CHAPTER XXXIV. Mr. Henry Sewell
[Image of page 252]
CHAPTER XXXIV
One of the band of the early Canterbury colonists who may be almost spoken of as a pilgrim of the pilgrims, from his long and intimate connection with the Association at home and with the settlement in the colony, was the late Mr. Henry Sewell. He was present at the very important meeting of the first promoters of the movement, held in London on the 25th April, 1850, when he moved the following resolution: "That this meeting do constitute itself into a body to be called the 'Society of Canterbury Colonists,' and that the following rules, &c, be adopted by the Society." This was the beginning of his long and close connection with the newly-organised Society and settlement--a connection which lasted up to the very end of its operations.
When the Canterbury settlement ceased to exist, the territory included within its boundaries, as well as a large area outside of those limits, was constituted a province under the Constitution Act. Mr. Sewell's name is to be found on the list of early purchasers of land in the settlement. To have been included in that first list, and to have "come over" with Godley the conqueror, and the founder of the settlement of Canterbury, will be spoken of hundreds of years hence with as much satisfaction and pride by the descendants of these old pilgrims as old families in the old country derive from the consciousness that their ancestors crossed the English Channel with William the Conqueror. By the way, speaking of Godley as the "founder" of Canterbury, I find in one of Gibbon Wakefield's letters that the notion of designating Mr. Godley as the "founder" of Canterbury seems to have emanated from Mr. Adderley. Wakefield, in writing to him about this time, says, "I most entirely agree with you about a mark of distinction for Godley. It is a bright thought, and must be worked into a fact;" adding, "The respect and affection borne to Godley by his friends should be somehow expressed." The appointment of Mr. Sewell by the committee of management to the position of deputy-chairman of the Canterbury settlement seemed to have given Gibbon Wakefield the liveliest satisfaction. He speaks
[Image of page 253]
of him as a "conscientious and able man of business, of high character, with his heart in the thing as an intending colonist." In writing further of him to the Bishop of Norwich, he says: "I am induced to mention--First, that Mr, Sewell is now--that is, in Lord Fyttelton's absence--more than anybody else, the Canterbury Association itself; secondly, that his acceptance of the position of deputy-chairman of the committee of management has provided the corporation for the first time with a capable, trusted, and responsible officer, which it has all along, since Mr. Godley's departure for Canterbury, very much needed; thirdly, that I have had the best means of estimating Mr. Sewell's character and talents from boyhood till now, though I only knew him through the colonising business; and fourthly, that I have learned by degrees and experience to believe that he is highly gifted with acuteness, circumspection, judgment, industry, elevation of view, and refinement of taste--all governed by strong conscientiousness and a single-minded, unambitious wish for the schemes for the success of the work he has undertaken from love of it. This," said he, "is a very high character, but I really believe not above the truth, and my means of forming an opinion, have been as good as could be." In a letter to Mr. Sewell himself, he told him that he was "a real treasure," and that his connection with the Association had saved it "from going to perdition."
Not long after this Mr. Sewell came to Canterbury, where--as everyone who lived in those days knows--he practised his profession, and took an active part at the same time in the work of legislation in the General Assembly. Mr. Sewell arrived in the settlement in 1852 or 1853, having come out charged with the responsible duty of winding up the affairs of the Association and transferring its functions and property. He was in the first Parliament called together in 1854, sitting as the representative of Christchurch; and in the early days was one of the representatives in the Provincial Council of Canterbury, and when not holding a seat therein and resident in Christ-church, was often seen hovering about the Speakers chair, if not prompting a member in close proximity to him, encouraging one who was addressing the Council by his intelligent and sympathetic nod.
In the first Ministry formed under the Constitution Act at the session of 1854, he held office, FitzGerald being Premier. In his time, he belonged to many Ministries, sometimes representing the Government in the Legislative Council, at other times to be found in
[Image of page 254]
the House of Representatives. This first Ministry consisted of Messrs. FitzGerald, Weld, Sewell, and Bartley. One of the items in their policy or programme was to make the Legislative Council elective, but as the life of the Ministry was suddenly cut short, that important change in the Constitution was not even discussed in the House. I am writing now of thirty years ago, and of a proposal which Parliament has not yet been seriously moved to adopt. When the public have realised that the Legislative Council is non-representative and an obstacle to progressive legislation, they will no doubt demand that it be reformed off the face of the Legislature. The men of whom this administration consisted have, all their political life, been catalogued as "conservatives." If there be any merit in the proposal to do away with the principle of nomination in its application to the Legislative Council, it is, to be awarded to these men of conservative tendencies.
