Therefore marriage

was generally delayed, especially for the governed class, until a couple had whatever was required to establish

and maintain an independent nuclear family

The higher the social level, the greater the parental involvement in choosing marriage partners, though the willing

consent of the future husband and wife was generally sought. Popular writing upheld the value of young people

in the governed class gaining the consent of their parents to a marriage:

- Peerage and Gentry:

- married earliest

- shorter courtships


- least freedom of choice

- greater emphasis on economic matters; less on personal preference

- Yeomen and Husbandmen:

- married latest

- reasonable freedom in choice

- marrying without parental / family consent could result in a withdrawal of dowry or inheritance

- Artisans, Labourers, the Poor:

- married earlier than yeomen and husbandmen

- greatest freedom of choice

- greater opportunities for courtship

- least obligation to seek parental advice or consent

- parish officials tried to prevent marriages of homeless couples.

For the husband, fatherhood would confirm his headship of an independent family unit, and highlight that he had

the potential to perpetuate the family name and pass on an inheritance. This status entitled a governing class

man to the vote in many boroughs

Celibacy in this period was still a viable alternative. However, the family was still the natural place where

unmarried men resided, contributing financially and functionally to the unit.

The candidate’s response to the second part of the essay question could include:

Marriage was a significant public occasion and spectacle and the frequent cause of much subsequent financial

distress for families. The planning and execution of a “suitable match” was considered the high point of a

woman’s life among the peerage and gentry

Marriage was often defined as the start of a woman’s life, or at least the watershed to which all other prior events

had led. A married younger sister would take precedence in the family over an older spinster. In church, married

women sat separately and even sometimes dressed or wore their hair differently

The governing class tended to marry girls while young because they had inherited wealth and planned to secure

the next generation of family heirs. Whereas the governed class had to wait until they had amassed or received

the means to begin a new family unit (economic conditions and natural disasters could affect this). Periods when

late marriage was common tended to reduce the numbers of children born and raise the proportion of unmarried

adults

Childbirth was a risky consequence of marriage, but the wife’s place was thereby elevated in the family –

especially as a mother of a son. Women in the governed class often left service to nurture their children. The

governing class generally could afford wet-nurses and servants to care for the children so that the wife could

return to reproducing further heirs

Breakdown in marriage led to some annulments for the governing class, but more often irregular separations. In

England innocent parties (usually the woman) were not allowed by law to remarry

The wife had few rights over her body in relation to her husband. Wife beating was legal, although society

generally disapproved of it. Prosecution for marital rape was legally impossible


The wife’s earnings belonged to her husband and she could neither sue nor be sued in a civil action. Any dowry

or personal property she inherited became her husband’s unless there were special provisions in the will. A

married woman had the right to be maintained by her husband during his lifetime. If she outlived him she was

entitled to a jointure – one-third of his estate if she had children, one half if she did not

Contemporary examples of the practice of courtship and marriage would generally be expected from candidates

gaining Achievement with Excellence (eg Sir Lucius Carey, Mary Boyle, Peg Oxinden, Ralph Josselin, Henry

Newcombe, Roger Lowe, or Alice Smith).


Essay question (b)

Explain the factors behind Elizabeth I’s decision to establish a religious settlement that was different from

her predecessor in 1559.

Evaluate the consequences of the decision for Roman Catholics in England from 1559 to 1606.


Elizabeth’s ascension to the throne meant an opportunity to change the Catholic religious settlement of her

predecessor (Mary I) and establish a new Protestant national church that would signal England’s independence.

She needed to signal her intentions early to avoid the instability that uncertainty would bring given the context of

the religious turmoil of the previous three reigns

Elizabeth’s personal preference, influenced by her upbringing and education, was for continuity with her father’s

church settlement and royal control of the new English church through Protestant bishops of her own choosing

Catholicism during the reign of Mary I had been linked to the burning of English Protestant martyrs and

submission to Rome. Mary’s marriage to Philip II had caused English foreign policy to be subservient to the

interests of Roman Catholic Spain. Elizabeth was reluctant for England to continue under such foreign

domination

The Catholic Church had in the recent past declared Elizabeth to be illegitimate (Henry VIII’s divorce of Katherine

of Aragon had not been sanctioned by the Pope). The international situation remained uncertain. Mary Queen of

Scots was a rival Catholic claimant to the thrones of Scotland and England and had marriage connections with

France (England’s traditional enemy). A uniform state church would be vital to national security

Elizabeth wanted to reward the support shown to her by Protestants in the SE of England and welcomed the

return of some of the more moderate Marian exiles. But she did not want the radical Protestant reforms of

Edward VI that had aroused resentment and disturbed harmony in the localities

She recognised that a state church free of ties to the papacy was an important source of income for the Crown

through vacant sees, tithes and first fruits and tenths. She was also aware the governing class had an economic

interest in supporting any settlement that did not require the land distributed during the dissolution of the

monasteries to be returned

Given the precedent set by the religious changes in her father’s reign, it was going to be necessary to somehow

secure the acceptance of both houses of Parliament for the new church settlement, despite the incumbent

Roman Catholic bishops in the House of Lords. Reinforcing that Parliament had that role during periods of

religious change was inescapable and no doubt Elizabeth understood it would mean that some might assume it

was a place where further church reform could be initiated

Elizabeth, therefore, decided on a broad-based Anglican Church enacted by Parliament that would gain her

uniformity and conformity, perhaps eventually assimilating those English Catholics who were prepared to accept

her both as monarch and head of the church. It was both a reflection of her personal views and Erastian policy

(intending to subordinate the needs of the church to the authority of the state).



Elizabeth began her settlement through Parliament with the Acts of Supremacy (requiring clergy and royal

officials to accept the Queen’s new title of Supreme Governor of the Church under oath) and Uniformity (requiring

use of a Book of Common Prayer in all churches). An Act of Exchange later in 1559 allowed Elizabeth in various

ways to tap into the wealth of the Church for her own purposes. The settlement was completed in the Royal

Injunctions 1559, the Thirty Nine Articles of 1563 and the Bishops visitations that followed. Clergy had to swear

an oath of supremacy acknowledging Elizabeth as head of the Church. While only one of the twenty-six Marian

bishops took the oath, almost all of the lower orders did. Consequently, less than 4% of the clergy of her

predecessor were deprived of their office

The Settlement was clearly a compromise – Protestant in doctrine but retaining elements of a traditionally

Catholic appearance, eg episcopacy, clerical dress and some rituals. Initially the government was content with

outward conformity and did not strictly enforce recusancy fines (12 pence / month). The Settlement did not

immediately affect rural areas, and while some people in the localities did not like it imposed on them, the vast

majority of people eventually accepted it

Elizabeth as Supreme Governor was firmly in control of the Church and was prepared to use her bishops to

ensure conformity within it by visitations intended to remove papist images, relics, altars and vestments. But, she

was also to accept no changes after the Thirty Nine Articles. Each parish church was to obtain the Bible in

English, and there were very clear restrictions on preaching without a licence. She demanded Archbishop Parker

publish the Advertisements in 1566, stating expectations of the clergy in terms of practice and dress

Catholics challenged both the monarch’s position as head of the Church and the changes in their churches.

Many, especially in the north, stayed faithful to the Pope and the old religion, while others became Church

Papists attending the national Church but worshipping in the Catholic manner in secret. They collaborated and

evaded

However, resistance of Catholics within England to the Settlement was not apparent until the arrival of Mary

Stuart in 1568. Her confinement in house arrest until her death in 1587 made her the focus of a number of plots

(such as the Northern Rebellion in 1569), to free her and place her on Elizabeth’s throne

The Papal Bull of 1570 announcing Elizabeth’s deposition and requiring Catholics to disobey her sparked the

response of the Treason and Fugitives Acts. This made it high treason to publish the Bull and caused loss of

property for English Catholics who remained abroad. When priests from the continent were smuggled into

England to revive the faith, recusancy laws were further tightened, making it treason to reconcile others to the

Catholic faith, and priests were hunted out and executed. Recusancy fines were also raised to twenty pounds a

month

The massacre of St Bartholomew 1572 and the assassination of William of Orange with papal blessing in 1584,

enflamed fears of Mary Stuart’s involvement in plots against Elizabeth and inspired the Bond of Association and

the Privy Council’s work to ensure her eventual execution for complicity in the Babington plot

The war against Spain from 1585 to 1603 and Irish rebellion caused Catholics to be treated as potential traitors

who would support a foreign Papist inspired invasion and led to the Five Mile Act prohibiting all recusants from

moving more than five miles beyond their homes ending any real Catholic resistance to the Church Settlement.


The Archpriest controversy of the 1590s indicated most English Catholics were desperate to show they could be

regarded as loyal

The hopes of Catholics for tolerance on the accession of James I (via his Catholic mother and wife) were soon

dispelled after the Gunpowder Plot in 1605, when the Popish Recusants Act provided a new oath of allegiance,

which denied the power of the Pope to depose monarchs. Recusants were prohibited from remaining within ten

miles of the city of London, or from moving more than five miles from their home without a licence. They were

disabled from holding commissions in the army or navy, from practising the professions of law and medicine or

voting in local or Parliamentary elections and debarred from maintaining or defending any personal action or suit

in the civil courts. Their houses were liable to be searched at any time and their arms and ammunition seized.

Finally, they were liable to a fine of 10 pounds a month for each guest or servant who failed to attend the

Anglican Church. It led the majority of Catholic families to simply withdraw from society as a whole

However, the Oath did not make James a persecutor of Catholics; he insisted no blood be spilled and that

subversive Jesuits and seminary priests should simply be asked to leave the country. He regarded persecution,

he wrote to Cecil, “as one of the infallible notes of a false church". In practice, James proved lenient towards

Catholic laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance, and he tolerated Catholicism and crypto-Catholicism even at

court (eg the Howards)

It was the outbreak of the Thirty Years religious war in Europe in 1618 that was to re-stimulate anti-Catholicism in

England.


