The New Zealand War of 1860: an Inquiry into its Origin and Justice

First published by W. Tweedie in 1861

Digitised and made available online by the University of Auckland Libraries and Learning Services and Auckland War Memorial Museum.

Epub © 2015 Early New Zealand Books Collection

ISBN 978-0-9941200-5-2

[TITLE PAGE]

THE NEW ZEALAND WAR OF 1860;

AN INQUIRY
INTO
ITS ORIGIN AND JUSTICE,

TOGETHER WITH SOME REMARKS ON THE
LAND QUESTION,
IN RELATION TO THE NATIVES.

Copied, with additions, from the "Colonial Intelligencer;" the organ of the Aborigines' Protection Society.

PUBLISHED BY W. TWEEDIE, 337, STRAND.

Price, One Shilling.

[CONTENTS]

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. – Colonization: the land question and the natives.....3

II. – What the Missionaries say of the New Zealand war... 27

III. – An inquiry into the origin of the war ........ 34

CHAPTER I. COLONIZATION: THE LAND QUESTION AND THE NATIVES.

NEW ZEALAND.

CHAPTER I.

COLONIZATION: THE LAND QUESTION AND THE NATIVES.

THERE is no portion of the globe which has stronger claims upon the notice of the Aborigines' Protection Society than New Zealand. The group of islands known by this name, being nearly our exact antipodes, and occupying in the south temperate zone a position almost equally advantageous with that which we hold in the northern, has started into existence as a British colony a few years later than the formation of the Society. The preliminary proceedings – the first steps of the New Zealand Company have passed before our eyes. The individuals who have taken part in the work have been well known to the members of the Society. Professions calculated to raise hope and sanguine expectation have been sounded in our ears. The tokens of friendship were exhibited in a manner which might well inspire confidence, and encourage the idea that the brightest anticipations were well founded. But the Society could not close its eyes to the valid reasons for doubt. With no hostile feelings it expressed its fears and forebodings, and placed them on record, and already may they be appealed to as prophecies accomplished.

The acts of the Government, the progress of colonists, the labours of missionaries, the conduct of the natives, have been attentively watched, and the published papers and official memorials which the Society has from time to time produced, must abundantly testify that it has spared no pains to avert the coming evils. So long as well-filled emigrant vessels continued to depart from our coasts – so long as the colonists reported well of the climate, and sent home flax, spars, wool, gum, and gold, to pay for the growing orders for British manufactures – New Zealand was regarded as a sort of pattern colony, and a most attractive home for enterprising Englishmen, who felt that the thickly-peopled land of their birth afforded no adequate scope for their exertions. Few, if any, of the emigrants reflected that the home which they sought, was already the home of a brave and high-spirited people. The exaggerated stories of ancient cannibalism were almost forgotten. The labours of missionaries had been crowned with success, and the natives themselves had taken the work out of their hands, and, acting as voluntary teachers, had introduced Christian faith and Christian practice also, where the face of a white man had never been seen. The Government claimed no conquests, and scrupulously avoided making enemies. Its agents had skillfully managed to persuade

the Maories – for so the natives are called – to recognise the sovereignty of the Queen of England, and to believe that they lost nothing but the shadow of their land, the possession and control of which, with its concomitant privileges, were to be effectually secured to them, in conjunction with the honour and substantial benefits of British citizenship. If any reliance is to be placed in the successive accounts which have been given of the friendly reception which the natives have offered to the colonists, of their disposition to adopt European habits, of their readinesss to take part in obtaining the productions of the country, and of their willingness to bring their labour into the market, it would seem that no other race has offered so many facilities for the establishment of a British colony on truly Christian principles. A succession of lamentable occurrences, commencing almost with the existence of the colony, have abundantly exhibited the real character of the colonizing race. It is sufficient to mention the prices paid for land, not only by individual colonists, but even by the agents of the New-Zealand Company, who obtained large blocks of land on terms which the natives could not comprehend and which the officers of the Crown could not sustain – the payment of native labour with damaged flour, 1 under the authority, but we would hope without the cognizance, of Governor Hobson – the violent trespass on native land, with a view to forcible occupation at the Wairoa, which led to the sanguinary conflict miscalled a massacre, when the Christian natives displayed their virtue and intrepidity, and the pagans maintained their rights – the attempts to set aside the treaty of Waitangi, and the effort to establish a constitution founded on its violation – and, not to notice other acts of minor importance, we need only add, the ultimate adoption of a constitution by which the hopes of the persistence of the native race may be said to be almost destroyed. The pages of the "Aborigines' Friend" contain a brief narration of the leading events which, during the last few years, have affected the prospects of the native New Zealanders.

The chief subject of regret in the New Zealand constitution was the comparative neglect of those portions of the islands which remained in the possession of the natives, whilst the colonized portions were formed into separate provinces, having a regular democratic organization.

Much might be said on the reasons assigned for this omission, as well as on the evils which were foreseen as its consequences; but we forbear to enter on these subjects, as it is more to our purpose to notice the occurrences which have actually taken place.

Notwithstanding the care which the government officials have for the most part successfully taken to preserve the loyalty of the natives, the Maories have not failed to perceive the false position

in which they stood, neither retaining the efficiency of their native laws, nor participating in the benefits enjoyed by the settlers as British Colonial subjects. With a hope of correcting this state of things, the idea of proclaiming a native king was started and encouraged by a faction of the natives. It was again and again discussed in a manner which certainly reflects considerable credit on the native character, and it is impossible not to admire the steadiness of their loyalty, which rendered a large majority true to the Queen's authority, and there can be little doubt that had this feeling been properly cultivated by rigid regard to justice and the exact performance of promises on the part of our countrymen, this feeling would still have predominated, and peace remained unbroken, instead of which we have to lament collisions which have taken place, in which blood has been shed on both sides, and a spirit of mutual hostility has been excited, which it must be extremely difficult either to subdue or to appease.

We are sincerely desirous to place before our readers a strictly truthful, but concise statement of these transactions, which we have endeavoured to collect from official papers ordered to be printed by Parliament, from statements sanctioned by the best clerical or missionary authority, and from the direct communications of individuals of the highest respectability, and possessed of the most unquestionable means of acquiring information.

In New Zealand, as in most other colonies in which an aboriginal race was already in existence, the acquisition of land for the use of the colonists has been the most serious ground of dispute. The British Government, in the name of the Queen, has reserved to itself the exclusive privilege of acquiring land from the natives, whose right of proprietorship was most emphatically acknowledged by the treaty of Waitangi, notwithstanding the attempts which were made to evade its terms. The reason assigned for the retention of this right of purchase by the Government was to secure the natives from injury, to which their ignorance might expose them at the hands of fraudulent purchasers; and it in some degree justified this plea by setting aside some purchases in which this kind of fraud had obviously been committed, but at the same time it exposed its own transactions to the like condemnation by the small price which it paid to the natives, and by the exorbitant increase of price which it claimed on the resale, from ten shillings to a pound an acre being added to the original price, which has ranged from a mite to about eighteenpence an acre. It is not surprising that the colonists should take advantage of this fact to call the proceedings of the Government in respect to land sales to account, and in doing so they may easily appear to be advocating the cause of justice, and assume the character of the defenders of the natives' rights. Though we would hope that in some instances New-Zealand colonists may have faithfully appeared in this character, a careful examination of their words and conduct indicates that the suspicions entertained by the Government were too well

founded. The extracts which we are about to give will prove the correctness of these statements. To render them intelligible to the reader, we must premise, that with the avowed object of putting the transfer of land from the natives to the colonists upon an improved footing, certain acts were proposed by the Colonial Government, and submitted to the governor for the purpose of being sent to England for the sanction of the Queen's Government. Without attempting to enter into all the particulars of these acts, it will suffice to state that there was one signal principle running through the whole of them as a most important element, namely, that the regulations affecting the natives were no longer to remain the exclusive prerogative of the Governor acting on behalf of the Crown, but to rest with him conjointly with the colonial ministers, the representatives of the colonized districts exclusively.

This violation of the rights of the unrepresented natives was ably exposed by the Governor in his despatch which accompanied the proposed acts. The question was thoroughly comprehended by Lord Carnarvon, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, when the despatch was received, and his reply contains an able answer to the demands of the colonists. Besides these documents, the Blue Book in which they are published 2 contains the reports of interesting discussions conducted by the colonists, and important letters from ecclesiastical and civil officials, whose position and experience entitle them to the highest consideration.

Although it is to be deeply regretted that some of the extracts which we are about to cite are discreditable to our countrymen, we must again repeat that which we have often protested – that we are actuated by no party motives to lead us to the disparagement of any one; and whilst it is due to the cause of the weak and uncivilized to place their wrongs in the light of truth, we would not withhold praise from any governor, or fail to recognise, as regards our colonized countrymen, either the humanity and sense of justice which they may at times display, or the sufferings and various trials of patience which, in their new and distant homes, they may have to endure. We shall commence with those passages from the pen of the Governor, which shew how clearly he has viewed the question stated by the Ministers of the Colonial Cabinet.

"It is needless, therefore, to say that, in asking for local self-government, the colonists did not demand the right of governing any but those who would possess, through their representatives, the right to share in it. Nothing more was ever conceded. But on the contrary, on granting responsible government in Her Majaesty's name, I excepted the right of governing the natives, and my so doing was approved by Her Majesty's Government, and acceded to by the Assembly. – P. 18.

"If the right to govern ceases to depend upon that of representation, the Maories might demand that the Government should be transferred to them, as being, especially in the Northern Island, greatly in the numerical majority. To say that they are savages and have no rights, but should be made hewers of

wood and drawers of water, admits of an easy extension in the same direction, viz. that of reducing them to slavery, which might be done with equal reason on the same plea. The government of aboriginals is not conceded to the representatives of the civilized races, either in British America or in other British colonies. If it were so, the English residents in Ceylon, or even in India, might reasonably claim to govern the coloured population of those countries." – New-Zealand Papers. Governor's Despatch. P. 18.

"The expediency of subjecting the management of native affairs to the control of responsible ministers (which is inferred throughout the memorandum) is based upon the assumption that the interests of the natives may be safely confided to the colonists; but this is an assumption not borne out by experience. – Despatch, p. 18.

"In return for great pecuniary advantages, the Colonial Government is bound to take paternal care of the welfare and for the civilization of the native race. " – P. 27.

"My views on the subject are approved by persons whose opinions on questions affecting the natives are entitled to the greatest respect I have, therefore, the less hesitation in requesting that this Bill may not be recommended for Her Majesty's gracious assent." – Gov. Browne, p. 64.

We may easily infer what were the authorities to which Governor Browne refers, from the statement which he previously made.

"For a collection of these authorities 3 I (Governor Browne) am much indebted to Mr. Martin, late Chief Justice of this colony, whose name is never mentioned without respect, either by native or European, and whose experience and intimate acquaintance with the Maories cause him to be recognised as an undisputed authority in every thing relating to them. – New-Zealand Papers, p. 18

The Governor also cites the statement of H. Merivale, of the Colonial Office, which fully acknowledges the proprietorship and territorial rights of the New Zealanders, as well as that this admission by the British Government was an exception in its general conduct to Aborigines.

The opinion of the Governor, as to the objectionable character of the Bill, is supported by that of other competent judges. D. M'Lean, the Native Secretary, says in relation to it –

"If true of the two races that their interests are one, how much more so of the colonists as a whole; yet it will be hardly maintained that the inhabitants of any three of the New-Zealand provinces would submit to a Government chosen by the remaining three." – P. 51.