At this first session of Parliament, the large question of "ministerial responsibility" was very fully discussed, divided upon, and so far as it rested with the representatives of the people, disposed of Both sides of the question--if indeed there be two sides to it--were ably represented. All that was fitting to be said by its advocates was eloquently urged; all that was ingenious, catching, and plausible, as persistently dwelt upon by the other side. The two men who stood out conspicuously in this debate were Mr. Sewell and Mr. Gibbon Wakefield--Sewell representing "ministerial responsibility," and Wakefield opposing its adoption under the then circumstances of the colony. These "giants of old in battle array" were not ill-matched, and what made the encounter the more interesting was that they had so recently been warm friends. They were certainly now travelling different roads. Sewell spoke of the position of the representatives in the General Assembly as that of hungry guests invited to a banquet, but that they were waiting for the dishes. It was well said by another that the longer the representatives in Parliament were denied the constitutional right of ministerial responsibility, the less fit would they be to exercise the powers conveyed; and further, that the framers of the Act must have intended that the principle of ministerial responsibility should be adopted in the working of Parliamentary government. They never could have so far stultified themselves as to send out to the colony a complicated piece of machinery without sending the key to wind it up and set it in motion, unless they wished the representatives to
[Image of page 255]
forge the key for themselves. Representative institutions without ministerial responsibility would indeed be the play of "Hamlet" without the part,--degenerating from drama into farce. Upon this question the FitzGerald Ministry, though supported by a majority in the House, resigned. They were followed by a Ministry composed of E. Jerningham Wakefield, Forsaith, Travers, and Macandrew. This Ministry lived only twenty-four hours.
In the following session, 1855, Mr. Sewell headed a Ministry. This was succeeded by a Fox administration. After that came the Stafford Ministry, composed of Stafford, Weld, Richmond, Whitaker, Sewell, and Tancred.
The following graphic portrait of Mr. Sewell in Parliament is taken from a Wellington newspaper, and was written twenty-eight years ago. "There's Sewell: you have seen him before with his broad square head, and his good-natured practical face. He snuffs like a Scotchman, and not unfrequently will break off in the middle of a speech, and on finding the three boxes before him all empty will cross the House to where sits Dr. Lee to borrow his box for the rest of the day. He is a pleasant level, persuasive speaker, but apt to be too diffuse; and when not warmed up he has a knack of hesitating and repeating his words. He has a good deal of pugnacity. Can hit hard and take punishment with good humour. A sure sign of pluck, and one which is sadly wanting in many others. He is adroit in debate, and quick in reply. The great defect of his mind seems to be an incapacity to adopt a decided cause. Always endeavouring to split the difference, as Fitzherbert said of him; 'he seems,' said he, 'to have been born a bankruptcy lawyer whose business is to induce men to accept 10s. in the £.' Serious as such a mental defect is in discussion, it must be far worse in practice. He can be dictatorial at times, and was so in his three hours' speech the other night; but after he had experience of what was called the 'long tongue and sharp tooth' of his opponents, he sang homreopathically smaller, and towards its close 'he drew it mild' indeed. There is no doubt, however, that Sewell is the best man of his party: superior to Whitaker even, though the latter seems to have thrown his lasso over his head, and pulled the wool over his eyes pretty effectively in some cases, particularly in the question of Native management."
A good story was told in old days in connection with his snuff-taking. Dr. Featherston, at that time leader of the Opposition to
[Image of page 256]
Sewell's Government, one night noticed that he had no snuff-box within reach. In a mischievous mood he said to his neighbour "now see if I don't bring Sewell across the House to take a pinch of snuff out of my box." Bowing and advancing towards him with box in hand he attracted Sewell's attention, who was gently drawn to the opposite side of the House. He took a pinch of snuff, and in a fit of absence of mind sat down by the side of his opponent. And not only sat down, but rose up to speak before making the discovery that he had joined the Opposition.