Essay question (c)

Explain the factors behind Elizabeth I’s decision not to name a successor throughout her reign.

Evaluate the consequences of the decision for England until 1603.


During the reign of Mary I, Elizabeth had been first in line to the throne, but always under the danger of being

excluded from the succession (as she had been from 1536 to 1544). Her life had been in danger for two months

when she was implicated in Wyatt’s rebellion in 1554. Later in 1555-6 the French ambassador and members of

her own household were involved in another plot. This taught her the lesson that a known successor could,

willingly or not, become the focus of plots against the crown

When Elizabeth was first urged to name a successor during the 1559 Parliament, she replied “Assuredly, if my

successor were known to the world, I would never esteem my state to be safe”

In 1562 Elizabeth almost died of smallpox. After Elizabeth there were no more direct descendants of Henry VIII.

Furthermore, all of the surviving first line descendants of Henry’s sisters, Margaret and Mary, were female. The

strongest claimant on dynastic grounds was Margaret’s granddaughter, Mary Queen of Scots. Mary, however,

was a Catholic and considered a pawn of England’s enemy France. Elizabeth would resist being forced to

nominate Mary her successor

There was widespread hope among the governing class that Elizabeth would secure the succession as speedily

as possible by marrying and producing children. This desire was strongly expressed by petitions in both council

and Parliament. Elizabeth’s reply seemed to assure them she would act in the best interests of the country, but

gave no indication of any specific plan. Thereafter she persistently defended her royal prerogative and prohibited

further discussion of the issue in parliament. She would not abrogate to Parliament her personal right to name a

successor

In 1563 Elizabeth justified her refusal to nominate a successor – “I know the people of England, how they ever

mislike the present government and have their eyes fixed on that person who is next to succeed … most of them

worship the rising – not the setting sun”

In 1565 Mary Queen of Scots married Lord Darnley, the only surviving male descendant of the Tudor line giving

the child she bore him a year later (James) an unstoppable claim (after hers) to the English throne if Elizabeth

died without children. The 1566 Parliament again raised the issue of the succession. Elizabeth angrily forbade

further discussion in parliament. Even as late as 1601 she refused to confirm to Parliament the name of her

successor

By 1568 Mary Queen of Scots had been forced by the Scots to abdicate in favour of her infant son, James, and

flee to England – where she became confined by Elizabeth. Mary’s presence attracted a series of Catholic plots

to dethrone Elizabeth until 1587. Throughout that time she was the de facto heir to the English throne, though

Elizabeth sensibly refused to acknowledge it. Nonetheless, despite considerable pressure, Elizabeth also refused

to disbar Mary from the succession or place the choice of a successor in the hands of parliament in the event of

her own death


After 1587 although there were few other legally recognised Tudor descendants to succeed Elizabeth apart from

James, she did not nominate him as her successor until on her deathbed. He was a ‘safe’ candidate in that he

was a moderate Protestant, independent of French or Spanish influence and living outside of England. His

succession in 1603 was therefore uncontested.



Between 1559–87, the problem of Mary Stuart’s claim to the English throne had major consequences at home

and abroad for religious and foreign policy in trying to counter those who sought to replace Elizabeth with the

Catholic Mary. (eg by Cecil’s hard work in arranging the Treaty of Edinburgh [1560], Scotland was changed from

a long-standing threat to an ally). In 1571 Elizabeth, under pressure from Parliament, agreed to consider

excluding Mary Stuart from the succession. However, she did not do so

Elizabeth’s authority was not undermined by a successor. Some historians have criticized Elizabeth for acting

irresponsibly and putting her own interests before those of her country. They argue that Elizabeth feared that if

her successor was named, that person would become a focal point for those seeking social and political

elevation in the next reign. Other historians contend that this was consistent with Elizabeth’s approach to all

political choices – preferring to keep options open rather than closing them down. Elizabeth understood that

those who held hope for the future were more open to her influence than those who had already achieved their

aspirations

She consistently refused to tamper with the ‘natural’ succession. If Elizabeth had given way to the pressure

exerted on her to make legal arrangements for the succession, some uncertainties would have been removed for

those attempting to protect their futures, but it is doubtful that political stability would have been increased by it

England was able to develop a more stable, independent foreign policy. Elizabeth was able to use the prospect

of marriage as a diplomatic weapon to further England’s interests (eg the 1572 mutual assistance treaty of Bois

with France). The stability of England’s government through the second half of the sixteenth century was admired

overseas as it was in direct contrast to the situation through most of Europe

In the 1593 Parliament, Peter Wentworth called upon Elizabeth to name her successor. Elizabeth imprisoned him

in the Tower of London until his death four years later. Discussing the succession in public was clearly a

dangerous matter, whatever one’s motives might be

However, Robert Cecil, her chief minister, did secretly correspond with James Stuart in Scotland about

Elizabeth’s health. Even in her final days Elizabeth refused to name her successor, but Cecil did send James a

draft of the Proclamation of his accession and then immediately after her death a rider was sent to inform James

he had become the new King of England. Cecil and other leading members of the Privy Council were concerned

to maintain their positions and an orderly succession into the next reign. James was the most acceptable

candidate with the best claim.


Essay question (d)

Explain the factors that led to James I’s decision to maintain a peaceful foreign policy between

1603 and 1624.

Evaluate the consequences for Charles I when he changed to a war policy from 1625 to 1630.


James I’s personal motto was ‘Beati Pacifici’ (Blessed are the Peacemakers). His role model was the Bible’s King

Solomon, who settled squabbles by diplomacy and reason rather than confrontation. He had a personal distaste

of violence and war

His succession to the English throne and the Union of England and Scotland gave impetus to his ambition to be

the mediator of European peace through the marriage of his children to Catholic and Protestant dynasties. James

understood that war was a financial drain on the country and he did not want to be obligated to Parliament for

war subsidies. Peace would allow trade to prosper increasing royal revenue and could help win trading

concessions overseas

As King of Scotland he had no particular legacy of hatred for Spain, the English arch-enemy of the late

Elizabethan era. The Treaty of London with Spain (1604) immediately stamped his authority on English foreign

policy, and his success in helping secure the Truce of Antwerp between the Dutch and the Spanish in 1609 gave

credence to his ambition to be the broker of a general European peace between Protestant and Catholic

James negotiated the marriage of his daughter Elizabeth to Frederick V, the Elector of the Palatinate (leader of

the German Protestants) in 1613. However, the later polarisation of Europe after the outbreak of the Thirty Years

War (1618–1648) and loss of the Palatinate in 1620 produced intense pressure on James in Parliament for

decisive action to obtain its return to his son-in-law and to defend the Protestant cause in Europe

Instead, James was hoping to act as a mediator in the conflict and receive the return of the Palatinate as part

of the dowry for a Spanish Match between his son, Charles, and the Infanta Maria Anna (daughter of Philip III).

Parliament feared the result would be subjection of England to Spanish ambitions abroad and unwelcome

concessions to English Catholics at home

The negotiations were well under way when James opened the 1621 Parliament and told the Commons not to

discuss foreign policy. The Commons replied with a Protestation arguing their right of free speech. James angrily

tore it out of the Journal of the House and closed Parliament

It was the actions of Charles and Buckingham that undermined James I’s peaceful policy. In 1623, Charles had

been persuaded by Buckingham in opposition to the King's own wishes, to make a rash, secret expedition to

Spain to put an end to all the formalities, and secure the long negotiated Spanish Match and the coveted return

of the Palatinate to his sister’s husband. He found the Spanish court to be less than enthusiastic for the marriage

and the Princess herself averse. The return of Charles and Buckingham without securing the Spanish Match

unleashed a wave of public rejoicing in England. Buckingham now influenced Charles to urge the ill James to

change his policy to seek the recovery of the Palatinate through a French marriage and obtain revenge against

Spain through military endeavour


In a complete turnaround, James now invited the 1624 parliament to advise him on foreign policy – the possibility

of war against Spain. He had still not declared war when he died.



In 1625, Charles believed the Commons had fully committed themselves to granting subsidies to finance a war

against Spain. He not only brought about a turnaround in foreign policy, but laid the platform for the eventual

demise of royal authority that would lead to his own death. The rejection of the Spanish Match had caused him to

inadvertently encourage Parliament to make inroads into the royal prerogative (decision-making in foreign affairs,

control of royal expenditure, impeachment of royal ministers), that he would later regret

In the arrangements of his marriage to Henrietta Maria of France, Charles had made secret concessions over

religion, which would have been scandalous to most Englishmen. Catholics were meant to be granted toleration,

and Charles’ children brought up as Catholic. In return, the French had promised to assist the Mansfeld

expedition for the recovery of the Palatinate, but ultimately refused to allow the army to pass through France

Parliament had their minds set on a naval war against Spain including attacks on the Spanish treasure fleet from

the New World. So in 1626 an attempt was made to impeach Buckingham in the House of Commons, for using

up subsidies in wasteful continental military expeditions (Mansfeld and Cadiz) that had not been endorsed by

Parliament. Buckingham’s later mismanagement of the La Rochelle disaster pushed England into international

humiliation and war with France. By 1627, Charles was in the untenable situation of being at war with both Spain

and France at the same time

Charles had run headlong into conflict with Parliament over the conduct of foreign policy, forced billeting to

defend England’s south coast, forced loans, and relaxation of recusancy laws against Catholics. After the La

Rochelle debacle and Buckingham’s assassination in 1628 by an aggrieved soldier, Charles felt Parliament was

refusing to finance a war to which it had agreed and he decided to rule without it thereafter. He had moved to a

radical political position, which rejected the traditional basis of government by co-operation with the governing

class. Without the finances to pursue them, he ended the wars with France and Spain by 1630. He had lost the

capacity to fight and to conduct effective diplomacy. The years of personal rule were to further damage his

relationship with Parliament.


