assuming that Rutherford wished to escape detection, he took the very best course to defeat his object. Whatever Rutherford’s object may have been, and whether he deceived the author and pub lisher of “The New Zealanders,” or merely erred through ignorance and lack of observation, there is no doubt that he spent some years with the Maoris in the northern part of New Zealand. His tattooed face is sufficient evidence of that. The pattern is the Maori “moko.” The tat tooing on his breast, stomach, and arms, however, is not the work of Maoris; that was done, probably, by natives at some of the islands, or by sailors. I hardly think that those who read the narrative will agree with Bishop Williams’s opinion that it is “a mere romance.” It is more like the story of an ignorant, unobservant, care less sailor, who entertained no idea that any importance would be attached to his statements. Many mistakes were probably made in the work of dictating the narrative to a fellow-sailor. If Rutherford had been bent upon making a romantic story, he would have told it in a different form. There is no straining after effect in the manuscript reproduced by Craik. The faults are inaccuracies, not exaggerations. Some excuse may be found for Rutherford’s mistakes in the description of the battle Te Ika- a-rangi-nui in the fact that modern Maori scholars cannot agree on important details,