I remember hearing Mr. Sewell speak when a candidate for the representation of Christchurch in the General Assembly. He was opposed at that time by Mr. Michael Brennan Hart. On one side stood the old parliamentarian, a seasoned debater, full of facts and finance, loaded to the muzzle with things not generally known, and ready to go off at the slightest touch, smiling with a consciousness of superiority; and on the other side sat his opponent, who was spoken of as a fluent talker, but who was utterly inexperienced in New Zealand politics; had everything to learn, and seemed on this occasion only too pleased to allow Mr. Sewell to have first say; a privilege and an opportunity that he made the most of. His speech was most comprehensive; worthy of the occasion, and of himself. He dealt lengthily and effectively with all political questions, great and small; spoke of past laws, present laws, and laws that ought to have been passed, with such fulness and confidence that his friend on the other side listened with astonishment, and looked as though he wondered at the comprehensive list of acquirements that seemed essential in a legislator. Such a political dust was raised by this veteran in the service of the country, that his opponent seemed utterly unable to penetrate the thick darkness; and when at last his turn to speak came, he contented himself with saying, in as few words as possible, "Electors of Christchurch, we have heard an exhaustive speech by Mr. Sewell, a man of great experience, and of uncommon abilty. He has exhibited powers that I have no pretention to. He is well-informed on the politics of the country, I am not. He is a speaker, I am not. He has antecedents, I have not; but if you elect me your representative in Parliament I will take all opportunities that come in my way to qualify myself for the position, and be your very obedient servant." The result was that Mr. Sewell was elected. I suppose good judges would have spoken of him as more of a debater
[Image of page 257]
than an orator. He was, however, on occasions a tower of strength to a ministry; was spoken of as a good constitutional lawyer, and had an appetite for work that few men were blessed with. His many speeches on many subjects whilst in the General Assembly, both in the House of Representatives and in the Legislative Council would seem to prove that he was ambitious of being regarded as knowing something of everything. Although of an impetuous nature, and quickly answering to the touch of an opponent, he never could be accused of personalities, or of attempts to "hit below the belt." It was, however, rather a mistake to attack him; for he was not only fully armed, and well able to defend himself and his measures, but it gave him an opportunity of talking himself into the right when he seemed to be wrong. Outside of the House he was always the same--courteous and ever ready to pour forth the treasures of his mind into the ears of willing listeners.
Those who knew him well speak of his versatility with an active, ingenious, unstable mind. That in politics he was naturally a constitution-monger, and was most useful to his political friends from the suggestiveness of his ever new ideas; but very dangerous to them from his changeableness. Without an idea of creating difficulties or doing his colleagues wrong, he would sometimes bring a a ministry to the verge of shipwreck soon after he had joined it by some unexpected vagary. His speeches, like his conversation, were always interesting and full of originality. But he was often hesitating and irresolute as to the true course to pursue. A little too much given to speaking out his thoughts before they were matured; and too fond of speculating upon possibilities before the House; but when he was hard pushed to defend himself he was often eloquent. I once heard a man say of him that he was really at his best when he was forced back into a corner with his hat knocked over his eyes, and that he would be the better for fighting a man of his own weight every morning before breakfast.
He had very cultivated literary tastes, and was always ready to talk about his favourite authors. He knew his Horace by heart, and his paraphrases of odes or epistles of Horace were sometimes very happy. They were often at the expense of local politicians, who pointed the moral in place of their old Roman antitypes. Some of his friends may remember his version of Bretus ilk qui procul negotiis beginning thus--
[Image of page 258]
"Happy the man whose habitation
Is up the country at his station."
Those appreciated him most who knew him most intimately. He was never dull or seemed uninterested in public affairs or current literature; and when he became vehement on some political question on which you thought him wrong-headed, he could be diverted into another channel by the criticism of a favourite author.
He was once concerned in a case before the Magistrate's Court, where some question as to the custody of the Canterbury Association's seal was raised. When asked outside the Court how the seal case was going, he replied, Fiat justitia, ruat coelum.
Like many another man he had his weaknesses, which brought him down to the level of ordinary mortals--an admitted one, being his inveterate habit of punning; but if punning be ever becoming he made it so by his successful attempts in that line. His play upon words, his readiness of repartee, were really remarkable; but smart sayings and happy hits are a little difficult to reproduce on paper, are apt to be spoilt, to lose their bloom in the handling. That saying, "First a man gets on; then he gets onner (honour), and then he gets onnest (honest)," is to be put down to his credit. In the very early days when footpaths about Christchurch were fringed with tutu bushes bearing fruit abundantly, little boys were foolish enough to pluck the beautiful berries and eat them. A little fellow whose name was "Richard" ate of the fruit, grew sick, but recovered. When the punster heard of it he said, "Ah well, if the little chap had died, there was an epitaph all ready for him. 'Decus et tutamen--Dick has ate toot (tutu). Amen.' "