Essay question (e)

Explain the factors that led to Charles I’s decision to declare war on Parliament in 1642.

Evaluate the consequences of his decision for his Parliamentary opponents between 1642 and 1649.


The Long Parliament was called in 1640, with Charles I desperate for Parliament’s aid to contain an armed

rebellion by the Scots, which had escalated to an invasion of the north of England. However, Parliament had a

number of past grievances with the King developed through the previous years of his reign that they wanted

resolved before they granted him subsidies to deal with the Scots

Their grievances involved:

- Charles’ association with despotism through his mismanagement of parliament 1625–29, his claim to rule by

divine right alone, the years of personal rule 1629 to 1640 and dismissal of the Short Parliament 1640. This

had resulted in the alienation of the governing class to what they believed were:

- arbitrary taxation: Tunnage and Poundage, impositions, forced loans, ship money, forest fines, distraint of

knighthood

- arbitrary imprisonment: Five Knights case, Sir John Eliot, use of Star Chamber, John Hampden’s case

- arbitrary government: Thorough policy under Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, in the northern counties

and Ireland.

- Charles’ association with Catholicism through his marriage to Henrietta Maria and tolerance of Catholicism at

court, his promotion of Arminianism through Archbishop William Laud in the Church of England and the use of

harsh enforcement through bishops and the Court of High Commission had also alienated the governing class.

Throughout the Long Parliament, therefore, John Pym and other leaders aimed:

- to do away with evil counselors (eg Strafford and Laud), so that the ‘natural advisors’ from the governing class

could be listened to. This challenged Charles right to appoint ministers

- to attack the instruments of Charles’ personal rule and make him more economically dependent on Parliament,

This subverted his prerogative right to raise revenue

- to ensure a permanent place for Parliament in the machinery of government. This changed the authority kings

normally exercised over Parliament.

During the first session of the Long Parliament, Pym and his group considered that by their proposed legislation

they were restoring the traditional balance between King, Lords and Commons under the constitution, but

Charles saw them as restricting his prerogative rights:

- The passage of the Triennial Act placed a three-year limit on any period of personal rule, forcing him to

summon Parliament after that time

- The Act against the dissolution of Parliament meant Charles could not dissolve Parliament without its own

consent

- By the Tunnage and Poundage Act he was forced to give up the right to customs duties without Parliament’s

assent


- The abolition of revenue-gathering innovations (such as ship money, forest fines and distrait of knighthood)

used during the personal rule conflicted with his prerogative rights to impose extraordinary taxation

- The abolition of prerogative courts used to enforce royal policy during the personal rule, eg Star Chamber, High

Commission, and regional councils attacked his rights as the fount of justice

- The “Root and Branch Petition” calling for the abolition of the episcopacy infringed on his rights as Head of the

Church.

Charles had been forced to accept these attacks on his prerogative rights during the first session of the Long

Parliament because he was facing a Scottish rebellion and occupation of northern England without the means to

prevent it. No doubt he considered them temporary concessions and that once the crisis was over and

Parliament dismissed, he could regain his authority as it was in the 1630s. However, the massacres in Ireland at

the beginning of the second session forced Parliament to countenance even greater challenges to the royal

prerogative in order to protect the gains they had already made

The Grand Remonstrance (November 1641) passed only by the narrow margin of 11 votes. The Commons had

split over whether the Parliament should have the right to veto the King’s appointment of ministers and control of

the militia. Moderate Royalist support was beginning to emerge, led by Lord Falkland and Edward Hyde. Among

other issues, they were concerned by the flood of radical, political and religious pamphleteering caused by the

relaxation of censorship and wanted to restore stability. They also were alarmed at the use of the rabidly anti-

Catholic London mob by Pym and his supporters to apply political pressure and believed an attempt to impeach

the Queen was imminent. Had Charles consistently accepted the advice of these moderates he might well have

avoided Civil War

Instead, Charles listened to absolutists such as Henrietta Maria and George Digby (Earl of Bristol) and took

precipitate action to grasp the initiative and forestall his enemies. On the 4th January 1642 he decided to attempt

the arrest of 5 leading MPs (including Pym) while they sat in the House of Commons. They were warned and

fled. The resort to force was ill-conceived and ill-timed. Charles had unwittingly made it clear he did not intend to

accept any limits to his authority as lawful. The Long Parliament was outraged by this attempted coup, rallied

behind Pym and further entrenched their position by excluding bishops from the House of Lords and passing the

Militia Ordinance, granting control of the militia to Parliament itself

With the city in an uproar and concerned for his family’s safety, Charles left London on the 10 th January. This

meant negotiating at a distance and that the chance of a settlement was much reduced. Henrietta Maria’s advice

to Charles was not to compromise, but look for support at home and abroad

He travelled to a series of provincial centres and called the Commission of Array attempting to secure the support

of the county militias without much success. In the Nineteen Propositions (demanding control of Ministers, the

militia and Church matters as well as guardianship of his children) Parliament indicated what they expected out of

a settlement. As a basis for negotiation, it left little room for compromise. Charles responded by formally

declaring war on Parliament on 22nd August, 1642. He chose armed conflict to defend what he believed were

God-given royal powers that Parliament had no authority to diminish or limit.



The First Civil War was to last 4 years and cost at least 50 000 lives. During the war most of the governing class

fighting for Parliament believed Charles had been led astray by ‘evil counsellors’ (they had fought absolutism and

Roman Catholic influences rather than Charles himself) and anticipated a settlement

John Pym’s death in 1643 took away the glue and organising force that had unified Parliament in its opposition to

the King. Nonetheless, the Solemn League and Covenant he helped cement, gained Parliament a military

alliance with the Scottish Covenanters in return for a commitment to introducing in England a national

Presbyterian system of church government. This commitment would make agreement with the King even more

difficult to obtain and entrenched deep religious-political rifts among the Parliamentarians

Furthermore the creation of the New Model Army provided a social-religious-political force capable of

revolutionary action. The Army was increasingly to regard itself as the instrument of God’s providence especially

after victory at Naesby in June of 1645. When they interpreted Charles to be resisting God’s verdict, it gave rise

to new ideas and radical political forces including Republicanism and the Leveller movement

Once he had lost the Civil War, Charles still believed it would be impossible to have a political settlement that did

not include him in a central role. He attempted to play off different rebellious power groups against each other –

the Scots, Parliament and the New Model Army leadership. His stubbornness and duplicity through this period

made it difficult to arrive at a compromise or feel that he could be trusted. Charles believed any agreements

could be broken and that his only duty was to regain his rightful God-given place as monarch. Charles believed

all his opponents were traitors acting against the law and his God-given authority, and he steadfastly refused to

accept any limitation to his prerogative powers or alteration of the Church. He believed his enemies would

eventually fall out among themselves

When the Presbyterians in Parliament (led by Denzil Holles) tried to disband the army without the arrears of pay

it was due in 1647, they alienated, united and politicised the army. Taking possession of the King, the Army

Council presented him with the ‘Heads of Proposals’ and strengthened their position by occupying London (6

August). Charles continued to play a delaying game and in November escaped army custody and allied himself

with the Scots to begin the Second Civil War

But Charles’s escape and actions in the Second Civil War only entrenched the determination of some of his

opponents to sweep away the powers of “this man of blood” (who had refused to accept God’s judgement on his

rule) altogether. He had shown once again he could not be trusted to abide by any changes won by Parliament or

the army. Only his removal would allow the necessary conditions for a permanent settlement

Army leaders took control of proceedings, underwent a military coup and purged Parliament so that the

remaining 60 MP’s could put the King on trial. Throughout the trial Charles refused to plead or speak, on the legal

grounds that there was no law that could try him. He may have viewed it as a bluff to force him into negotiating a

settlement. But, he was executed 30 January 1649 and monarchy abolished

However, the majority of Charles’s Parliamentary opponents would not have felt they had gained a victory. They

had been purged from Parliament and political power grasped from their hands into the hands of those who

influenced and controlled the New Model Army. They were victims of a military coup.


Essay question (f)

Explain the factors behind the decision of Oliver Cromwell to refuse to become king in 1657.

Evaluate the consequences for his political and religious aims.


The 1657 parliament proposed a new civilian constitution – The Humble Petition and Advice – to replace the

Army’s Instrument of Government. They wanted Cromwell to become King instead of Lord Protector and the

succession to be hereditary. It also called for a second chamber (the Other House) to be restored to Parliament

and parliament to have control over appointments to the Council of State and over the national religion. Since the

offer of the new constitution came from Parliament, it would have a validity and legality that the Instrument

(created by the Army Council) lacked. As King, Cromwell would be likely to get more support from the traditional

governing class who were concerned at the continuance of a government whose sole authority rested on force

available through the Army. Even those JPs who had supported Parliament in the war were reluctant to take the

Engagement oath. The civilianisation and more widespread acceptance of government would mean that a

progressive reduction of the Army (and the expenses associated with it) could take place. Having, by accepting

the Humble Petition and Advice, adopted the symbols of robe and sceptre as well as being given the right to

nominate his successor, suggests he had become something very close to a king. Nonetheless (after weeks of

discussion), Cromwell declined the Crown

There are several factors that may have influenced his decision:

- Although the Army was loyal to him and he could normally control it, many in the army were committed

republicans (“the good old cause”) and believed the Civil War had been fought to remove the monarchy. Like

some of them, Cromwell most likely believed that Providence had clearly demonstrated through their victory

His judgement not only on Charles but also on the monarchy. If he was faced with an Army revolt, anarchy

rather than stability might well be the result

- As the man used by God as His instrument to be the destroyer of monarchy for Cromwell to become king now

would be an act of total apostasy. “I will not seek to set up that that Providence hath destroyed and lain in the

dust”

- In all that he did as Protector it is clear he favoured traditional forms. His basic political approach was one of

caution. While depending on military power, it was his last resort. He was reluctant to use it to impose himself

on the nation as a dictator. He tried to make parliament representative and to give it a genuine role in the

constitution

- Cromwell may have considered that with the Humble Petition and Advice he could use the Other House to

keep a check on the powers of the House of Commons rather than have to rely on army purges. This might

allow him to come to an acceptable settlement without taking the title of King

- Cromwell would have been concerned at the failure of the Nominated Assembly and at the Protectorate

Parliament’s wish to control religion as evidenced by his unease over the James Naylor case in 1656 and

personal appeals for “liberty for tender consciences”


- Cromwell may have been so involved in the everyday running of government that he had little time to develop

an overall policy. Most of his time as Lord Protector was spent trying to control the excessive demands of

others. He was essentially an opportunist, who justified his actions after the event by reference to the Lord’s

divine will. Gerald Aylmer calls him “a pragmatist who waited on providence”.


