ouaP. 111] TREATMENT OF NATIVE RACES 1063 
in the habit of stealing and killing the cattle of the settlers ; 
to the settlers this meant ruin, and this position was serious 
for the individual settler. If, therefore, his conduct towards 
the native was often absolutely inexcusable, it must be realized 
that he was in a difficult position, and that he often seemed 
to have no option between allowing himself to be ruined 
or punishing the natives in the most brutal manner, 
and he might rest fairly secure that whatever action he 
did would be condoned or made little of by a jury of 
his neighbours, who, like himself, were exposed to native 
depredations. 
The Native Department as constituted did not work 
satisfactorily. The Governor, indeed, had full control of it, 
and a sum of £5,000 was placed at his absolute disposal for 
the benefit of the natives. The sum was wholly inadequate 
if anything substantial were to be done for them. If nothing 
substantial were to be done it was hardly worth while 
making provision. Moreover, the Government resented 
the condemnation of their authority, and took care not to 
s0-operate with the proposals of the Governor. The position 
was always unsatisfactory, as creating the feeling by the 
Government that they were not wholly in the confidence of 
the Governor, and they alleged that the division of authority 
was as injurious to the natives and the aborigines as it was 
inconvenient and derogatory to the dignity of the Colonial 
Qovernment. An Act (No. 37) to amend the Constitution 
in this regard, brought in in 1894, was reserved and did not 
receive the royal assent. At last Sir John Forrest, in 1897, 
on the occasion of the Colonial Conference of that year, in- 
duced the Secretary of State for the Colonies to consent that 
the Department should cease to remain independent of the 
Colonial Government and it should fall under that control 
in the ordinary way! It was urged by Sir John Forrest 
among other things that the feeling in the Colony was 
* See Parl, Pap., C. 8350. The Act of 1897 (No. 5) was not duly pro- 
slaimed when assented to under the Act of 1842, and so it was re-enacted 
with modification in 1905 (No. 14), and this Act—on the whole excellent — 
has been amended in 1911 (No. 43).