That D. M'Lean made this remark without any unkind feeling to the Colonists, may be inferred from the comparison which he suggests, as well as from the admission which he makes in the following extracts –

"It must be admitted that the most harmonious relations now subsist between the races; and full credit should be given to the settlers for their good intentions and friendly feelings towards the natives. It is believed, however, that with every wish on the part of their representatives to promote the interests of the aborigines, when not supposed to involve a compromise of their own, serious inconvenience would ensue from conceding to them entire control over the management of native affairs." – D. McLean, p. 54.

"I have had frequent occasion to explain to them (the natives) their relations with the British Government, in order to remove from their minds various fears and apprehensions as to the ultimate consequences of the alienation of their territory and extension of English settlement. In doing so I have always impressed upon them that their interests are in the hands of the Queen of England, with whom their welfare, equally with that of her European subjects, is an object of solicitude. The introduction of changes in the system of government, taken in connexion with the views expressed by His Excellency's responsible advisers, on native policy, appear to involve a delegation of the relations subsisting between the British Government and the New Zealanders, which, in justice to the latter, I conceive should not take place without their concurrence." – D. M'Lean, p. 55.

The opinions of the Bishop of New Zealand, and of the late Attorney-General, are strongly corroborative of that of the Governor.

"In answer to your Excellency's inquiry in the course of our conversation on Monday last, I have no hesitation in again expressing my conviction that it is consistent neither with justice nor sound policy that the New Zealanders should be governed by a ministry in no way responsible to them, and deriving its power from a legislative body in which they are not represented." – Bishop of New Zealand, p. 112.

"Though it has repeatedly been declared that the Imperial Government would not be justified in abdicating the responsibilities which rest on it, with regard to the aboriginal native race, yet, when the principle of ministerial responsibility was introduced into the government of the colony, no guarantee was provided for their special government by the Crown; but if the influence of Her Majesty's representative is to be maintained amongst them, it is essential that he should have the power and the means of promoting their interests, independently of, and uncontrolled by, the responsible ministry. I believe that the Governor, if invested with the power and the means befitting his position, may exercise almost unbounded influence over the natives; and it appears to me to be expedient for the interests of both races, and essential to the peaceable occupation of the country, that his prestige should be carefully maintained, and that his administrative powers, so far as native interests are immediately concerned, should be free and uncontrolled." – W. Swainson, late Attorney-General, p. 114.

"Hitherto the territorial rights of the natives have been scrupulously recognised and respected by the settlers in the north, and friendly relations have been maintained between the two races; but if the possession of the waste lands of the province be allowed to become a bone of contention, and a state of ill-feeling grow up between them, it is to be feared that nothing can save the aboriginal race from becoming a persecuted people. They are still, it is true, sufficiently numerous and powerful to maintain their ground; but they are unquestionably diminishing in numbers, and are already out-numbered by the English settlers, and, at the present rate of immigration, will soon become an insignificant minority; and unless timely and effectual measures be taken to secure to them so much of the territory still in their possession as may be necessary to maintain their influence and to provide for their future wants, and to effect such a modification of the existing laws as may tend to facilitate the acquisition of so much of their surplus lands as may from time to time be required for the immigrants now flocking in thousands into the Northern Province, it is obvious, to quote the language of Her Majesty's colonial ministers, that it will only be so long as respect for the strength of the Aborigines shall possess the public mind that the New Zealanders will be placed beyond the reach of those oppressions of which other races of uncivilized men have been the victims." – W. Swainson, late Attorney-General, p. 114.

The Governor's objection to the proposed Bill was not merely founded on the principles of political justice in the abstract. It is quite manifest that he was influenced by what he saw and heard of the dispositions of the Colonists, as a body, towards the natives, and we would particularly invite attention to the facts and admissions presented in the next extracts, since they are no less important in relation to the Governor's own acts than they are to those of the Colonists.

"Assuming the whole of the Northern Island to contain twenty-six millions of acres, and that the native title has been extinguished over seven millions, there remain nineteen millions of acres owned, or occupied, by about 57,000, Maories. A large portion of this consists of mountain and dense forest, but the remainder, which includes some valuable land, is greatly in excess of all their possible wants. The Europeans covet these lands, and are determined to enter in and possess them 'recte si possunt, si non, quocunque modo. This determination becomes daily more apparent. A member of the Auckland Provincial Council stated in the Council that 'the fault lay in the system of acquiring land from the natives. We were called upon to leave them the best land, and sacrifice ourselves to sympathy for the natives, and all that kind of humbug. The settlers had no room for their stock, and would be obliged to set Government at defiance. Hitherto the settlers here had been a law-obeying community, but when once the Rubicon was passed, it was impossible to say how far they might go. There was something higher than the law, namely, the framers of the law, and the source of all law, the people. They had new arrivals landing here every day, and they might say, what right, for instance, had a parcel of natives at Coromandel, like dogs in a manger, to keep everybody out of that district? People would soon begin to act on the old principle of letting land belonging to those who can keep it. It was impossible to prevent the Anglo Saxon overcoming the natives, and the Europeans, if they could not get land with the consent, must get it without the consent, of the Government.

"This speech was highly applauded in one of the journals." – Gov. Browne, p. 78.

"A stream of immigration is pouring thousands of settlers into this province every year, and, if it continue, the population will be doubled in a very short time. Soon, therefore, a want of available land will really be experienced, and it cannot be concealed, that neither law nor equity will prevent the occupation of native lands by Europeans when the latter are strong enough to defy both the native owners and the Government, as will be the case ere long; and then it will be seen whether or not the Maories will prove an exception to the rule, which seems universal, namely, that the aboriginal savages must fade away before their civilized Christian brethren. – P. 79.

"The immediate consequence of any attempt to acquire Maori lands without previously extinguishing the native title to the satisfaction of all having an interest in them, would be an universal outbreak, in which many innocent Europeans would perish, and colonization would be indefinitely retarded, but the native race would be eventually extirpated." – Governor Browne, p. 79.

The war now commenced and carried on by the Governor is the strongest proof against himself of the truth of his own words.

The prevalence of a strong anti-aboriginal feeling in the Colony, and the effects which it is calculated to produce, are set forth in

very striking language, by the Rev. R. Maunsell, who apprehends that "great evils would be sure to result if the management of native affairs were to be placed under the control of the General Assembly."

"Of the depth to which even the Anglo-Saxons can descend, when they obtain the supreme control of another race, we have a remarkable example in the laws passed against upwards of 3,000,000 of negroes in the United States, and the coolness with which judges of the highest standing in that country expound and enforce them. That the tendencies of our (the colonial) Parliament are in a somewhat similar direction has been more than once most painfully evident to my mind." – R. Maunsell, p 58.

"That the spirit of self-aggrandisement is supreme is beyond all contradiction, and that that spirit will, unless carefully watched by the mother country, bring on a war of races, it does not require a prophet's mind to foretell. The wrongs that are now endured, and the measures that are mooted, are amply sufficient to create anxiety." – R. Maunsell, p. 58.

"I cannot forbear intimating to the gentleman, who it is said intends to make it felony to advise the natives not to sell their land, that if the proposition of the member from Wanganui is carried, it will be necessary to increase, to a much larger extent, the laws against felony. Not only, also, will he have to make it treasonable to explain to the natives the privileges to which they are entitled, as British subjects, or to urge them to seek a fair measure in the representation: he will have, when he once begins, to station his spies, and to multiply his police in every part of the island." – R. Maunsell, p. 58.

"This impetuous and high-spirited people will soon be ready for any thing desperate; and the white man will before long feel that a crooked policy will always recoil on itself. Even though they do continue to keep the solitary settler; even though they extend food and shelter to the weary traveller; even though they continue to sell their lands for a nominal sum, and aid the Government in the arrest of Pakeha and Maori culprits; still, if the feeling of wrong has taken up its abode in their minds, the first spark may produce a conflagration. – R. Maunsell, p. 58.

The words of the Assistant Colonial Secretary, T. H. Smith, are of the same purport.

"Few (colonists) would admit that the extension of European settlement must be contingent on the consent of the aboriginal owners to cede their territory. These unimproved lands are regarded as the property of the colony, merely encumbered with a certain native right of occupancy, of which it is the duty of the Government to clear them, as, from time to time, they may be required by the settlers." – P. 84.

It will not merely interest the reader, but also throw some light on the further consideration of the subject now before us, here to introduce some extracts from the letter of a private colonist to one of his friends. We may confidently state that his education and personal character were such as might lead all who knew him to expect kindness of feeling, as well as sound justice of principle, to be fully exhibited by him in relation to the natives. We may therefore judge how strong must be the influence of colonial feeling, when we find him expressing himself as he has done, and also know what to expect from other colonists less favourably circumstanced.

"The Maories-Perhaps in my letters I expressed myself with some asperity about them. This should not be. Yet we settlers have a full measure of trial and vexation to bear – less from themselves directly than from a partial oppression and timid legislation, carried out by the Governor, who alone has power in native questions, and who is well intentioned, but old, and somewhat unduly influenced. But England should live here, and then see what it is to have European settlers put down under the feet of savages in virtue of a treaty (Waitangi), which secures all to the natives, nothing to us, not even a right of highway for the Queen. You have little idea how much and how long the settlers here have borne; and there is no need for it. Had we faith in our laws, and did we carry them out simply and consistently, the Maories would obey them, and the two races would go on well enough together. Amalgamatethey never will; but the Maori will vanish, as he is fast doing, and now at a quicker rate than ever, from the ti wai Pirau, 'the stinking-water,' spirits. But do the natives understand your laws? They so well understand them that they can and do work them against us and for themselves. For instance, an Englishman's farm and a native's cultivation adjoin. The law forces a farmer to put up a fence, not the latter. But if the Englishman's cattle get into the Maori's land, their owner must pay damages, and mend the fence; whereas, if the Maori's cattle trespass, his neighbour has no redress, unless the persuasion of the magistrate can procure it. He fears to enforce it lest there should be war. Again, there is a fine of 5l. for having thistles in bloom on your land. They are a sad nuisance if unheeded. But the Maories are specially exempt from this ordinance; and the Provincial Government spend 100l. a-year, I think it is, in employing English labour to keep them down on Maori land. Again, rates at so much an acre are paid by Europeans to maintain and make roads. The Maoris have far more carts and oxen than we have, and use and injure the roads more than we do. Yet they are specially exempted from the road rates, and pay nothing. A European's land may even be sold for rates in arrear; but you cannot touch a penny piece of a native. And any reader of debates in our Council, by whom these enactments were passed, would see, that to have laid the lightest finger on the Maoris would have ensured the Governor's disallowance of the Bills. When, therefore, a shrewd, penetrating, energetic race, half enlightened, and not one wit really Christianized, see themselves thus treated like spoiled children, and that they who so act both fear them, and have no faith in their own laws, what can we expect but that their natural bluster and arrogance should be greatly increased, and that they should despise both us and our laws? We have laboured for their contempt, and have earned it. Again; we have in our feebleness appointed natives magistrates or assessors, to assist us in such few native matters as we can act in, and we pay them salaries to secure their good behaviour. Well now, mark my words about our Government's conduct. One of these magistrates, a chief of high rank, supported by a large body of co-owners, negociates with our resident land commissioner, an officer, mind, of the general Government, not of the Provincial Government, to sell his and his fellow's rights in a block of land, and goes unarmed, with officers of our general Government, to mark out the block. Another well-known turbulent native, not a chief at all, and whose claim to any ownership in the land in question is more than doubtful, forbids the sale, and, in cold blood, shoots down this chief and several of his followers. This tribe appeal to us. – 'He was your magistrate, and, acting for you, arrest his murderer, and do us justice.' The provisional authorities were timid; and, though three or four resolute men might have secured this man (Katatore), any step like it was avoided. The speaker of our Provisional Council proposed, in Committee of Public Safety, "that we should now