The Humble Petition and Advice made him king in all but name. He could still name his successor and maintain a

court that became progressively exclusive. He was granted an annual revenue of 1.3 million pounds. He could

appoint an “Upper House” of 40. Parliament would be biennial. MPs could be excluded only by vote of Parliament

and appointments to the Council could be vetoed by Parliament

No one group in the widely divided political spectrum was satisfied. Conservatives considered that nothing but a

return to known forms of government would provide a durable settlement. Republicans were very uneasy and

saw Cromwell as an apostate. The army in general did not welcome the change, but some senior officers were

reassured that its interest would be protected through seats in the Upper House. But having packed the Upper

House with Cromwellians, the Lower House lacked strong and influential supporters of Cromwell. No longer

having the ability to block MPs from sitting, opponents were returned who were determined to attack the

The Humble Petition and Advice and restore the Rump. Some MPs saw the Upper House as men with no stake

in the country (not with financially independent with landed wealth) – “mean people who must be paid by you”

Cromwell, therefore, lost patience and dissolved the Parliament within a month. He was working on a further

purge of the army to preserve its unity and the nation’s security and intended to call another parliament when he

took ill and died. It was clear: he had been unable to find a political settlement acceptable to the nation that could

replace traditional monarchy. Balancing the demands of parliament and army had been impossible. Although he

had the strength of personality to control them, he was unable to bring them together in a working relationship.

Financing a government and a large standing army was fraught with difficulty in the long term. After his death,

there was no potential for a stable government under anyone else’s leadership. The restoration of monarchy was

a natural return to old forms of government that had worked in the past

Cromwell had rejected kingship and military dictatorship, because he wanted a return to “the old ways”. He

showed due respect to civil rights and the rule of law, but there had been little of the legal and social reforms he

had hoped for

Cromwell’s desire for religious toleration for all extended to Jews, Catholic worship in secret and Anglican

services without a royalist flavour. To him it made sense because it prevented disorder and promoted harmony.

However, his personal appeals for “liberty for tender consciences” had largely fallen on deaf ears. The

Protectorate Parliament’s determination to control religious belief and action by punishing dissent as evidenced in

1656 James Naylor would have caused Cromwell to recognise the futility of his hopes for religious toleration

His more lasting legacy was the result of his victories in Ireland and Scotland, the Navigation Act, the

development of a powerful navy and defeat of the Dutch – an enhanced international reputation for Britain.


Topic Two: New Zealand in the Nineteenth Century

Essay question (a)

Explain the factors that contributed to the decision of many Māori chiefs and a representative of the British

Crown to sign Te Tiri o Waitangi in 1840.

Evaluate the consequences of this decision for the lives of Māori between 1840 and 1863.


The factors that contributed to the decision of many Māori to sign:

- Many Māori chiefs made the decision to sign the Treaty of Waitangi after making an intelligent analysis of the

information available to them at the time

- Many chiefs may have signed for personal reasons. Chiefs such as Tamati Waka Nene were influential. He

saw change as inevitable and believed that the clock could not be turned back. The Treaty was the way

forward. William Colenso suggested that many chiefs were not aware of the implications of the Treaty

- More access to Pākehā, which in turn bring markets to sell to, goods, employment, improved trade etc.

- No realisation of the large numbers of settlers that would come (Keith Sinclair)

- For their own trade advantages – access to knowledge, superior skills and tools

- Control of undesirable Pākehā practices by Crown

- Chiefs may have signed because of the promise of food and gifts. One Tauranga chief said “pay us first and we

will write afterwards”. Some may have seen the Treaty signing as a commercial transaction

- Many chiefs believed that the sharing of authority would enhance chiefly mana. Personal agreement between

Chiefs and the Queen

- Expectation that the promises made in the articles of the Treaty in Māori would be honoured: Article 1 – bought

an expectation of equal role of authority – “we are one people” as the Treaty implied that Māori would give up

only nominal rather than substantive sovereignty, as the word used to translate the ceding of sovereignty to the

British was “kāwanatanga” not “mana” or “rangatiratanga”. These words would have indicated a much stronger

form of British sovereignty over New Zealand. Article 2 – guarantee of rangatiratanga over land, taonga and

resources – “shadow of the land”(Nopera). Article 3 – full rights of British citizenship

- Pākehā officials to control troublesome Pākehā – the Governor would control Pākehā and especially those who

were purchasing land. Mana of land would be held by Māori

- Protection from foreign powers – wary of French

- Little to fear as in 1840 Māori outnumbered Pākehā by 50 to 1

- Rival tribes signing so signed to keep up with them especially in east coast of North Island (Manuka Henare)

- Peace with age-old enemies

- Avoid Australian disaster – some chiefs were aware of what had happened to the Australian Aborigines

- Support against aggressive land buyers – all disputed land sales investigated

- Desire to sell land to few more settlers


- Utu – sell disputed land then don’t have to fight Māori rivals for it

- Peace amongst tribes regarding land

- The Governor’s notion of pre-emption was not explained – not the same as hokonga

- Some chiefs trusted the Missionaries who were persuasive as they portrayed the Treaty as an overwhelming

positive deal for Māori and encouraged chiefs to sign. The missionaries may also have played up the

importance of protection of British law that was promised through Article Three. In light of events such as the

Elizabeth Affair, the opportunity to pursue justice against Pākehā who had committed criminal activity was seen

as desirable

- Queen Victoria was the head of the church as well as the state – Treaty bond seen as sacred bond or covenant

as in 1840 almost half of Māori were Christian.

The factors that contributed to the decision of a representative of the British Crown to sign:

- After difficulties elsewhere with indigenous peoples, Britain was reluctant to annex New Zealand because of

the likely cost and difficulties it would face

- There were calls from Māori for intervention – 1831 Petition to King William IV by northern chiefs to be a friend

and guardian

- Incidents of violence – Boyd and Alligator Incidents, Elizabeth Affair

- Lord Normanby’s concern over foreign influence – French and American intentions in New Zealand. Fear of

French in the North – du Fresne, de Thierry, Catholic influence through Bishop Pompallier and his missions.

US Consulate set up

- By 1830s, traders and missionaries had substantial investments in New Zealand and wanted law and order to

protect their rights and property

- Britain had recognised New Zealand as independent many times – Imperial Statutes 1817, 1823, 1828 and

Declaration of Independence (1835). This meant that if they wanted to formally intervene, the independent

status of Māori had to be qualified or removed with some sort of formal agreement. But the British government

found there was no Māori government through which it could work – failure of Declaration of Independence and

James Busby

- Cession through a Treaty would avoid an expensive war. Voluntary cession was required because Māori

cultivated and therefore ‘owned’ their land in the North Island. Hobson saw Ngāi Tahu as hunter-gatherers – no

cultivation, no ownership. International law demanded that some kind of treaty would look good to the rest of

the world (Alan Ward – A Show of Justice)

- Humanitarian lobby in England – pressure from the Aborigines Protection Society with increasing concern

about the welfare of Māori and the desire to avoid the disaster of Australia over again

- By the late 1830s intervention was seen as necessary to protect both Māori and the missionaries from the

rougher sort of Pākehā – Kororareka – ‘Hell-hole of the Pacific’ – drunkenness, prostitution, violence, etc – the

Colonial Office wanted lawlessness tidied up at minimal cost (Peter Adams)

- Late 1830s speculative land purchases of dubious legality taking place around the country. Missionaries and

Australians ‘buying’ or claiming blocks of land from Māori, often transactions where Pākehā and Māori

intentions and expectations were quite different


- The New Zealand Association / Company was organising English settlement in New Zealand 1833–39 and this

concerned humanitarians, missionaries and the British government because the settlers would be outside

British sovereignty and doubts that Wakefield’s dealings with Māori would be fair and / or ethical. Departure of

the Tory in 1839

- From the late 1830s, the British idea of a Māori New Zealand that accommodated some Pākehā changed to a

British settler colony that would accommodate Māori – “a fatal necessity” – Peter Adams

- Belich – the colonial office’s response was a consequence of the myths of empire. Three agents of empire

were the Church Missionary Society (CMS), organisers of systematic colonisation (Wakefield), and merchants

and capitalists – all put pressure on the government to intervene formally in New Zealand. They inundated the

colonial office with reports of disaster and chaos – 1837 and 1838, they received Hobson’s report, which

painted a bleak picture, and a CMS report, which indicated a deteriorating situation

- In July–August 1839, the British government decided that at least limited intervention was needed. Settlers had

to be controlled and Māori had to be protected

- The British Government expected:

- sovereignty would be given by Māori to the British for all parts of the country

- the authority to impose law and order over everyone in New Zealand

- total control over land in areas ceded to them, which they would sell to settlers.