refuse to pay import duties to the Government: that we had completely exhausted every constitutional appeal, and been disregarded, and we must now help ourselves.' This gentleman lives with a native woman, not married, but otherwise quietly, and does a father's part to his children: he speaks the language, and knows the natives well. The land that ought to be ours, and of which we are in sore need, is not and cannot be used by the natives. It is a beautiful block, but now being fast overrun by the thistle. Whilst our settlement is dwarfed and languishing for the want of that very land, which even yet the rightful owners earnestly desire to sell, and which our governor will not purchase, or even the seller's rights in it, because this murder-stained savage forbids it. Such is an outline of events illustrating the British colonial impolicy. Well Exeter Hall may say, You have been saved from war, and Government has done judiciously. Opinions differ. We who have emigrated hither understood we were to have the protection and justice afforded by British Government and law; that we were to be its special care; but, finding ourselves, our rights, and our prosperity invariably held secondary to those of savages, we are so stung to the quick in our political instincts that we fall back on the pregnant words of an American statesman, 'Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed.' Take away the troops, and every government officer; no longer stand between us and the natives, setting us both by the ears; but leave us the real management of our own affairs. We settlers have no quarrel with the Maories, or they with us, but both parties have with the Government. Leave us alone, and we will soon cease to be the most cramped, fettered, and stagnant of the provinces, the only one where no land is to be had by new comers; the only one where the Government, with whom rests the sole power, does not or will not buy from the natives; the only one where native chiefs, anxious to sell, may, through British paid officers, be murdered with impunity for fostering British progress; the only one where native owners, earnest to sell, have tried in vain for years to do so. Let the natives and the settlers make their own bargains about land, but let none be closed until Government has stepped between the negociants and seen justice done, and a clear title obtained. Government buys land by hundreds of thousands of acres in other parts, and the displaced natives come here to live. This, of course, augments the difficulty of purchasing, but land is at this moment offered to us by a chief who has offered land for years. Our Governor hangs back because 4 Katatore forbids it."

It is obvious from the tenor of the letter from which the foregoing extracts are taken, that the colonists, whose trials we do not question, are taking an imperfect, partial, and discoloured view of the question as regards themselves and the Maories. We should probably speak as they do were we similarly placed, and we no more suspect very many of them of having gone to New Zealand with the least idea of injuring the natives, than we would accuse the best man in England of stealing a neighbour's coat, or of forging his name.

Perhaps the most important, as well as the most palpable error, and that which sours the colonists against the Home Government,

as well as against the natives, is the persuasion that the colonists are put under the feet of savages; and that the Treaty of Waitangi, ascribed, by the bye, to the Bishop and the clergy, secures all to the natives and nothing to the colonists. We are not bound to the defence of that treaty, with which, of course, we had nothing to do; but it would be a monstrous dereliction of duty were we not to be on the watch against the violation of those stipulations in it, which promised the natives something, when, having served the purpose of the Government, it might seem advantageous to the whites to set them at nought. We call in question the truth of the assertion in both its parts. Instead of securing all to the natives, it may be said to secure them nothing except a trifling delay of the period at which the whole will be taken from them – a delay produced by the legal formalities required by so much of the native laws as to property, which the treaty allowed to remain, through which impediments patience would work its way, whilst violence has been seen to cause delay and death. The writer of the letter is a settler in the Northern Island, the seat of nearly all the native population, to which many natives, from the Middle Island, have resorted, in consequence of that island having been bought up for a trifle by the Government. We have before us a Government map of New Zealand, from which it appears that, in the Northern Island, nearly two millions of acres in the Province of Auckland alone have been bought by the Government, and that in several other parts of the same island considerable and most advantageously situated districts have been ceded by the natives. The whole of this land has been obtained from the natives either by the Government through the operation of the treaty, or by colonists before its existence, upon terms by which the natives have been injured instead of benefited. The Bishop says that the available country still occupied by the natives would not be more than sufficient for them were they brought into a status corresponding with that of the colonists. Yet this is the land which the colonists seem already to consider as theirs, and from which they are unreasonably kept. But the writer of the letter does not go so far. He says that there are native owners wishing to sell, and colonists ready to buy. This may be very true, but from the native New Zealander's tenure of land, it requires the simultaneous consent of many parties to effect a transfer, and a process as tedious, and perhaps as vexatious, as a chancery suit may be indispensable for its quiet completion. The very case which the letter relates on the writer's own shewing proves the inexpediency of attempting to proceed in advance of this process. In this instance, it seems that a native chief having been appointed a magistrate by the Government, was made a cat's paw to gain possession of the block of land, and was resisted by the native, who, perhaps, had no right to object, but whose claim to do so had not been formally set aside. In his resistance he used fatal violence, but it is questionable

whether in the eye of even civilized law such homicide could be called murder. The attempt to enter upon the land was so inconsistent with the principle laid down by the Governor and by his best advisers, that it is probable that he allowed the step to be taken under that pressure of colonial opinion which in his despatches he had disapproved, and the repetition of the same kind of procedure on the commencement of the present war in which right was on the side of the native, and violence was commenced by the Government must be ascribed to the same pressure. We must cordially agree with the writer when he says "let no bargain about land be closed until Government has stepped in between the negociants and seen justice done, and a clear title obtained." It is precisely the course which we have advocated, the neglect of which in both the instances alluded to has led to so much evil.

As to the supposed injustice respecting stray cattle, the settlers are probably inconvenienced and injured, but there is something to be said on the other side. It could not be reasonably expected that the natives, whether they had received a farthing or eighteen-pence an acre for their land, should be at the expense of either enclosing it or keeping off trespassers. This was to be done by the buyer if his purposes required it, and if he neglect to do so, the land must take the same chances as the unsold land adjoining it. The same principle applies to weeds. Some of those which are the most complained of are, we believe, of European introduction; and is it consistent, even with colonial justice, that the natives, on the prospect of a sale at sixpence an acre, should be at the labour and expense of extirpating these exotics, or that as neighbours they should be bound to remove a nuisance of which they are not the authors? The fine is obviously imposed by the settlers, who are cultivators for their mutual advantage, and the natives have no part in making the law or benefit from it when made. Has any native, cultivating his own land in juxta-position with a settler's, failed to do his duty in this respect? Might he not, if so disposed, keep off those who would trespass on his land, though it were for the destruction of weeds, provided he resided on unalienated land? The case is very different when colonial cattle go on the native plantations. These being held in common and jointly, may have no fences, as was frequently the case in this country, and the proprietors adjoining such lands are bound to respect the local usages in relation to them, and have no odious privilege of free warren, entitling them to allow their animals to feed over the cultivated lands of others. Then as to the roads. It is well known that natives have voluntarily offered land and labour for this object, but it is not shewn on what principle a tax can be levied upon them to make roads through land which they have sold, or which they may be likely to sell, whilst the price is so inadequate, and there is no participation in the local benefit. If the colonists desire the actual users of the roads, natives or others,

to contribute, they should exact a toll equally from all. If they do not take it from the natives, it is probable that the advantage derived from commerce with them, both as buyers and as sellers, makes it impolitic to let them feel this check. The writer of the letter has failed to adduce the least proof that the natives, whether they merit the appellation of savages or not, are in any manner placed above the colonists. They have not even the power of making laws for themselves, and instead of all, really nothing is sealed to them. Of the substantial benefits of British citizenship they possess none. Whether any thing or nothing is secured to the colonists is a question between them and the Government, but when we reflect on the fact that for many years numerous emigrants of various classes have poured into New Zealand, many of whom have been attracted thither by the reports of their predecessors; that almost the whole of the Middle Island is possessed by them; that even in the Northern Island, the residence of the larger portion of the natives, a great part of the available land has been acquired and transfered to the settlers; that at the rate of acquisition now in progress, though it may not be so rapid as the colonists desire, very much of the remainder will be in the same state, – we cannot see that the colonists have much to complain of as to land, whilst the natives have certainly lost more than the shadow. Again, the colonists have received a constitution which, if it cannot be admired as a specimen of legislation, at least gives many privileges to them, whilst it fails to make any availing provision for the Maories.

The appointment of natives as magistrates or assessors is no boon to them, but quite the reverse. It is merely a clumsy expedient to supply the fatal deficiency in the New Zealand Bill, against which the Aborigines' Protection Society pleaded and importuned in vain.

The colonist's letter from which we have quoted, with the comments which we have made upon it, will, we believe, afford a correct and by no means an over-coloured view of the prevailing feeling of the European towards the native population. We would further observe, injustice to our countrymen, that as a body they are not to be supposed to have emigrated with the object of benefiting the Aborigines, but expressly to improve their own position. Bright and attractive inducements were held out to them. Tempting baits of free grants of land were offered them, and they had no reason to anticipate difficulty in obtaining larger tracts. Their disappointment, and the irritation consequent upon it, may be easily conceived, but cannot change our convictions as to the still worse position of the natives, regarding whom our words of prediction and warning have been long on record.

We may now resume our extracts from the Parliamentary Papers. The waning condition of the natives is strongly portrayed in the following statement of Mr. Fenton, whose elaborate statis-

tical details, tending to the same conclusion, have already been given to the public through various channels. He says at page 155 –

"In my opinion, the social condition of the Maories is inferior to what it was five years ago. Their houses are worse, their cultivation more neglected, and their mode of living not improved. The mills in many places have not run for some time, and the poverty of the people generally is extreme."

At page 154. – Mr. Schnakenberg, a Missionary, says: –

"The greatest cause of a decrease, I believe, is uncleanness, inwardly and outwardly, in diet, dress, and habitation, in body and mind, in all their thoughts, words and actions."

Mr. White observes in the same page –

"I regret that I cannot report any marked improvement in their condition, except in a few instances in farming; but there is a marked decrease of quarrels among themselves, on their old prejudices and customs, and a general desire of improvement, which they want the energy to carry out."

The Governor himself admits the general fact, and in a comment on the colonists' letter to the Duke of Newcastle says –

"The first of these assertions (that regarding the diminution of the native population) is, unfortunately, but too well grounded, though I trust a reaction has set in partially. It would, however, be as just to attribute the decrease of the Maori race to the introduction of Christianity, as to any agency or supineness of the Government on this subject. I may refer to the Quarterly Review, No. 211, July 1859, page 183: 'This diminution of numbers has extended to all portions of the race, from New Zealand to the Sandwich Islands, and appears to be in some respects as unaccountable as it is ominous. The wasting away of the people of Polynesia has now continued for years, after all the causes connected with their heathenism have ceased, nay, the process goes on in spite of improved social habits, better food, clothing, and dwellings; and notwithstanding that an appearance of health amongst the young would warrant the expectation of increased vigour, &c." – P. 154.

The sentiment avowed by the Governor, and the quotation from the Quarterly Review, which he offers in confirmation of it, are far too important for a passing observation, and, not to introduce a long digression on the subject, we reserve our remarks for another occasion. Unhappily we find too many evidences of the decline of the Maories to have any doubt of the fact, and to us the causes are too obvious to admit the unaccountable and the occult. We must not, however, overlook what has been done for their benefit in a social as well as in a religious point of view, nor omit to mention some of the causes by which these efforts have been counteracted. Though volumes have been written, a very few extracts from the Papers before us will suffice. Donald M'Lean, the Native Secretary, states, page 50 –

"From a period long antecedent to the establishment of British Government in these islands down to the present day an annual expenditure considerably

larger in amount than the whole sum appropriated to native purposes by the present Government has been maintained by Missionary bodies. The Church Missionary Society alone has expended upwards of 300,000l. on this object. The Wesleyans have expended largely; so also have the Roman Catholics and other religious bodies..... The result of their efforts has been the general adoption of Christianity. And it should be remembered that the funds expended by the Missionary bodies are drawn from sources altogether external, while those appropriated by the Government to native purposes are taken from the revenue, to which the natives themselves are large contributors.

W. C. Richmond, the advocate of the colonists' party, mentions the large amount of expenditure on behalf of the natives, hut complains of the mode of its application. His words are –

"The amount of aid received by different schools in the north has varied from 40l. per head and upwards on the average number of pupils to 6l. per head and less. As between the northern and the southern divisions the case was even worse. Several establishments in the south, which were absorbing year after year large sums for buildings and farm improvements, were actually without scholars. Meantime large and flourishing schools in the north, with unpaid teachers, were pinched for want of the funds requisite to provide their scholars with the bare necessaries of life." – P. 31.

It is even admitted, that some very important practical improvements amongst the natives have been effected; and it is also made evident, that they are by no means insensible or indifferent to what they have received and might yet further obtain.

"Since the introduction of Christianity, the natives have gradually emancipated their slaves taken in war, and by their return to their former possessions, they have become a new class of claimants (of land)." – Report made by Colonists to the Governor, p. 90.

The decided advantages resulting from the efforts of Missionaries are stated in the following extract, which also suggests that they are very inadequately known and appreciated: –

"As it was, the Government, I suspect, never heard of what was going on through the country at a period of native excitement. The young men taught in this institution continued doing their work of peace through the district, answering arguments, assuring the wavering, explaining difficulties, laying their hands exactly upon the spots whence the evil was likely to arise: and when Colonel Wynyard visited the river, he found, as may be seen in the report of his journey, an open-hearted and cheerful reception, a people willing to listen to his statements and comply with his wishes, and more firm than ever in their attachment to the British Crown. – P. 59.

"REV. R. MAUNSELL."

It is evident that it is not the fault of the natives that the results have not been more complete and satisfactory. They both recognise the advantages possessed by their European neighbours, and desire to participate in them.

"The people of the Waikato district are at the present time more anxious to avail themselves of the means of education, both for themselves and children, than they have been for the last twenty years that I have resided amongst them. I certainly consider that they are progressing.

"There are more, than 100 scholars, male and female, in the boarding establishment under my charge, besides ten branch schools containing 123 scholars affiliated with my institution; altogether supporting themselves without aid from the Government or Church Missionary Society, excepting the small sum of 10l. towards fencing in school ground, which has been lately received. These branch schools are altogether conducted by native teachers trained at the Central Institution.

"Seventy pounds have been collected by them (the natives) with a view to maintain an English schoolmaster, whom they have not been able to procure. – Pp. 162 and 163. – - "REV. B. Y. ASHWELL."

"M. Whitaker gave a detailed account of the Governor's visits to the Waikato and Bay of Islands, describing the anxiety manifested in all the places visited by the natives, to be instructed in the laws and customs of the Europeans, and their wish to be amalgamated and identified with them, exemplifying this by the statement of the fact, that so eager was Kowiti, the son of the famous warrior chief, for the foundation of a settlement at the Bay of Islands, to be inhabited alike by both peoples, and to be governed alone by English laws, that he proffered a piece of land as a free gift for such a purpose – New-Zealand. Papers, p. 8.

Even the colonists, in their letter to the Duke of Newcastle bear testimony in favour of the natives, the so-called savages, and leave us to guess the source of mischief, should it arise, as has unhappily been the case.

"The danger of a conflict with the natives has been always much exaggerated by those whose interest it has been to maintain that impression in the minds of the Home Government. We take upon ourselves to affirm that peace is absolutely secured, provided that the natives be treated with justice, and deprived of none of their natural rights." – Letter to the Duke of Newcastle,p. 155.

A strong and by no means a surprising or unreasonable desire to preserve and defend their rights has led the natives to confer, combine, and place themselves under a chief whom they esteemed, that they might themselves supply the defect left by the British Government when passing the Bill for the settlement of the New Zealand Constitution. This step has been styled the King Movement, and been regarded as an act of rebellion. We cannot better describe its character than in the words of the Assistant Native Secretary: –

"The main object of the so-called Maori king movement, of which the Waikato is the centre, is to unite the tribes in a national assertion of the right to retain those portions of the Northern Island, the possession of which is considered by the promoters of the movement to be necessary for the well-being of the Maori race and the maintenance of its independence.

"To oppose this movement will be to strengthen it. To counteract it, it is only necessary that the Government shall be in a position to shew the tribes taking part in it, that such assertion of their right to hold back their lands is unnecessary, this right being recognised and respected by the Government in the case of each tribe in regard to its own lands, though ignored as existing in any confederation, in regard generally to lands belonging to the tribes composing it." – T. H. Smith, Assistant Native Secretary, p. 85.

In a subsequent Parliamentary publication on New Zealand affairs (August 16, 1860), we are informed by a letter of the late Chief Justice Dr. Martin, that the term king is only used by one section of the Waikato tribe. The chosen chief, Te Whero Whero, has uniformly refused any title but that of Matua (Father). Few natives then desired actual independence of the Queen, but the excitement of the war might increase their number.

The anxious solicitude, the active excitement exhibited by the natives at the rapid diminution of their numbers, as well as of their possessions, should produce no surprise. The officers appointed by the Governor to make a report on native affairs, express themselves very plainly on this subject.

"It is, however, known, that almost every spot chronicles some well remembered tradition, and when they (the natives) are asked to part with these places to strangers, who cannot be supposed to enter into their feelings on the subject, and who, they see, are destined at no very remote period to place them in a secondary position in their own country, it is no wonder they hesitate to take the step." – Report, see p. 92.

What can be more just, as well as more reasonable, than that in contemplation of their position, the more clear-sighted of the natives should desire, by a common understanding and general agreement, to arrest the further transfer of land from its Maori owners. If restricted by the law of their Queen to a single purchaser, are they not to be left at liberty whether to sell or not to sell to that customer? and will not the desire to exercise the right of refusal be increased, when they see all classes of their rivals, whether officers of the Government, colonists, or ministers of religion anxious to hasten the transfer? Even the Bishop of New Zealand says –

"My advice to the natives in all parts of New Zealand has always been to sell all the land which they are not able to occupy or cultivate. I had two reasons for this: first, to avoid continual jealousies between the races; and secondly, to bring the native population within narrower limits, in order that religion, law, education, and civilization, might be brought to bear more effectually upon them."

We cannot doubt the sincerity and purity of intention of the Bishop in giving this advice, but we may question its soundness and expediency upon his own shewing.

It is only fair to the colonists, as well as due to the impartial consideration of the questions before us, that the colonists themselves should be heard, and they have given us the opportunity of letting them be heard in words to which they cannot object, since they are taken from a document deliberately prepared by the responsible advisers on native affairs, chosen by the colonists, and signed by a distinguished colonist, C. W. Richmond. The document confirms our statement that the colonists themselves exhibit differences in sentiment and conduct as regards the natives. It points out deficiencies and defects on the part of the Government, and exhibits,

we fear too truly, but we would hope too strongly, the pernicious influences which British colonization has produced on the natives.

"There are some who, considering what a chasm intervenes between civilization and barbarism, and how impassable the boundaries of race have generally proved, are of opinion that the fusion of the two peoples is a moral natural impossibility. These persons refer to the statistics of population, which, according to the most accurate estimates hitherto made, shew a decrease in the number of the natives at the rate of about twenty per cent, in every period of fourteen years. They point to the relative paucity of Maori females, and to the abnormal mortality of the race, especially amongst the children, as facts which make certain its extinction within a short period. Such considerations induce to the abandonment of the work of civilization as hopeless, and favour the adoption of a merely temporizing policy.

"The race, it is said, is irredeemably savage. It is also moribund. All that it is wise or safe to attempt is to pacify and amuse them until they die out – until the inscrutable physical law at work amongst them shall relieve the country from the incubus of a barbarous population, or at least shall render it practicable to reduce them to the condition for which nature has intended them – of hewers of wood and drawers of water. An exclusive reliance on the personal influence with the natives of particular individuals, and on the effects of gifts and flattery upon the more powerful or more turbulent chiefs, would be features of such a policy, which, by its demoralizing influence, would realize the expectations of its advocates, and render the annihilation of the Maori race both certain and speedy.

"To the present advisers of the Crown in New Zealand such a policy appears false, cowardly, and immoral. In common with the whole intelligence of the community, whose opinions they represent, they believe it to be at once the interest and the duty of the colonists to preserve and civilize the native people. Though not blind to the indications of physical decay which the race exhibits, nor to the great difficulties in the way of a policy of fusion, they do not permit themselves to despair; and they believe that the true course – a course which, however small the prospect of success, the British Government would still, in honour and conscience, be bound to pursue – is to take all possible measures for bringing the aborigines as speedily as may be under British institutions.

"In order to the correct apprehension of the native question, it ought to be fully understood that the British Government in New Zealand has no reliable means but those of moral persuasion for the government of the aborigines. It is powerless to prevent the commission by natives against natives of the most glaring crimes. Within the last twelve months blood has been spilt in native quarrels in at least four different places in the Northern Island – at New Plymouth, the Bay of Plenty, Hawke's Bay, and the Wanganui river; in one island within the limits of a British settlement. In the cases, which happily are not numerous, in which aggressions are committed by natives on settlers, the Government is compelled to descend to negotiation with the native chiefs for the surrender of the offender. The development of the material resources of the extensive wilderness still in the hands of the natives, which comprises more than three-fourths of the total area, and some of the most fertile regions of the Northern Island, depends absolutely on their will. Without their consent it is impossible to survey, or even to traverse the country. Much less could the Government undertake the execution of roads, bridges, or other public works in native territory. Considerable difficulty was lately experienced in the establishment of a mail route between Auckland and Napier, though the mail-bags are carried by Maories. And it was very recently represented by the chief

permanent officer of the native department that it would be inexpedient, and even dangerous for the Government to make a gift to certain Waikato natives of a few bags of clover-seed, lest the present should give rise to disputes respecting the ownership of the land, and the Government be blamed by the natives for having introduced amongst them a cause of dissension. These instances may serve to illustrate the nature of the present relations of the Colonial Government with the natives. – P. 21.

"Whether a Government reduced to make such timid shifts, and with nothing beyond a moral hold upon the allegiance of a self-willed, suspicious, and warlike race, can succeed in subjecting that race to the salutary restraints of law, and in preserving it from the distraction which must result from a continuance of its own barbarous usages, is a problem which remains to be solved. There can be no doubt that the presence of an increased military and naval force, of sufficient strength to command respect for the British power, now very lightly esteemed by the New Zealanders, would greatly forward any efforts for the permanent amelioration of their condition.

"The old Maori regime is fast falling into decay, whilst a substitute is naturally sought in spontaneous imitation of British usages. Native chiefs, in various places, affect to administer justice with the forms which they have observed to be used in the police courts of the colony, and attempts have been made at many native villages to enact and put in force local regulations on various subjects. The leaders of these movements are mostly young men of standing, educated at the Mission Schools, who, though they appear destitute of the requisite knowledge, judgment, influence, and force of purpose to effect unaided the needed reforms, may yet, it is hoped, be counted upon to second the endeavours of a European magistrate.

"It seems, however, to have been expected that other natives in the neighbourhood of the European settlements would naturally aggregate themselves about those centres as so many nuclei of civilization, adopting the laws and usages of the settlers, and resorting to the European tribunals for the settlement of their differences. This expectation, if such there were, has been in great measure disappointed, and the social organization of the two races remains as distinct as ever, even in the immediate vicinity of the towns. In a few cases magistrates have been stationed in purely native districts; but, placed there independently of the will of the people, and utterly without power to enforce their own decisions, their position has been a false one, and they have done nothing to supply the needed reconstruction of Maori society. – P. 22.