The candidate’s response to the second part of the question could include:

The mistranslation of the Treaty led to Māori and the Crown having totally different understandings of what they

had promised each other. The actions of Crown officials after the signing of the Treaty suggest that they believed

that New Zealand had been instantly painted “imperial pink”, with Māori now subject to British law. Actions by

Māori chiefs after 1840 suggest that they believed that they would still have authority over their people and land

On 21 May 1840, Hobson proclaimed British sovereignty over all of New Zealand. Most likely, this was in

response to plans by the New Zealand Company to establish its own government in the Cook Strait region

The arrest, trial, and execution of Maketu in 1842 provided an early post-Treaty test for British law in situations

that involved cross-cultural crime

In 1842, land commissioners began investigating pre-Treaty land purchases. If the commissioners believed that

the transaction had been fair, they validated it and awarded a Crown Grant. Crown Grants were limited to 2560

acres (four square miles). Excess land was ceded to the Crown, as was land that was deemed to be invalidly

obtained. Commissioner William Spain deemed most of the purchases around Wellington to be invalid

Conflict between some tribes in 1842 led to the suggestion that those chiefs who had not signed the Treaty didn’t

come under its authority. A ruling was made that all Māori were deemed to be under Crown authority

The Wairau incident highlighted many of the issues that surrounded the Treaty. Ngāti Toa disputed the New

Zealand Company’s claim to have purchased the land and disrupted the surveyors. The New Zealand Company

officials set off to arrest Te Rauparaha. A musket was fired, killing Te Rangihaeata’s wife, and in the fighting that

ensued, five more Māori and 22 Pākehā were killed. Of these Pākehā deaths, 13 had surrendered but were killed

as utu for the Māori deaths. Governor FitzRoy refused to apprehend Te Rangihaeata for these killings, saying

there was wrong on each side

The Treaty of Waitangi gave the Crown the exclusive right to purchase Māori land, but in 1844 private land

purchases were allowed when Governor FitzRoy gave in to demands from settlers and Māori and waived his

right of pre-emption

Hone Heke cutting down the flagpole at Kororareka in 1844 and 1845 was a protest against what he perceived to

be a loss of Māori authority and a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Northern War that followed was very

much a war of sovereignty

In 1846, the British Government instructed that the ownership of Māori land had to be registered. Any

unregistered land was deemed to be “surplus”. Governor Grey reinstated the exclusive Crown right to purchase

Māori land, citing the Treaty of Waitangi

Grey attempted to force Māori to sell wasteland in the Wellington region, which threatened the mana of Te

Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata. Incidents of fighting occurred in the Hutt Valley in 1846. Grey arrested Te

Rauparaha. Grey acquired 30 million acres of the South Island and 3 million acres of the North Island before he

left New Zealand in 1853. His negotiation and methods of purchase were questionable, payments were minimal,

and promises were not kept especially in the South Island

Rise of the King Movement was an attempt by Māori to retain land and sovereignty. In 1859, Potatau Te

Wherowhero was confirmed as holding the mana of kingship, supported by Waikato and central North Island

tribes. Pākehā and the Governor saw the King Movement as a threat to British sovereignty


The Kohimarama Conference of 1860 was an attempt by Governor Gore-Browne to re-examine the Treaty and

deal with the problem of Māori refusal to sell land, especially the King Movement

Outbreak of war in Taranaki – Pākehā desire to purchase land in Waitara led to Te Teira offering to sell it to the

Crown. Wiremu Kingi denied Te Teira’s right to sell and refused to sell the land maintaining his mana and

rangatiratanga over Waitara. Governor Gore-Browne felt British sovereignty had to be asserted by denying

Wiremu Kingi’s authority over Waitara

Fighting began in March 1860. Waikato Kingites joined the fighting in support of Kingi and Māori autonomy.


Essay topic (b)

Explain the factors that led to the decision of many Māori to support pan-tribal prophetic movements such

as Pai Mārire, Ringatū, and Te Whiti at Parihaka between 1862 and 1900.

Evaluate the extent to which these pan-tribal prophetic movements were successful in meeting the hopes

of their supporters by 1900.


As the impact of colonisation on Māori increased and the ensuing alienation of land, the emergence of a

synthesis of traditional belief systems and Christianity was for many Māori a powerful response to reaffirming

cultural identity. Land, an awareness of the importance of Māoritanga, and sovereignty were key factors in the

decision of many Māori to embrace these new belief systems

Pai Mārire grew out of the conflict over land in Taranaki. It influenced the development of other Māori religious

movements

Te Ua Haumene was the founder and prophet of the Pai Mārire (Hauhau) Church. He claimed that he had had a

revelation from God in which he was appointed to lead Māori to sovereignty over New Zealand. When some of

his followers ambushed a government patrol in Taranaki, Te Ua was presented with the victims’ heads. This

incident was followed by a major war between followers of Pai Mārire and kūpapa on Moutoa Island in the

Whanganui River. Later, some followers of Pai Mārire killed a missionary, Carl Volkner, on the East Coast. Te Ua

was essentially a religious leader, but it was very difficult for him to contain his followers within the spiritual

boundaries that he established

A key factor in the decision to support his leadership was his promise and vision of a land delivered from the

scourge of ‘the yoke of the Pākehā’

Titokowaru had developed an awareness of the Bible through his work as an assistant to the Methodist

missionary John Skevington. Influenced by Pai Mārire he became involved in fighting in Taranaki. With the death

of Te Ua, he was seen as a likely successor. He had begun to develop his own synthesis of Christianity,

combining it with elements of Pai Mārire and traditional beliefs. He became actively involved in leading the fight

to reassert Māori sovereignty in Taranaki

Titokowaru’s campaign concentrated on the return of confiscated land in South Taranaki. Tītokowaru asserted

his sovereignty in response to the creeping confiscation of land in South Taranaki with a hit-and-run guerrilla

campaign against Pākehā settlers. He conducted these raids from his base at Te Ngutu o te Manu (the beak of

the bird). He also goaded the Armed Constabulary into attacking him on his own ground. He staged a remarkable

victory at Te Ngutu o te Manu on 7 September 1868. This is the battle in which Von Tempsky was killed and

McDonnell’s reputation shattered. Tītokowaru went on to defeat McDonnell’s successor, Whitmore, at Moturoa,

but on the verge of an attack on Wanganui, his warriors deserted him, possibly because of an affair that

Tītokowaru may have been having with another chief’s wife

Te Kooti’s emergence as a leader of a prophetic movement started when he was imprisoned on the Chathams.

His experience of religious visions resulted in the establishment of the Ringatū faith, a mixture of traditional

beliefs and the Old Testament. He escaped from the Chatham Islands and led raids on his Māori and Pākehā


enemies on the East Coast of the North Island and then further inland. He hoped to gain support from the King

Movement and other iwi for actions against the colonial government

His willingness to be a leader in the fight for the reassertion of sovereignty and the power of his spiritual appeal

led many Māori to support him

On arrival at Whareongaonga, he staged several ruthless attacks around the East Coast before suffering a major

defeat up Ngā Tapa hill. He escaped, making it through the Ureweras and eventually into the King Country,

where he met with leaders of Kīngitanga. They rejected his appeals, so he eventually established a base at Te

Pōrere, where he was defeated. Te Kooti escaped again and was eventually pardoned

Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi gained many supporters through response to the confiscation of land in

Taranaki by establishing a non-violent resistance community at Parihaka

Like those leaders who had come before them, Te Whiti and Tohu combined elements of Christianity with

traditional beliefs. A key difference in the attractiveness of their message was the call to resist land alienation

through non-violence. For many Māori, wearied by war and its affects, theirs was a persuasive call to action

His followers ploughed confiscated land as a statement of ownership, but they were arrested and sent to jails in

New Plymouth and Wellington. Eventually, the jails were so full that the Government passed the 1879 Māori

Prisoners’ Trial Act, which allowed for the holding of Māori prisoners in custody without trial. Many were shipped

to Dunedin and worked on the Peninsula causeway project. In 1881, Parihaka was invaded by John Bryce and

5 000 settler volunteers. Te Whiti and Tohu were captured and their settlement destroyed


The success of Pai Mārire was relatively short-lived. Despite Te Ua’s peaceful teachings, some leading chiefs

interpreted his beliefs as a call to revive traditional ways. One of the consequences for Māori was the divisive

effect of Pai Mārire as some Māori regarded the movement as an attempt to unify Māori and in so doing

challenged the authority of the iwi. An example of this divisiveness was the battle fought between upper and

lower Whanganui river Māori over the role of Pai Mārire. This growing civil tension among Māori spread to Ngāti

Porou on the East Coast. The response of the British to growing tensions caused by conflict was detrimental to

Māori society – the death of Carl Von Volkner resulted in the confiscation of over some 58 000 hectares under

the terms of the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863

Te Ua may not have succeeded in meeting the challenges mounted by the growing British presence in Taranaki

but his teachings lived on through the influence they had on Te Whiti o Rongomai, Te Kooti, King Tāwhiao

Titokowaru was unable to meet the hopes of his supporters. Indeed, while he was successful in his attempts to

thwart the military progress of his opponents, his failure to make a lasting impact was through his own breach of

tapu, which saw him deserted by his followers

He escaped capture to become a supporter of Te Whiti at Parihaka

Te Kooti’s armed resistance slowed settler alienation and development of the Urewera area, but failed to stop

alienation sped up by the native land court system

Te Kooti may have posed a problem for both settler and colonial governments but never to the same degree that

Titokowaru had in Taranaki


The Ringatū faith remained focused in the Tuhoe region but never had any degree of influence beyond the east

coast area inhabited by Ngāti Porou, Ngāi Tūhoe, Whakatōhea, and Ngāti Awa

The invasion of Parihaka in 1881 negated the impact of Te Whiti and his followers in the short term. Many of

them were transported to the South Island, where they remained until the government felt that any threat posed

by these men had dissipated

Te Whiti had demonstrated that Māori could run successful independent communities. Parihaka was seen as a

model of excellence, combining as it did the very latest technology with traditional belief systems

This success of Parihaka and the attempt to resist alienation of land through non-violent methods was an

important legacy, one which continues to be celebrated today.