"It is notorious that the most frequent and bloody Maori feuds arise, and have always arisen, from disputed title to land. The four existing quarrels which have been referred to have all this origin, and others that could be mentioned are at this moment smouldering. It is equally indisputable that the communistic habits of the aborigines are the chief bar to their advancement. Separate landed holdings are indispensable to the further progress of this people. Chastity, decency, and thrift cannot exist amidst the waste, filth, and moral contamination of the pahs. – P. 24.

"The propriety of making at least an attempt to provide means for the extrication of native title from its present entanglement, for reducing it to fixed rules, and for subjecting it to the jurisdiction of regular tribunals, can hardly admit of a doubt. Even if it appeared that such an attempt might involve a certain amount of risk, that surely ought not to deter a great Christian power from some effort to avert the shame and sin of remaining, what Her Majesty's representative is at this moment, the passive witness of murderous affrays between Her Majesty's subjects almost under the guns of her garrisons. – P. 24.

The following extracts are taken from a letter addressed, by

nine influential colonists, to the Duke of Newcastle on the subject of the rejection of the Bill.

"We are informed by the despatch, that, in the opinion of the Home Government, the administration of native affairs has been 'crowned with a very remarkable success.' It is with much regret that we feel called upon to assert, from our own knowledge, that it has not been a remarkable success, but that, on the contrary, it has been a remarkable failure, whether as regards the separate or the joint interests of the two races." – P. 154.

"We, who live in New Zealand, see the Maori race perishing away before our eyes; we know that their social condition is not improving; and are strongly impressed with the belief that they are lowered in tone of mind – that their character is altered very much for the worse.

"In Governor Grey's despatch, dated 30th August 1851, the native population. was estimated at 120,000 souls. The number is, probably, exaggerated, but even, after making a large allowance, the contrast with the last return is startling. The result of the Maori census of 1858, generally considered as a reasonably fair approximation to the truth, is 56,049. We believe, however, that we keep within bounds in assuming a continuous decrease in population, amounting to about one-fifth, in fourteen years." – P. 154.

At a public meeting on the subject of the land question. R. Graham, a colonist, made the following statement –

"We are at present a large city without a country, obliged to import our beef and mutton, butter and cheese, from other provinces, as well as flour, wheat, oats, &c., which this fine province might very well produce, if we only had the lands opened up. Our farmers are obliged to suspend the increasing of their flocks, owing to the want of lands and the scarcity of food. Many of our herds of cattle are bordering upon starvation, from being pent up upon the already-overstocked pastures around Auckland, while there are millions of acres of excellent lands in the interior of this province at present unoccupied, large tracts of which are grass lands, nothing inferior to the plains of Canterbury or Otago, and which the natives are quite willing to leave or sell to the 'Pakeha' [the whites] but not under the present system. – Speech of Mr. Graham, a Colonist. P. 134.

It must be abundantly obvious to any one who will make a careful inquiry into the state of things in New Zealand, whether he take the part of the British Government, of the Governor of the colony, or of the colonists and local legislature, or of the natives, that the acquisition of land by the whites from the natives is the great bone of contention – the object of insatiable desire to the former, and of extreme but very natural and reasonable uneasiness and apprehension to the latter. It will not however be amiss to give some further extracts from the same Blue Book from which we have already largely quoted, in order to place this fact more clearly before the reader. At pages 77 and 78, Governor Browne says –

"It is true that the Middle Island was acquired for an almost nominal sum; and large tracts in the Northern Island have been purchased at prices varying between a farthing and sixpence an acre; but there still remain many millions of acres, which we now vainly desire to acquire, which might in those days have been bought at a cost too insignificant to be calculated by the acre."

"With the increase of the European population, land has necessarily acquired an additional value. The natives have seen the lands they alienated for farthings

re-sold for pounds; they feel that dominion and power, or, as they term it, 'substance,' went from them with the territories they alienated; and they look with apprehension to the annihilation of their nationality."

Our next extracts are from the pen of Archdeacon Kissling, to whom, as well as to many of his clerical brethren, we would offer our sincere thanks for their noble exertions in favour of justice to the native race, in common, we doubt not, with regard for the best interests of the settlers, whose censure they have incurred –

"It is obvious that the great and numerous advantages which the Northern Island of New Zealand has for colonization, its natural resources of wealth, its fertile soil, its noble forests, &c., must, in a great measure, remain unavailable, so long as the Aborigines and settlers are not united with each other in object, interest, and action.

"To unite both races, for the success and prosperity of the colony, the confidence of the native race, who are in possession of the soil, is absolutely necessary." – P. 116.

"The keen eye with which the natives watch immigrant ships bringing accessions of 'Pakehas' to their shores; the deep feeling heaving from their breasts when hearing of the injudicious and exaggerated statements set forth in local newspapers relative to the rapid diminution in their population; the excitement caused by a movement of Europeans to effect a direct and individual purchase of land from them; together with other circumstances too numerous to be mentioned, are, to a competent observer, significant enough to shew that the New Zealanders mean to strain every nerve for the preservation of their nationality and their landed possessions.

"On the other hand, the new-come race assumes a bolder tone of voice; selfishness interferes, objects tempt, vice increases, the country is overrun by various characters, and the immigrants call for the land promised them before their departure from England.

"The difficulties of the Government thus increase, while the bond which has so far held the two races together is weakened by elements over which one race only has control. A new and more satisfactory arrangement for the future conducting of the Government with respect to the native population is clearly required." – P. 117.

All parties have desired a change as respects the tenure and transfer of land, and we would give them credit for wishing to obtain it in a right way when their own interests are not interfered with. We have seen how the colonists have been biassed. The Government has also had its bias, and whilst it has apprehended that the natives might suffer from advantage taken of their ignorance, it has not failed very largely to profit by their necessities or desires in maintaining a monopoly, which enabled it to dictate a price wholly incompatible with open competition. The Bishop of New Zealand says that the price given to the natives has been as low as a mite an acre. The colonists had therefore unquestionably strong reasons on their side, when they contended for some changes provided for by the Bill which was disapproved of by the Governor and rejected by the Colonial Office, on the grounds already stated. It must further be acknowledged that the successive Governors of New Zealand, and most of the officials who

have acted under them, have, by the influence which their personal intercourse acquired, rather than by substantial benefits winch the British Government conferred, so won the confidence of the native chiefs and people, that till lately, except under particular circumstances, they manifested no desire to get rid of the burden and injustice of this monopoly.

D. M'Lean, Native Secretary, says, p. 36 –

"The natives themselves, who are much interested, do not desire any change, excepting perhaps a few who are deeply involved in debt, and who would make any sacrifice to be relieved from their creditors.

The possession of land by individuals, and not merely in common, is so obviously necessary a step in the progress of civilization, that the Governor, as well as others, was satisfied of the importance of encouraging this tenure, which was already not wholly unknown amongst the native New Zealanders. He desired to effect this object by the granting of Crown titles, but it seems very doubtful whether this proceeding, borrowed from our feudal system, could be made sufficiently intelligible to the natives, not to appear to clash with the recognition of their existing and acknowledged rights.

"It is very desirable," observes Governor Browne, "to provide means for enabling tribes, families, and particular individuals, to define or individualize their property, and, in certain cases, it would be just and proper to confirm well-ascertained rights by a crown title. – P. 63.

The Assistant Native Secretary, T. H. Smith, says (pp. 38 and 40) –

"The Bill appears to recognise the right of the natives to receive Crown titles to their lands when they can prove ownership.

"I believe the natives would, in many cases, gladly avail themselves of the assistance of the Government to define and permanently fix tribal boundaries, and even, to a certain extent, to individualize their titles, but they would view with suspicion any attempt to impose restrictions, or to interfere in any way with the native tenure, unless prepared for an absolute cession to the Crown in the usual way.

"Serious objections also arise to imposing upon natives holders of Crown grants any restrictions which are not imposed upon Europeans; nor do I think the natives would in many cases be willing to accept grants containing such restrictions. On the other hand, there is reason to fear that, if unrestricted facilities are afforded to natives to obtain individual Crown grants for their property, advantage might be taken of the law by Europeans, who would prompt and assist the natives to apply for and obtain such grants for the purpose of acquring their lands by individual purchase, instead of purchasing from the Government, to the great injury of the colony

"T. H. Smith, Assistant Native Secretary."

The Native Secretary, D. M'Lean, says, (p. 49) –

"Individualization of title and the securing of properties on chiefs have also been attempted and carried out in connection with the acquisition of native lands in different parts of the country, and about 200 valuable properties,

varying from 20 to 2000 acres in extent, have been secured to individual natives to be held under Crown grants."

It is evident that the colonists are very jealous of even the small extent to which the Governor may be disposed to let the natives be permitted to possess a title to land in the country of their birth, the unconquered inheritance transmitted from their ancestors. The spirit of the colonial party is exhibited in the following remark by C. W. Richmond, a prominent member of the Colonial Ministry, the advocate of the Bill for handing over native affairs to the colonists –

"The fallacy is, in assuming that to be a right in the natives which is really a gratuitous concession by the Government. The Legislature very properly will not trust Governor or ministers, or both together with any such extravagant discretion as an unlimited power of granting away the colonial territory to natives in fee-simple. What the natives think on such matters depends much upon what is put into their heads by Europeans, especially by persons in authority. "C. W. R."

The Governor makes the following pertinent and striking observation on this feature in the Bill –

"Although strict limitations are placed on the amount of his own land, which may be conveyed to the Maori, great liberality is evinced towards the European who has been squatting on native land in defiance of the law. This would also lead to much jobbery." – Governor's Comment on Colonial Draft, p. 108.

The difficulties of the native land question, as exhibited in the foregoing pages, in which authorities from amongst all parties have been carefully taken, inevitably claimed the attention of the British Government, and a Bill was brought before Parliament from the Colonial Office with the express object of removing them. The Bill was evidently drawn with the intention to do good. Its failure to give satisfaction to the colonists' party sufficiently indicated that it afforded the natives some shelter from the colonists, but, when carefully examined, it no less clearly manifested that the rights of the natives were not placed on any solid foundation. The Committee of the Aborigines' Protection Society therefore regarded it as a duty incumbent upon it to explain to the Colonial Office the grounds on which it deprecated the passing of the Bill, and, in the absence of the Duke of Newcastle, it addressed to the under Secretary of State for the Colonies a memorial on the subject." We cannot say to what extent the reasons expressed in the memorial may coincide with the opinions entertained by the Colonial Office, but it is probable that the more public opposition to the Bill led to the withdrawal of it before the close of the session, whilst the large addition to the military force in the colony, the enlistment of militia, and the active hostile operations which have been carried on, together with the corresponding adverse acts of the natives, make it too plainly evident that force rather than conciliation is looked to for the settlement of the present difficulties.

When the preponderance of power, intelligence, and resources is so great the result cannot be doubtful; and though the colonization of New Zealand may in some respects have differed from that of other British settlements, which our officials themselves have condemned, the conclusion, like the prevailing influences, must be similar.

Whilst this article has been in the press we have had placed before us another important and voluminous Blue Book of New-Zealand papers. It gives further confirmation of the remarkable loyalty of the chiefs of many of the tribes and of their adhesion to the side of the Queen and the Governor, though they, in some instances, speak plainly of their wrongs and of the unequal application of the British laws.

We have been particularly struck with the dread of the natives acquiring the elective franchise (the right most likely to unite them to the colonists) with the offence taken at Missionary influence, and with the Government prohibition imposed upon it. We believe that the influence of Missionaries, and that of other really good men, can alone lead to any thing like a pacific termination of hostilities. In the place of this most desirable conclusion, we have to deplore the obvious determination to carry the point by force – not to spare the rod, as a colonist says – to make the Maories feel our superiority and know it by experience.

The panic which the colonists exhibit offers a temptation to the turbulent amongst the natives; our active preparations excite suspicion and distrust with the well disposed, and our resort to force when they feel satisfied that we are in the wrong, instead of breaking their spirit, makes disaffection spread, and by protracting the struggle hastens the extermination of the race and retards the progress of the colony, which it loads with expenses.

To a great degree, the natives have distinguished the colonists from the troops, but now that the colonists are acting with the troops and native villages are broken up, mutual violence becomes indiscriminate. The lives of colonists who do not appear to have committed any offence against the natives have been cruelly taken, though it would appear that these murders have been of rare occurrence, and are condemned by the natives themselves. Such acts, however, bring down equally indiscriminate colonial vengeance on the Maori; but while the deeds of the one party are called savage and fiendish, those of the other are extolled as gallant and heroic. The spirit rife in New Zealand has spread to the neighbouring colonies of Australia, where many spirited young menhave been eager to enrol as volunteers to aid in the war. We have seen a long article in one of the Australian papers advocating this movement, and, amongst other proposals, suggesting that the conquest of New Zealand having been completed by this combined operation, the surviving remnant of male Maories should be brought to New Zealand to serve as compulsory labourers, and that the females should be distributed amongst the convicts and ticket-of-

leave men. The article was given, if we are not mistaken, without a comment, and, whether it was written as the serious and deliberate opinion of the author, or intended as an ironical rebuke to colonial feeling, it is equally remarkable as indicating what, in some quarters, that feeling is against which it is the duty of Christians to guard and protest.

1 This fact was communicated to us viva voce by the late Dr. Dieffenbach, the naturalist of the New Zealand Company.

2 New Zealand, Lords' Paper, No. 288, Session 1860 – Native Affairs.

3 Regarding the natives' right of proprietorship.

4 From late information received from New Zealand it appears that Katatore himself was killed by his countrymen in consequence of this affair emanating from troubles of our exciting.

CHAPTER II. WHAT THE MISSIONARIES SAY OF THE NEW-ZEALAND WAR.

CHAPTER II.

WHAT THE MISSIONARIES SAY OF THE NEW-ZEALAND WAR.

THE position which the leading Missionaries have taken up in connection with the present war in New Zealand reflects the greatest credit upon their characters as Christian men. We know that if they had studied self-interest – if they had been guided by the lower passions of human nature – they might have found a very easy road to official favour, by casting in their lot with the war party, or by observing what some might be disposed to regard as a prudent reticence. For there are some who, even when a Missionary expresses an opinion upon a question like this, accuse him of meddling with politics, and of interfering with matters which do not belong to his profession; as if it was not one of his most solemn duties to interest himself actively in questions which concern not only the properties, but the very existence of those for whose especial benefit he has travelled to the ends of the earth. Mr. Hadfield, the Member for Sheffield, from whom we should have expected better things, has adopted the narrow view of Missionary duty against which we protest; and in the very last discussion on the New-Zealand Bill which took place in the House of Commons, he spoke of the interference of the Colonial Clergy, with the questions dealt with in that measure, in language of ridicule and condemnation. Now, with all respect for Mr. Hadfield, and with a due appreciation of the value of his public services, we must dissent in toto from the doctrine which he thus laid down. We have already referred to the fact, that Missionaries are sent out to distant countries mainly for the purpose of elevating and protecting the Aborigines. They might, perhaps, be denounced if they intermeddled with some question of land or public works, or electoral privilege, in which the colonists themselves were exclusively interested, but seeing that the natives naturally look up to them for guidance; that the jealousies between the two races require to be restrained by some intermediate influences respected alike by both; and that collisions between them would necessarily be most fatal to the Missionary work; we are bound, in regard to aboriginal questions, to take a much broader view of the duty of those who go forth to preach the Gospel. Upon this principle many of the clergy in New Zealand, from the good Bishop

Selwyn downwards, have acted; and it affords us peculiar pleasure to offer this testimony to their unflinching fidelity and courageous zeal. From the outset of the present war in New Zealand – we will not call it "rebellion," for that would be a perversion of the language – the clergy, through their recognised leaders, have faithfully and earnestly exposed the injustice and oppression of which the authorities have been guilty. In the first instance they remonstrated with the local Government; they drew up protests; they appealed to the public conscience; but, unhappily, all in vain. Colonel Browne and his advisers had too deliberately entered upon the evil path, and old passions and hatreds had been too deeply aroused for the voice of reason and justice to exercise its legitimate authority. The clergy have therefore appealed from the lesser tribunal to the higher, that is, from the Governor to the Minister, from the inhabitants of the colony to the British people.

Archdeacon Hadfield's "Letter to the Duke of Newcastle" 5 ought to be in the hands of every Member of Parliament, Minister of the Gospel, and English citizen, who is solicitous for the honour of his country, or desirous of performing his duty in relation to it. But as such a result is not at all likely to happen, we wish to contribute, as far as lies in our power, to the general diffusion of the facts narrated in Mr. Hadfield's pamphlet; and in doing so, we do not bespeak attention for a man whose acquaintance with New Zealand began with yesterday, or whose claims to public confidence admit of any doubt. Mr. Hadfield has lived in New Zealand upwards of twenty years, and the highest testimony has been paid to his experience and public services; Mr. Swainson, formerly Attorney-General for the colony, affirming, in his work published last year, that during the first collision with the natives in 1840, "Wellington owed its safety at that moment to a single individual, the Rev. Octavius Hadfield." The opinion of such a man upon the present war, especially when it is based upon an evident knowledge of all the facts necessary to form a righteous judgment, is entitled to the highest consideration and respect. What, then, does Mr. Hadfield say in his pamphlet?

In the first place, he explains his reasons for addressing the Duke. They are briefly a conviction on his part of the injustice of Colonel Browne's proceedings towards Wiremu Kingi; the fact that he has attached his name to a statement prepared by the Bishop of Wellington, and addressed to His Grace; his personal knowledge of "the rebel" chief for more than twenty years; the attention which he has long devoted to the subject of native titles; and the assurance, which he has repeatedly given to the chiefs, Wiremu Kingi among the number, that the British Govern-

ment would never unjustly seize their lands. Mr. Hadfield then explains, in general terms, the nature of the question now in dispute: –

"The question at issue is simply this – Is a native chief to be forcibly ejected from his land, because an individual member of his tribe tells a subordinate land-agent that it is his, and not the chiefs, and that agent believes him? The Governor says, 'Yes;' the chiefs say, 'No. We have resigned our sovereignty to Her Majesty the Queen; and in return for that, Her Majesty has guaranteed to us the protection of the law. We claim to have disputed titles to land, which it is desired to purchase, decided in some competent court on evidence given upon oath; for we have never consented, and we will never submit, to have the titles to the land on which we live, and on which we cultivate the food for our subsistence, decided by a mere subordinate land-agent, interested in acquiring land, and resting his decision on the bare assertion of a man of no note or rank in the tribe. This is really the question at issue between the Governor and William King."

Mr. Hadfield then explains the origin of the quarrel. He first accounts for Wiremu Kingi's unwillingness to dispose of the land in question, by stating that his father, the great Chief Rangitawhanga, of Taranaki, exacted from him a pledge that he would not sell Waitara. He next shews the existence of an ill-feeling between him and Teira, the pretended owner of the land, and the author of all the mischief, arising from the circumstance of a girl, who was affianced to the latter's brother, having preferred Wiremu Kingi's son, and married him. It was under the influence of revengeful feelings, the offspring of these circumstances, that when, in March of last year, the Governor visited Taranaki, Teira offered to sell the land, whereupon Wiremu Kingi protested against the sale in these words: –

"'Listen, Governor, notwithstanding Teira's offer, I will not permit the sale of Waitara to the Pakeha. Waitara is in my hands: I will not give up, I will not, I will not, L will not.' He and his followers abruptly withdrew."

Let us see what ensued: –

"In defiance of all remonstrance on the part of William King and other owners of the land, the purchase was made by the District Commissioner, Mr. Parris. I again cite the Governor's document (page 3): 'Soon after the receipt of Mr. Parris's letter of the 4th December, the Governor in Council gave directions for the survey of the land. Accordingly, on the 20th February the survey was attempted by a small unarmed party, but was put a stop to by a crowd of King's people.' The survey was actually interrupted by women, it being William King's object not to break the peace, but to act legally – that is, to remove trespassers, but to do so without violence. He wished merely to assert his ownership to the land. It is seen above that the survey was first attempted on the 20th February. Will it, then, be believed that a Proclamation of martial law, dated Auckland, January 25th, had already been placed in the hands of a subordinate officer, commanding at Taranaki, to be used at his discretion, though no overt act whatever had at that time been committed? It is difficult to imagine what justification will be given for such an unusual course. Shortly afterwards the land was occupied by the troops, and the natives

retreated to the woods. They returned, and erected a small stockade on the disputed land. Here the first collision took place; after which they evacuated the stockade, and returned again to the woods. The Governor, however, has been attacked by natives of other tribes, who sympathized with William King, but who acted without any orders from him."

Mr. Hadfield next proceeds to an examination of the grounds, publicly set forth by the Governor in justification of these extraordinary acts of coercion. "It is stated," says Mr. Hadfield, "that the land belonged to Teira and a few other persons, who were the real owners, and who have sold it to the Government; that Teira's title to the land was 'carefully investigated, and found to be good;' that William King, and those who acted with him, had no title to it; that 'William King never pretended to deny Teira's right of property, but insisted on his own right to put a veto on all sales at Waitara.' I deny the truth of all the statements."

Much has been said, in a loose way, both in the English and in the New-Zealand papers, about the Waikatos having dispossessed the Ngatiawa (Wiremu Kingi's tribe) of the land at Waitara; the latter, according to native custom, thereby ceasing to be its owners. But to this Mr. Hadfield returns a most conclusive answer. It is, that the Waikatos never held possession of the land; that Wiremu Kingi himself was never conquered; that before the constitution of New Zealand into a colony, this chief apprised Mr. Hadfield of his intention to re-occupy the land; and, lastly, that there is no dispute whatever between the two tribes above named, but that the dispute is between members of the Ngatiawa tribe alone.

Now with regard to Teira's right to sell the land, which is, after all, the chief question at issue. We should be disposed to rest the case upon the simple fact stated by Mr. Hadfield, that Teira's father, Tamati Raru, through whom alone the son could inherit any portion of the land, stedfastly opposed its alienation, and supported Wiremu Kingi in the resistance he offered to that proceeding. Mr. Hadfield then deals with the Governor's statement, that 'William King never denied Teira's right of property:' –

"It is true Mr. Parris, the District Commissioner, says, that in answer to his question, 'Does the land belong to Teira and his party?' he replied, 'Yes; the land is theirs, but I will not let them sell it.' I am credibly informed that the chief did not intend to convey the meaning here attributed to him; that what he said was, that Teira and his party were part owners of the land, but that did not justify them in selling the whole. I can easily conceive how such a mistake would arise, as it is quite in accordance with the idiom of the Maori language to begin an objection by 'Yes,' i. e. You are right to a certain extent, but, &c. And that was exactly the chiefs meaning: 'Teira has a right to a small part, but he wishes to avail himself of that to establish a claim to the whole block of land now under discussion, and that I will not allow him to do.' Here the irregularity of the whole proceeding appears; for had such a question been put in a court of law, and the alleged answer been returned, William King's counsel would have taken care that no inference prejudicial to his interests should be drawn from it."