Essay question (c)

Explain the factors that led to the decision by Julius Vogel to embark on a programme of extensive

borrowing in 1870.

Evaluate the extent to which this decision impacted on the economic and social structures of New Zealand

between 1870 and 1890.


Vogel became a Member of the House of Representatives in 1863 and became interested in financial matters.

He was possibly influenced by memories of the gold boom in his proposal for massive borrowing by the

government to stimulate the economy

During the 1868 parliamentary session Vogel joined William Fox to oppose Edward Stafford's government. They

attacked Stafford’s provincial and Māori policies and his administration of the country. By 1869 they had enough

support to topple the government. Fox succeeded to the premiership, making Vogel his colonial treasurer

Vogel made the finance portfolio the most powerful post in government. He came into office at a time of

economic stagnation. The new economic policy was popular within the country. It marked the end of an era of

slow growth and conflict and, along with McLean's policy of ‘demilitarisation’, was intended to reconcile Māori and

European and to bring the Māori, and Māori land, into the European economy. A few people believed that large

borrowing for development would lead to the taxation of land and property, but the critics of the policy were

overwhelmed by the supporters who anticipated increased employment, a rise in land values and a booming

economy. The voters provided a mandate for the policy in the 1871 general election, in which Vogel won the seat

of Auckland City East unopposed. The programme was to be financed by borrowing, by paying for works with

land grants, and by increases in government revenue resulting from the expanding economy

Previously there had been little in the way of constructive economic policies. Most politicians at the time belonged

to a small elite who had a narrow outlook, which dominated politics and restricted development and progress.

Vogel adopted a bold expansionist policy with plans to bring thousands of assisted immigrants to New Zealand,

to construct roads, railways, bridges and telegraph lines, and to purchase Māori land for European settlement.

His aim was to renew 'colonisation' and to stimulate economic growth

Provincial desires and rivalries often influenced national politics. People of specific regions and provinces

expected their Members to get what they could for their area (pork-barrel politics). Provincial government resulted

in a lack of broad vision that could be provided by a Central Government

Uneven development led to provincial rivalry and jealousy. Wars in the North Island during the 1860s restricted

the North Island’s progress. The South Island progressed from gold and wool industries

Financial pressures restricted growth in provinces also. There was a lack of land for sale for new settlements –

Māori were reluctant to sell and large-scale pastoralism occupied vast areas of land.

Spending on public works was needed but there was no money to finance this

Economic downturn in the later 1860s meant none of the provinces could provide what was needed in terms of

infrastructure, education, immigration and settlement. They could not raise loans as restrictions had been

imposed by the central government to control provincial finance and stop them going bankrupt


The 1870s saw the economy go through a boom-and-bust cycle – wool and gold prices dropped

Vogel’s hope was that a rise in government spending would increase private spending. He proposed to borrow

£10 million originally to build infrastructure, bring in assisted migrants, and set up a national education system

Vogel also planned to centralise the government – to have a unitary state rather than a federal system by

abolishing the provincial governments, which were obstructive of central government (eg provincial governments

would not support the planting of forests, nor set land aside as security for spending on railways) and their

financial problems seemed insoluble. Central government wanted control over land policy and revenue. Only

central government would be able to borrow the amount of money needed to develop New Zealand. Central

government investment would also stimulate downstream and private industry, eg, building

Vogel wanted to increase the size of the population and even out the gender imbalance between men and

women

Vogel wanted New Zealand to have a feeling of nationhood and believed it would be easier to promote

development as New Zealand rather than as separate provinces

Vogel's policy was adopted by the House in 1870 and implemented during the seventies.



Vogel's immigration and public works policy was expensive. During the seventies several large loans were raised

on the London money market. Vogel visited England in 1871 and 1874–75 to assist in floating these loans. The

course of the policy did not always run smoothly. The government probably took on too much and tried to do it in

too short a time, especially given the problems of isolation, the shortage of skilled administrators and engineers,

and the difficult nature of the country that was to be opened up. The government borrowed £22 million – more

than the intended £10 million. Securities for the debt in the form of reserves of land and forests were not created.

The private sector also borrowed heavily and a huge external debt was built up. Spending was reduced, and

interest payments became difficult to meet

In September 1872, when the policy had not yet shown results, Fox's government was defeated and Vogel was

briefly out of office. But by 1874–75 the success of the Vogel Scheme had made central government more

popular and showed it could be successful. Incoming settlers were more responsive to central government and

influenced the success of the ideas of the Liberal Government in the 1890s

The spread of settlement and improvements to transport and communications were reducing regionalism. The

ability to move goods and people from one part of the country to another led to economic stimulus and a mobility

that had been denied the inhabitants of both islands – particularly those living in the North Island

All aspects of the economy were stimulated – especially building and engineering. Railways, roads, harbours,

bridges, and telegraph lines were constructed

There was a great increase in population through immigration. One hundred thousand immigrants were brought

to New Zealand during 1871–80 and led to greater demands for Māori land and the breaking up of large estates.

Special settlements were established to clear the bush margins of land newly purchased or confiscated from

Māori. Scandinavians, Germans and Poles were specifically brought to clear bush. Other purchases helped the

start of pastoralism in the Hawke’s Bay

The dual system of government, central and provincial, complicated the operation of Vogel's policy. The

provinces had previously been responsible for colonisation. Some provincial politicians, such as Macandrew and

William Fitzherbert, wanted to retain this responsibility. Others were happy to hand it over to the central

government. All the provinces wanted more money, more immigrants, roads and railways. Vogel tried to

accommodate provincial needs but this proved increasingly difficult. In 1874 he finally agreed that the success of

his policy demanded the abolition of the northern provincial governments at least. The proposal was readily

agreed to by the House, and in the following year it was extended to the South Island provincial governments.

Even though the provincial governments were abolished, regionalism did continue but there were positive

developments from the centralisation of government

Departments of state such as public works, immigration and education were created and expanded. They

enforced national practices and standards

Increasing agreement about the need to encourage the growth of the whole of New Zealand’s society and

economy and to speak with a single voice overseas

Condliffe and Sutch blamed Vogel and his boom policies for the bust of the Long Depression. More recently

Dalziel and Hawke have argued that Vogel’s policies did not cause the Depression, but that New Zealand


suffered because it had a dependent economy, based on only a few export staples, which were affected by

overseas economic pressure

An economic downturn, labelled the Long Depression, lasted from 1879 to 1895. Exports earned less,

development was restricted, and times were tough for many people – some left New Zealand. Wool prices

plummeted, and gold ran out. However, not all regions or parts of the economy were affected equally – there

were some innovations, which led to greater prosperity by 1900, eg refrigeration

Increasing influence of big business on politics – most politicians were from wealthy backgrounds

Abolition of the provinces improved communications and transport

The influx of a variety of immigrants helped democratise New Zealand as they were egalitarian and hard working

More banks, stock and station agents grew out of the stimulated economy, although banks and lending agencies

suffered during the Depression

A higher standard of living resulted from the development of New Zealand

Once New Zealand had moved from a period of economic uncertainty it was well able to build a flourishing

economy thanks to the infrastructure that was Vogel’s legacy

The torrent of migrants who came here because of Vogel’s policies consolidated the ‘Britishness’ of New

Zealand, ensuring that control of this country was now firmly in the hands of settlers. The losers in this period of

rapid change were Māori, for whom marginalisation became a grim reality.


Essay question (d)

Explain the factors that would have persuaded people to establish and develop mining and timber

industries in New Zealand in the nineteenth century.

Evaluate the extent to which these industries had impacted on the political and social structures of New

Zealand by 1900.


The factors that contributed to the development of mining and timber industries were for the most part economic.

Two significant mining industries candidates could discuss are gold and kauri gum

From the beginnings of Pākehā settlement, there was a search for gold. The discovery of gold was encouraged

by governments and dreamed of by individuals hoping to better themselves. Gold was valuable and portable, and

it gave hope of wealth and vast profits. As an export, it would pay for imports

There were rumours of gold in New Zealand as early as the 1820s, but it is usually accepted that the first gold

discovery by a European was near Coromandel in 1852. There were later discoveries in Golden Bay (1856),

Otago (1861), Marlborough (1864), and the West Coast of the South Island (1864). Significant rushes occurred

only on the Coromandel Peninsula, the West Coast, and in Otago

The discovery by Gabriel Read in Otago sparked the first major rush in New Zealand. Gabriel’s Gully instantly

became a canvas town. This was followed by the rush to Dunstan, which was sparked by the discovery made by

Irishman Christopher Reilly and American Horatio Hartley

Exploitation of gold was done by private enterprise but regulated by government

A factor that contributed to the establishment of the gold industry was the passing of various acts regulating

areas where gold had been discovered, particularly the Goldfields Act of 1862. It was governmental intervention

which ensured the relative stability / order of the goldfields in contrast to the Victorian experience

The search for gold was a worldwide phenomenon. It was this desire and search for gold that helped in the

establishment and development of this industry. Many of New Zealand’s gold miners had mined in California,

Victoria, and New South Wales. When they left New Zealand, many of the miners went on to Queensland,

Western Australia, or South Africa. The miners that stayed moved into other employment such as service

industries, farming and coalmining

The gold rush brought Chinese and non-British Europeans to New Zealand in large numbers for the first time.