There is another statement made by the Governor in self-justification, which, as it may possibly be repeated in this country, deserves special notice: –

"The document proceeds: – 'As to the possession, the facts of the case are, that when King returned to Taranaki from Waikanae, in 1848, being in fear of an invasion of the Waikatos from the north, he asked permission of Tamati Raru, Teira's father, to build a pa upon the piece of land on the south bank of Waitara, now sold to the British Government. Permission was granted, and King's pa was erected on the south bank, his cultivations being on the north bank. King's followers have, however, encroached with their cultivations upon the south side of the river; and these encroachments have been, for a long time, a source of continual dissension.' It is true that King did ask Raru's permission to build a pa on a piece of land belonging to him. But what, let me ask, is the impression the passage just cited is intended to convey? Assuredly a very false one. The only possible construction to be put on these words is, that William King and his 'followers' – as his tribe seems to be designated – having no land of their own on the south side of the river, took advantage of a concession made to them for their personal security to encroach on property to which they had no right. But I have before asserted that they were the owners of by far the largest portion of this land, which they had inherited from their ancestors, and which is subdivided and accurately marked with stone posts. What, then, is the one particle of truth on which this false statement is built? It is simply this, that King consulted his friend Raru as to whether the pa, in which, for their mutual security – they all belonging to one tribe – were about to reside, should stand a few chains nearer to the water-side than it would have stood had it been erected on his own land on the same side of the river. I can only characterize this statement as disgraceful to an official document, whether the error arose from ignorance, or wilful misrepresentation."

Enough has been quoted to shew the thorough injustice and impolicy of the present war. Our readers can perceive at a glance how frivolous are the pretexts under which that war has been commenced. The ownership of a certain block of land – six hundred acres in extent – is disputed, or, at all events, the right of Teira to sell it is called in question. Was not this a proper matter for investigation? And before any attempt was made to survey the land, and before the Government committed itself to the cause of Teira, ought not this question to have been settled, if possible, to the satisfaction of all parties, or at least with an eye to justice? But the whole transaction, we are told, was left in the hands of Mr. Parris, the District Land Commissioner, "whose business is to purchase land, and who, by the very nature of his office, is disqualified, in the estimation of the natives, impartially to investigate claims to land." It is difficult to conceive of a more complete subversion of all the principles of justice than this; – of a state of things more calculated to provoke collisions with the natives, or to tempt a subordinate official to the assumption of an authority, which, as in the present case, would naturally lead to wide-spread disaffection. Moreover, the Governor had distinctly pledged himself at Taranaki, in March 1859, "that he would never consent to buy land without an undisputed title." Surely, therefore, some motive

must have prompted the quarrel with Wiremu Kingi very different from that which appears on the surface.

Mr. Hadfield pays the highest tribute to the loyalty and good faith which Wiremu Kingi has always exhibited in his relations with Europeans. He denies that the chief had ever attached himself to any land league, whose object it was to prevent the sale of land. He asserts that the chief had always discountenanced – indeed "strenuously and effectively resisted" – the Maori king movement. He attributes to Wiremu Kingi's exertions the safety of Wellington, when its very existence was threatened, during the disturbances of 1840; and he declares that, later still, in 1846, he took up arms on the side of the Government, and against the rebel chief Te Rangihaeta. The loyalty of this man would, we believe, have remained as firm as a rock, if it had not been cruelly shaken by a display of unprovoked injustice. Let our readers remember this – whatever the anti-native party, or its organs in the press, may say to the contrary – that Wiremu Kingi is fighting against us, not because he has mixed himself up with the king movement or land monopolies, but simply and solely because a British Governor, without any attempt at inquiry, and acting upon the necessarily prejudiced reports of a local official, deprived the chief of a piece of land to which he believed he had an indisputable claim.

The views expressed by Mr. Hadfield appear to be generally shared in by his clerical brethren. The following letter was written by Archdeacon Kissling, who has been for eighteen years a Missionary in New Zealand. It is a valuable confirmation of Mr. Hadfield's narrative: –

"Auckland, 27th April, 1860.

"By the last mail I wrote that 'martial law' had been proclaimed in the Province of Taranaki. I forget whether I entered then into the precise origin of the dispute between the Governor and the natives, indulging, as I did, in the hope that the dark cloud would soon pass away. Indeed, there have appeared a few light streaks in our dark horizon, to cheer our eyes and encourage our prayers, but they have been of very short duration. The aspect of affairs in New Zealand does certainly not improve: we have ground to fear that we are drifting into war, upon the effect and issue of which it is impossible to speculate; and it becomes absolutely necessary that regular and correct information be given to the Society of the passing events, inasmuch as they, both directly and indirectly, deeply affect our whole Mission in New Zealand.

"In stating the origin of the present martial operations in the district of Taranaki, we must commence with Wiremu Kingi, who figures on the Maori side. His native name is Rangitoake, and his father was the great chief Rangitawhangawhanga of Taranaki. Rangitoake accompanied his father about a quarter of a century ago to fight the natives of Waikanae, Otake, and Wairarapa: he was subsequently baptized by the Ven. Archdeacon Henry Williams, taking the name by which he is now generally known, namely, Wiremu Kingi. Upon the formation of this colony he became a faithful ally to the English, and saved Wellington fifteen years ago, when the settlement was attacked by other native tribes. The Rev. Samuel Williams informs me, that when Wiremu Kingi resided at Waikanae, he never failed to be in his

place at church, and took, as teacher, his class in the Sunday-school. About ten years ago, he returned with his people to the abode of his ancestors, occupying a fertile block of land known by the name of 'Waitara,' to the north of New Plymouth. This block of land was subdivided by the natives who returned from Waikanae into numerous patches, containing one acre, two acres, &c. &c.

"On the Governor's visit to Taranaki in March 1859, he made use of the following words, in the conclusion of his speech to the natives: – 'In reference to the second subject, the Governor thought the Maories would be wise to sell the land they cannot use themselves, as it would make what they could use more valuable than the whole; but that he would never consent to buy land without an undisputed title. He would not permit any one to interfere in the sale of land unless he owned part of it; and, on the other hand, he would buy no man's land without his consent.'

"This language of the Governor's has been considered by the Maori chiefs as striking at the very root of their power; for although they may not own part of some land personally, they consider that they have a right to interfere on tribal grounds, and as lords of the manor. There can be no doubt, that if the doctrine above laid down by His Excellency be carried into practice, New Zealand will be involved in warfare, to which we can see no end. Every man who has a spite against his chief or neighbour will revenge himself by offering land for sale, to which he has an undisputed right as an individual, but not as one of the tribe, or as one who respects his chief. Here is obviously a source opened of fruitful quarrels and warfare without end.

"When the Governor had finished his address to the natives, Te Teira, a Waitara native, immediately offered the block of land for sale, which has already cost so much blood and treasure. The purchase was concluded, and Wiremu Kingi, as chief, protested against it. It is stated by Wiremu Kingi's party, that Te Teira did it from feelings of ill will and revenge.

"On December 4th, 1859, Mr. Parris, the District Commissioner, informed the Governor that he had paid the first instalment (100l.) of the purchase-money to Te Teira, and the Governor gave directions for the survey of the land. The Governor also forwarded power to the military officer in command of the military at Taranaki to proclaim martial law, leaving it to his discretion, whento proceed to such extreme measures. Whether this power was wisely given will be seen presently. On the 20th of February 1860, the survey was attempted. Wiremu Kingi made no attack upon the surveying officers; but some women from his pa went out and 'hugged,' or embraced them, telling them not to survey the land. Some of these women also are said to have held the chain. Upon this, martial law was proclaimed. When the report of martial law having been put in force reached Auckland, the Governor hastened to Taranaki with the troops stationed in Auckland, and Her Majesty's Steam Ship The Niger. He arrived there on the 1st of March 1860, and requested Wiremu Kingi to come into the town: this, under the circumstances of the case Wiremu refused to do, but asked the Governor to come to his pa, assuring him safety. 6 On the 5th of March the troops were removed to the Waitara block of land. Two of Wiremu Kingi's pas were consumed and destroyed. Government says they were fired by Te Teira's party; Wiremu Kingi's followers say it was done by the troops; and thus the painful struggle commenced.

"It has never been asserted by any party that the natives made the first stroke, but, on the contrary, they have carefully avoided it to be said that they commenced the warfare. It is clear that the Governor, by his address to the

principal chiefs on March 12th, 1859, and by the subsequent purchase of the Waitara block from Te Teira (500 acres), has, in the opinion of all natives whom I have yet heard on the subject, made a commencement of breaking their old feudal and clannish rights, which have been sanctioned amongst them by habits and customs from time immemorial, and that he has attempted to enforce this dangerous policy by a method unprecedented in the Government of New Zealand.

"Without availing himself of any moral or religious influence from those who would most willingly have come to his assistance to preserve the peace of the country, he thought he could put down the opposition of Wiremu Kingi by the demonstration of force of arms. This novel course of proceedings with the natives, as every old Missionary could have told it beforehand, has totally failed. The native race is not one which can be subdued by intimidation: they will lay down their necks one by one, and have them cut off, before they will part with their rights and their lands. In this respect they are reckless of life.

"The paternal and judicious system, contemptuously called by the violent party 'the tea-and-sugar policy,' is to be abandoned, and the settlers pouring in by thousands are to have the waste land of New Zealand at any price, should it even be the extermination of the entire aboriginal people. The various provinces in New Zealand, with jealous endeavours, invite immigrants from all parts of the world; and as these reach our shores, week after week and month after month, in high expectation of enjoying at once the land that is said to flow with milk and honey, and being disappointed in their dreams, they join the selfish portion of the white population in their cry, 'Down with the natives, we must have their unoccupied lands; civilization cannot be stopped on account of a savage race.' The responsible Ministry is controlled by such a populace; the Governor is influenced and guided by such a responsible Ministry, and the native race must go to the wall. And the names of your Missionaries will be cast out as evil, and represented as traitors to the Government. – See Southern Cross, herewith sent.

"We need the spirit of wisdom, of prayer, and of a sound and firm mind. I have not met any Christian natives who do not bitterly regret that a breach of peace should have been made between the two races; at the same time there is a deep tone of feeling throughout the country to stand upon what they consider their rights. The murders committed by the Ngatiruanui tribe, south of Taranaki, in connection with the Wesleyan Mission, I believe, are entirely repudiated by Wiremu Kingi, and no native with whom I have ever conversed on the subject has attempted to defend the barbarous conduct: it is a matter of shame to them.

5 Published by Williams and Norgate, Henrietta Street, Cuvent Garden.

6 Wiremu Kingi is reported to have said, "I will not be caught as Rauparaha was."

CHAPTER III. AN INQUIRY INTO THE ORIGIN OF THE WAR.

CHAPTER III.

AN INQUIRY INTO THE ORIGIN OF THE WAR.

GOVERNOR BROWNE, who commenced the Taranaki war, has thoroughly committed himself to a declaration of its justice, and has given a version of the circumstances attending its origin, by which he must either stand or fall. In his speech at the opening of the New-Zealand General Assembly, on the 30th July, he said –

"The Province of Taranaki, which has long been a source of anxiety, has recently become the scene of an insurrection, involving portions of several tribes of aboriginal natives.

"The immediate occasion of the disturbance of the public peace has been an attempt on the part of a native chief of the Ngatiawa tribe to forbid the sale to the Crown, and forcibly prevent the survey, of a piece of land to which he he neither asserted nor possessed any title.

"I felt it to be my duty to repel this assumption of an authority inconsistent alike with the maintenance of the Queen's sovereignty and the rights of the proprietors of the land in question. In this course I have received from all parts of the colony assurances of sympathy and support, affording gratifying evidence of the loyalty of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects."