The dependence on capital to establish and develop the gold industry did depend on where and when gold was

mined. The method of gold mining changed depending on the region in which the gold was being mined. In

Otago and the West Coast of the South Island, the gold was extracted through the washing of alluvial gravels,

silts and sand with simple cradles and sluice boxes (individuals). Little capital was required for this small-scale

mining, and those involved shared in the returns. Methods changed to extracting gold with hydraulic sluicing

systems using water races, pipes and hoses (groups), and then with massive dredges that worked whole river

beds (companies)


On the Hauraki fields, the method of extraction was to crush gold-bearing quartz. This was no place for the

individual miner. Local and overseas investors formed companies to raise the capital needed. Most of the gold

that was found after 1870 was extracted by companies who paid the individual miners to work for them

The price of gold rose steadily – another key factor in its development. The methods of recovering it became

more efficient – reworking the earlier gold fields was economic. Gold production continued after 1870 at an

influential level, though there were no more successful ‘rushes’. Quartz mining was important to the end of the

century and beyond, providing about half the gold. It was revived after 1889 with the use of cyanide for

extraction, which enabled the mining of low grade gold ore near Waihi

In the decade 1890–99, the value of gold exports totalled just over £10 million; by 1900, the total value of gold

produced in and exported from New Zealand was over £56 million, a quarter from quartz mines and the

remainder alluvial gold

At one time most of Northland was covered with kauri forest. As these trees died and fell, and as they rotted and

sank into the soil the resin was fossilised into hard lumps, sometimes to a depth of ten metres

Māori used the gum for tattooing

The richness of its colour and its subsequent effectiveness as a veneer for furniture helped create a demand

which local Māori were happy to meet

Migrants from the Dalmatian coast found the gum industry one way of becoming established in this country. For

most of these young male migrants, a lack of English prevented them from obtaining work. Working in the gum

industry required hard work and a good deal of labour, both of which these young men were happy to provide

Gum became an important export staple, providing work and an income for many, particularly during the

extended depression / recession of the 1880s. By the end of the century some 11 116 tons of gum was exported.

While prices for gum were inconsistent the gains from gum could be considerable

Timber was an economic constant throughout the nineteenth century

Cook had remarked on the great stands of timber in this country. The potential of this resource was quickly

exploited by merchants

A key factor in the establishment of this industry was the importance of timber in the building of sailing vessels.

It was the boat-building industry in the Hokianga that was indirectly responsible for the selection and use of a

national flag

Timber was used extensively for housing, and as the number of migrants increased, so did the demands for

timber

Vogel’s great plan for the development of this country required significant amounts of timber to build the transport

and communication network that would underpin the economic growth. And the influx of migrants who came

under his scheme needed housing

Timber provided an economic base for many men hoping to begin farming. The money that was earned from

working in the timber industry enabled them to buy land, seed it and buy the necessary stock

Wood was exported throughout the nineteenth century – to Australia and to California

Timber was similar to gold in that it was a ‘boom-and-bust’ industry. By the end of the 1870s, much of the North

Island’s forests had been destroyed


There was little awareness of the negative impact of the exploitation of timber.

The candidate’s response to the second part of essay question could include:

The discovery of gold opened up previously unsettled areas for settlement. It led to the rapid establishment of

transport routes. At the peak of the West Coast gold rush, in 1867, there were about 29 000 people on the West

Coast, which was around 12 per cent of New Zealand’s Pākehā population. Surveyors quickly followed the

miners into new areas for settlement

Gold led to major demographic changes in New Zealand in terms of gender, ethnicity, and location. The

discovery of gold led to extensive male migration. One of the most significant consequences of the development

of the mining industry was the resulting gender imbalance in some regions of the country – particularly on the

West Coast and in Central Otago

Many of the migrants who came for gold brought positive attitudes to hard work and versatile skills. They brought

a different culture to many of the settlers with an emphasis on alcohol and gambling

At times, the goldfields were lawless. There were murders, fights, and claim-jumping. Most of the problems were

associated with alcohol. At Christmas 1865, Hokitika’s 72 pubs were packed with drunken miners. Illegal liquor

suppliers were common

Gold contributed significantly to the political dominance of the South Island during the second half of the

nineteenth century. It led to further rivalry between the provinces. The Canterbury provincial council offered £1

000 to anyone who found gold within the Canterbury province

Gold also provided an incentive for foreign investors to put money into the New Zealand economy, including the

Vogel Plan

The miners needed shelter, clothes, alcohol, entertainment, food and equipment; and entrepreneurs supplied

them with these. The entrepreneurs usually made more money than the miners

Surveyors quickly followed the gold seekers to map the land and government administration also followed

Lawlessness was largely prevented under the Gold Fields Act of 1858, which followed Australian precedents

Most of the gold went overseas, mainly to mints in Melbourne, but much of the money that was paid for it went

back into the New Zealand economy. The capital created by gold led to economic expansion in the 1870s

Gold created a sense of optimism about New Zealand’s future at a time when the North Island was experiencing

considerable racial tension and war

In 1865, Chinese, mainly from the Guangdong province, were invited to rework the Otago goldfields. They were

very meticulous. They were the first large group of non-European migrants to come to New Zealand. They were

the subjects of overt racism that culminated in a poll tax being introduced in 1881 to discourage migration. They

lived in their own settlements, such as the Lawrence Chinese Camp. Most hoped to earn enough money to return

to China, but many died in New Zealand. A large group was disinterred to be buried back in China, but the boat

carrying their bodies sank off the Hokianga in 1902

Young men working in the gum industry provided another cultural layer to society in the North. Many of these

young men married into local hapū or were able to save enough money to bring out wives from Dalamatia


The descendants of these migrants were responsible to a significant degree in the establishment of a wine

industry in this country

The timber industry played a significant role in the establishment of an infrastructure that was to unite this country

through the rail and road network, the communication network and the ports that were to expedite the exporting

of wool, meat and butter

Communities were formed where timber camps were established. The resulting availability of land for dairying

helped establish the economic and political dominance of the North Island by the end of the century

Like the gold industry, timber saw the emergence of a male culture, one based on mateship, alcohol and

community.


Essay question (e)

Explain the factors that led to the decision to establish the Royal Commission on Sweating in 1890.

Evaluate the extent to which working conditions for men, women, and children had improved by 1900.


The 1880s Depression resulted in low wages and the exploitation of women and children in manufacturing. To

survive against the competition from other New Zealand firms, manufacturing employers kept wages low and

increasingly employed women and children at lower rates than those paid to men

There were thousands of unemployed who were seeking work and surviving on very little. They were prepared to

work in poor conditions just to get employment

The lack of regulation in working conditions meant huge variations in employment conditions such as the length

of the working day, working week, time off for breaks and pay rates. Married men usually earned more than

single men, and men always earned more than women, even for the same job

Employers laid off skilled workers to employ cheaper workers, such as women and children

The Employment of Females Act 1881 was meant to regulate working conditions for women and children, but it

was impossible to enforce its provisions in the four main centres due to the difficulties of the Inspectors in

collecting evidence and evasive and uncooperative employers

In 1885 the New Zealand Trades and Labour Council denounced sweating in the clothing industry. The Council

called for the organisation of women into trade unions as a solution but nothing happened

During the economic depression of the 1880s a number of pastoralists switched their capital from farming to

textile manufacturing in order to offset falling wool prices. As a result several large textile mills sprang up around

Dunedin. Since there were high levels of unemployment amongst their men-folk, several thousand women,

whose labour was cheaper, found work in these mills

Boys were increasingly being employed to replace men especially in printing and shoemaking. Working

conditions were cramped, poorly lit, smelly, and apprenticeship contracts were broken

The Reverend Rutherford Waddell caused a sensation when he preached his sermon ‘The Sin of Cheapness’.

Waddell claimed that sweating was going on in the clothing trades of Dunedin where women were working very

long hours for very low wages. He denounced the wealthy parishioners of St Andrew’s Church, Dunedin, for their

fine Sunday clothes that they could only afford because underpaid women made them

He urged his parishioners to not commit the sin of cheapness as constant seeking of bargains only forced down

wages, causing misery to working people

He argued that sweating would be a hard problem to solve when there was unregulated competition for work and

he recommended that women workers set up a trade union

He had already established a Friendly Society to help his poorer parishioners cope with problems caused by the

Depression of the 1880s

Silas Spragg, an Otago Daily Times journalist, investigated Waddell’s allegations. He also found widespread

abuse of workers in the clothing industry, including:


- extremely low pay

- long hours

- dirty, noisy and often dangerous conditions in factories

- ‘outworkers’ worse off than factory workers.

Middle-class radicals took up the workers’ cause, and a major public controversy developed. A climate of opinion

grew during the recession that working conditions need to be reformed in order to halt the spread of ‘Old World

Evils’. “The severe depression of the 1880s created a climate in which moral panics and crusades flourished” –

Brooking

The Atkinson Government was forced by public discussion to set up a Royal Commission in January 1890 to

investigate the allegations and to examine working conditions generally in shops, wholesale and retail trading,

manufacturing and pubs. Waddell was one of the Commissioners. Evidence presented by witnesses confirmed

that there was widespread abuse of employees.


The working conditions revealed to the Royal Commission on Sweating included:

- teenage children preferred to skilled workers

- low and falling wages

- low and irregular hours

- overcrowded and unsanitary workplaces

- piecework

- work taken home to be finished off after paid time

- girls worked for nothing to learn a trade, only to be dismissed when qualified.

The lot of manual workers in New Zealand was little different from that of the hard-pressed London dockers –

Brooking

Despite this evidence, the majority report of the Commission in May 1890 didn’t agree that sweating existed!

However, a minority report by three Commissioners (Waddell, Fisher, and Allan) found abundant evidence of

sweating and recommended legislation: that factories should be registered; that children aged between 14 and

18 be limited to 48 hours of work per week; that conciliation and arbitration boards be established to hear

disputes; and that a Department of Labour be established

A Tailoresses’ Union led by Harriet Morrison was formed in Dunedin in 1889, and in Christchurch a women’s

clothing workers’ union was formed. The Tailoresses immediately succeeded in raising wages and improving

conditions. Other unions sprang up for women who worked as waitresses, boot machinists and domestic

servants. The take-home system of piecework was virtually brought to an end. Public support for the new unions

was widespread

There was less public sympathy for the problems of working men than for women and boys. However, the

Maritime Council was set up in 1889 – a federation of unskilled workers including seamen, wharfies, railwaymen,

storemen and coalminers. The Council got pulled into an Australian dispute and the Maritime Strike in 1890


occurred, but strikers capitulated and the union movement was smashed. The public and some politicians were

very critical of the strikers – industrial militancy was regarded as an old world evil on par with sweating

In Dunedin, a small Labour Party was established, which ran ordinary working men as parliamentary candidates

for the first time – five of these men won seats in the 1890 election

The sweating scandals of the 1880s had a significant impact on the Liberal Government’s policies, with William

Pember Reeves passing a mass of laws between 1891 and 1894 to improve the lot of labouring people. Reeves’

new system also revitalised the shattered union movement – he actively encouraged the formation of new unions

to avoid the trauma of 1890 strikes

The series of labour acts for which Reeves was responsible gave New Zealand probably the most extensive

system of labour regulations in the world. He believed that there should be 'a very large extension of the

functions of the State', and that such an extension was a form of socialism.


The labour reforms were subsequently introduced by the Liberal Government in the early 1890s based on the

recommendations of the Royal Commission:

- Truck Act 1891 – this forced employers to pay wages in cash and give up the practice of paying workers

in kind

- Establishment of the Department of Labour 1892 – this organisation sent inspectors into factories to see

that the Factories Act was being obeyed and to help people find employment

- Factories Act 1894 – this decreed that no children under 14 were to be employed, and children under 15

could be employed only if they had passed an education test. The maximum hours to be worked by women

and children were 48 per week. (Restricted hours for women, girls and boys, set holiday entitlement, health

and safety measures)

- Shipping and Seamen’s Amendment Act 1894 – this cut penalties for breaches in discipline, improved

sanitary provisions, and set the proportion of skilled seamen necessary in ships at sea

- Shops and Shop Assistants Act 1894 – Reeves had to face much opposition before this Act was passed, but

it had a huge impact on New Zealand shopping hours, resulting in the closure of almost all shops from midday

on Saturday morning until Monday morning

- Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1894 – this bill introduced compulsory arbitration in industrial

disputes – probably the first such provision in the world. This measure sought to facilitate the peaceful

settlement of industrial disputes and encourage the formation of Industrial Unions and Associations. Reeves

wanted 'a kindly solution' to the industrial disputes, which arose from 'the natural warfare between classes'.

That was a socialist remark, but his act brought disputes before a court, which was not a socialist strategy. The

act created district Boards of Conciliation and a Court of Arbitration. To get an award from the court, workers

were required to form unions and employers to recognise them. It met little resistance. Most unionists

supported it; most employers opposed it, but were too weak politically to prevent its passage. There was little

industrial trouble in the country at the time, and it seems unlikely that it would have been passed but for

Reeves’ persistence. The act led to a rapid rise in the number of trade unions (although most were weak).

There were no strikes in New Zealand for the following ten years and the system lasted for 79 years

The impact of the sweating issue was considerable in the short term, but it largely went away with the Liberal

laws and improved economic conditions from 1895

Brooking – Waddell’s sermon was “the most influential sermon in New Zealand history”.


Essay question (f)

Explain the factors that led to the decision to extend the franchise to women in 1893.

Evaluate the extent to which this decision, by 1900, had brought the political, economic, and social equality

with men that women had campaigned for.


The limited and changing roles of women led to a desire amongst some women for greater independence and

equality towards the end of the century. The desire found expression in the women’s suffrage campaign

The valuable contribution of women in marriage and to their family in New Zealand gave women greater

independence in colonial society. Women had different roles because New Zealand was such a young, raw

frontier society with a weaker class structure and because farming areas were isolated and had to be self-

sufficient

Women were disadvantaged in a number of different ways:

- In 1870, women couldn’t vote, serve on a jury, or own property if married; yet, they could be arrested on

suspicion of prostitution

- Other issues for women were equal pay for equal work, the divorce laws and legal disabilities, and gender

issues such as male alcohol consumption and male violence

- Colonial women also faced a number of unsettling circumstances and problems such as:

- Health problems – diseases and problems with childbirth, physically hard work

- Personal danger from male alcoholism, violence, prostitution

- Social problems such as disorder, poverty, law and order issues and unemployment

- Relationship breakdowns such as desertion, sexual double standards.

Women experienced much discrimination in New Zealand during the 1800s. The marriage laws were

discriminatory and unequal, but they gradually changed in women’s favour during the latter part of the century:

- Deserted wives gained the right to their wages and property in 1860

- Married women had no control of property that they brought to a marriage or of their wages before the Married

Women’s Property Act 1884 gave them the same rights as their husbands in these areas

- Until 1898, the Divorce Laws made it much easier for a man to divorce his wife than it was for a woman to

divorce her husband. Wives could divorce their husbands only for aggravated adultery.

The Contagious Diseases Act of 1869 legislated for the arrest, inspection for venereal disease, and incarceration

of women suspected of being prostitutes. Their male clients were not inspected. This law was regarded by

women as a blatant example of sexual double standards and sexual discrimination

Women did much unpaid domestic work in the 19th century. Paid employment was usually lower-paid work, with

many women working as servants or in farming and later in factories

The Education Act of 1877 made schooling compulsory for boys and girls, but the curriculum prepared girls for

the domestic sphere and girls’ participation was less than boys’. Girls often started primary school later and


withdrew earlier. The first woman university graduate was Kate Edger who graduated BA in 1877; about half of

the Arts students at Canterbury University College in the 1890s were women

There were clear boundaries to women’s independence in 19th century Pākehā society, and as a consequence

increasing questioning by some women of their limited roles

A female culture emerged in the main centres, which had more women and older women than in the smaller

towns and rural areas. Problems such as drunkenness affecting women were more visible in the main centres

Middle class women especially wanted greater independence and equality and this found expression in a social

mobilisation of some, but not all, women in the latter 19th century – women moving beyond the family and raising

feminist issues

The women’s franchise campaign in New Zealand began in the 1850s after some articles were written by Mary

Muller from Nelson, but the debate really escalated after Sir George Grey’s Government advocated women’s

franchise in the late 1870s. The “woman question” was the subject of articles and debates in the 1860s and

1870s. Mary Ann Muller (Femina), Mary Taylor, and Mary Colclough (Polly Plum) were key writers about

women’s rights. In particular, they focused on the injustices of inequalities between women and men before the

law and within the constitution

1850–1900 saw some challenging of women’s roles, eg some questioning of women’s subordinate position in

marriage, arguing for schools for girls, establishing cycling clubs, women entering the paid workforce, women’s

trade unions (Tailoresses Union), the emergence of the Rational Dress Movement

In 1875, women ratepayers were granted a vote in local body elections; and from 1877, they could sit on school

committees. In 1882, women won the right to vote for licensing committees; in 1884, the Married Women’s

Property Act enabled married women to own property in their own right; previously all of a woman’s property

passed to her husband on marriage. In 1885, women won the right to vote for hospital and Charitable Aid Boards

The founding of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) in 1884. Concerns over alcohol abuse

advanced the programme for prohibition and temperance. Initially, this was a temperance organisation, but soon

the vote for women became one of its major goals. Securing the vote for women could be used to pass

prohibition laws through Parliament

In 1891, Kate Sheppard essentially turned the WCTU into a single-issue pressure group that dominated the

franchise campaign. The WCTU organised letters, public meetings, deputations and nationwide petitions to

publicise issues and put pressure on male politicians, and a major controversy resulted. The suffrage movement

was supported by a number of important MPs such as Robert Stout and John Hall

In 1892, the Women’s Franchise League (WFL) was formed. A WFL petition in 1893 had 30 000 signatures

Women’s suffrage was finally won in 1893, resulting in the entry of women into political sphere.


Success of female suffrage by 1900 – 78 percent of women registered for the 1893 election and 85 percent

(90 000) of these voted. Only 70 percent of men on the roll voted. The Liberal Government was elected

In the 1893 election, 65% of all women over 21 voted


Women did largely vote conservatively but there was no clear evidence of a major political shift brought about by

female voting patterns. Women generally voted in similar ways to men, but male politicians did start to take note

of issues concerning women and families

Women were not granted the right to stand for parliament (this right wasn’t granted until 1919), and most of the

suffrage campaigners had not been interested in pursuing this idea in the nineteenth century. Some, such as

Annie Schnackenberg, specifically opposed women’s becoming MPs because she felt the parliamentary process

would be too corrupting. (The first woman MP was Elizabeth McCombs in 1933 – she was elected after the

sudden death of her husband)

After the first meeting of the Parliament of Women in 1896, the National Council of the Women of New Zealand

was established to continue the fight for women’s rights in New Zealand, which resulted in a broadening of

women’s rights, and the passing of humanitarian laws in areas such as care of children and prison reform. Many

of the key suffrage campaigners joined this organisation, and the WCTU was the first women’s group to affiliate

Women became politically active in groups such as the Society for the Protection of Women and Children

Some of the Liberal party’s legislation passed after 1893 was probably attributable to the influence of women as

voters. Such legislation included changes to divorce laws and the age of consent

The Married Women’s Property Act gave women greater equality, but they still had fewer rights than men.

The Contagious Diseases Act stayed on the statute books. (The Repeal Act wasn’t passed until 1910, and it is

arguable that this may not have happened at this time had women not won the vote)

Towards the end of the century, some women made it in the workplace despite the patriarchal society (eg Kate

Edger, Elizabeth Yates, and Ethel Benjamin entering professions); but the majority of women were in a limited

range of jobs, most of which were related to their accepted domestic roles

There was an appearance of the ‘new woman’ – dress reform and the wider use of bicycles by women.

ncea level 3 history (90657) 2012 assessment schedule · web viewthe governing class tended to...

Documents