The Governor again, in his despatch to the Duke of Newcastle, represents Wiremu Kingi's claim as being one of "a merely feudal character," and asserts that that chief's avowed object is to become sovereign of that part of New Zealand which is the seat of war. He. says –

"I have insisted upon this comparatively valueless purchase, because, if I had admitted the right of a chief to interfere between us and the lawful proprietors of the soil, I should have found further acquisition of territory impossible in any part of New Zealand. Even if the rights of 'mana' (viz. a feudal sovereignty without proprietary right in the land) exists at all, William King could neither possess nor exercise it, Potatau, the chief of the Waikatos, having obtained it by conquest, and sold all his claims at New Plymouth to the New-Zealand Company. Without admitting this right (which is the only one asserted by William King), I could not, with reason, have rejected the offer made to me by Teira and his party, because that was the only obstacle to selling the land, and (by the treaty of Waitangi) they are prevented from selling to any one but the Government. It follows that I must either have purchased this land, or recognised a right which would have made William King virtual sovereign of this part of New Zealand, which is his avowed ambition."

The misrepresentations contained in these two extracts must startle every one who is acquainted with the real facts of the case. We assert, with all seriousness, that it is impossible to conceive of statements more diametrically opposed to the truth; and we rejoice that the luminous debates in the House of Representatives – more especially the able speeches of Dr. Featherstone, Mr. Forsaith, and Mr. Fox – enable us to expose the errors into which the Governor has been betrayed. We are enabled to deny emphatically almost every assertion which His Excellency has made. It is not true that Wiremu Kingi sought to prevent the survey of a piece of land "to which he neither asserted nor possessed a title." It is not true that he assumed an authority "inconsistent alike with the maintenance of the Queen's sovereignty and the rights of the proprietors of the land in question." It is not true that the only right claimed by Wiremu Kingi was of a feudal character, and that the assertion of this right was the only obstacle to the sale of the land by Teira and his party. And it is equally untrue that he lost his title to the land by a Waikato conquest, or that the object of Wiremu Kingi's ambition was to become virtual sovereign of Taranaki. In

reply to these allegations, we are enabled to declare, and to furnish the proof, that Wiremu Kingi both asserted and possessed a title to a portion of the block at Waitara; that the question which is raised (i. e. the right of proprietorship in the disputed land) in no way infringed upon the Queen's sovereignty; and that Wiremu Kingi not only endeavoured to uphold his own rights (personal as well as tribal), but defended the rights of members of his tribe living at a distance, who were never consulted by Teira when selling the land. Moreover, it is not true that the victory achieved by Potatau, chief of the Waikatos, many years before, and the temporary occupation of this particular district by that tribe, deprived Wiremu Kingi of his rights. Governor Browne alludes only to the sale of land by the Waikatos to the New-Zealand Company, but conceals the fact that Admiral Fitzroy, one of his not very remote predecessors, distinctly recognised the title of the Ngatiawa tribe to the land in question. This is the only decision to which Governor Browne has any right to appeal, and, in fact, it forms his only justification for opening negotiations with Teira at all. That person was not a member of the Waikato tribe; he was simply a chief or headman of a hapu in Wiremu Kingi's tribe; and therefore the Governor, in buying land of him, necessarily recognised the Ngatiawa, and not the Waikato title. But to take another view of the matter; – according to New-Zealand custom, the permanent occupation of a conquered territory is necessary to give a title to the new comers. The Waikatos, by retiring from the land which they had captured from the Ngatiawa, surrendered all the rights of conquest. This is the view which Admiral (then Captain) Fitzroy appears to have taken; and this is a view, too, which accords with common sense and with justice. What, then, can be Governor Browne's motive in giving such prominence to the obsolete question of the Waikato conquest? We fear that it was simply to represent his enemy as an interloper – a man who was only tolerated at Taranaki on sufferance, and whose interference with the land sales was therefore doubly insolent. But we must repeat that consistency required that the Governor should not have recognised Teira's title any more than he did that of Teira's chief; and that if he considered the Waikatos were the real owners of the land, he should have ordered the Land Commissioner to treat with King Potatau as the conqueror.

It becomes of the last importance that we should understand the nature of the native land tenure; and more especially that we should entertain a clear idea of the office and functions of a chief. The question is far from being so complex or difficult to understand as some persons have represented it to be. The chief is not an arbitrary despot, as in Kaffraria: he wields influence rather than power. The rights of property are well defined. Some of these rights are common to the whole tribe, as in the case of waste lands; while others appertain to the individual members thereof.

But in no case is a native permitted to alienate his land, without the consent of the chief, as the representative of the tribe. Dr. Featherstone, in his admirable speech delivered in the House of Representatives on the 7th August, gives the following lucid explanation –

"Sir, I apprehend that there are certain native titles which are based upon well-known customs, and have certain incidents attached to them, which admit of no question – of no possible dispute. First, however, let me remind the House, that by the treaty of Waitangi 'the Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands, and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties, which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their desire to retain the same in their possession.' It follows, that whatever rights, especially territorial, the natives possessed at the time the treaty was made, the Government is bound to respect and preserve inviolate. Now, there are two titles to land which are so universally acknowledged, that they admit of no dispute, viz. by inheritance and by conquest. When land in the possession of a tribe is inherited by them from their ancestors, it is, so far as uncultivated land is concerned, the properly of the whole tribe. Lands actually cultivated by individuals are not absolutely their own, but they are their own as against all other individual claimants; but not as against the tribe. An absolute title does not exist; that is, no individual could sell without the consent of the tribe. And the reason of this restriction upon the power to alienate is plain and obvious. If an individual possessed such a power, he might have sold his land to a member of another tribe, and that, possibly, an enemy, and might thus at any time have embroiled his tribe in war. The restriction was thus dictated by the instinct of self-preservation: it was therefore a universal law – a law necessarily arising from the division of the natives into separate tribes, independent of each other. In the same way, land held by conquest was the property of the whole tribe, because it was obtained by the exertions and valour of the whole male population of the tribe. The leading chiefs had the first choice, then the minor ones, and lastly, their followers selected such land as they required. But these appropriations, for the reasons I have just mentioned, were not considered as establishing an absolute title. They were good holding titles as against all other individuals; but they conferred no right to alienate any portion of the territory of the tribe. But what was the effect of this restriction upon the power to alienate? and it is to this I wish specially to invite your attention. It established a right of property in the whole tribe over the whole territory of the tribe; in other words, a tribal right was created, of which the chief was the representative, the protector, and guardian. The Minister for Native Affairs admitted that the existence of this tribal right must be decided by authority; but he failed to adduce any against it, for the best of all reasons, that there never was a point upon which there existed so unanimous a concurrence of opinion. Thus, if we refer to the report of the Commissioners appointed by the Governor in 1856, to inquire into and report upon the state of native affairs, we find them laying down these laws – 'That each native has a right in common with the whole tribe over the disposal of the land of the tribe, and has an individual right to such portions as he or his parent may have regularly had for cultivation, for dwellings,' &c.; but this individual claim does not amount to a right of disposal to Europeans, as a general rule. 'Generally speaking, there is no such thing as an individual claim, clear and independent of the tribal right.' The chiefs exercise an influence in the

disposal of the land, but have only an individual claim, like the rest of the people, to particular portions. 'When natives first began selling land, they intended only to convey a title similar to that which they as individuals hold themselves,' – 'the right of occupancy.'"

This testimony is clear and to the point. For the security of the tribe against possible treachery, or the sale of its lands to an enemy, the individual right of proprietorship was restricted in the way described. When Wiremu Kingi refused to permit the sale of land at Taranaki, he did no more than exercise the right which was thus clearly invested in him. Mr. Fox, in his able pamphlet, entirely confirms this view of the right of the chief, acting in conjunction with the heads of the hapus, to forbid the alienation of land –

"The native tribe (lwi), is subdivided into 'hapus.' There is a head chief of the tribe; inferior chiefs, the heads of hapus; and individual 'tatua,' or freemen. Every tribe owns large tracts of land. These are the common property of the tribe. Particular hapus, or individual freemen, appropriate by occupation, cultivation, and otherwise, small portions of the common estate. Such occupation vests in them the ownership of the portion appropriated, and gives a right of separate ownership, as against all other individuals. But it does not confer the right of alienation. To other members of the tribe, the hapu or individual may alienate. But they cannot alienate from the tribe without the consent of the tribe. The power of giving this consent is usually vested in the chief, who is a trustee of the rights of the tribe. This limitation is founded on reason, the political status of the tribe, as a whole, depending on its maintaining the integrity of its territory, and on the exclusion of foreigners, who might be members of a hostile tribe."

Mr. Fox fortifies himself with the authority of Dr. Thomson, 7 Mr. Busby, who gave evidence before a Committee of the House Commons in 1840, Archdeacon Hadfield (a Missionary of twenty-three years standing), and Mr. George Clarke, formerly Protector of Aborigines, and the head of the Land-purchase Department for many years. The latter gentleman says –

"We never considered a purchase complete until all parties having claims, or pretended claims, were satisfied. The same rule was adopted by Commissioners Godfrey and Richmond in reference to European purchasers (as distinguished from purchases by its Government.) Had such a chief as William King objected to a purchase, or a chief of much less note, it would have been rejected by them immediately. Apply the rule to the present pretended purchase by the Government. I should have objected to any purchase where such an influential chief as W. King opposed the measure, or even hinted at an objection; and there is no tribunal at which such cases could be decided but that of the chiefs. And after all, no decision could have been valid without convincing King, and having his assent to the purchase."

Mr. Fox further says –

"No instance previous to the Taranaki purchase has ever occurred in which

land has been purchased by the Government from a hapu, or from an individual, against the remonstrance of the head chief. (See the preceding extract from Mr. Clarke's letter.) A return of any such purchase, if it existed, has been moved for in the House of Representatives, and the mover has been told by the Government that the return would be simply 'nil,' and no return has yet been made. The purchase from E. Teira, which has led to this war, 8 is believed to be the first attempt to buy from individual natives or from a hapu, against the personal remonstrances of the chief of the tribe, and the chief of the hapu. The natives, consequently, regard the transaction as indicating an entire change in the system of land purchases, and as a departure from the principle of the treaty of Waitangi."

What right had the Governor to set aside, without the consent of those who were primarily interested in the matter, customs which had obtained among the natives from time immemorial, which were founded upon reason and justice, and which were expressly guaranteed to them by the provisions of the treaty of Waitangi? The Governor had determined to annihilate the tribal, and to recognise only the individual right. He wished to facilitate the purchase of land from the natives, and not to permit the authority of a chief to interpose. But in trampling native customs under foot he was guilty of an act of aggression which no pretext can justify. He writes in his despatch as though the authority claimed by Wiremu Kingi was a modern innovation, instead of being an ancient custom – a custom which has been recognised in innumerable instances by every successive government of New Zealand, from Captain Hobson's time down to the present Governor's. Mr. Forsaith, the member for Auckland, in his able and exhaustive speech, delivered in the House of Representatives on the 3d of August, gives an example which has occurred within the last year or two –

"A case strictly analogous to that of Teira occurs to my mind. Wata Kukutai, a well-known chief of Waikato, desired to accomplish certain objects, towards the accomplishment of which the possession of some ready money was indispensably necessary. To obtain funds, he determined to sell a piece of land on the borders of the Lake Waikari, of which he was the undoubted principal proprietor. He came to town and made the offer. Te Karehi, a distant connection, and a thorough Maori-Kingite, heard of Kukutai's intention, and followed close upon his heels to forbid the sale. As soon as his objection was known at the office, the Commissioner closed the negotiations, telling Kukutai, that as there was a dispute, the land would not be purchased. Why could not the same course have been adopted with reference to Teira?"

The reason, we fear, was, that while, in the case cited by Mr. Forsaith, there was no motive to act upon unjust principles, yet those who prompted the Land-purchase Department to buy the block offered by Teira at Taranaki, possessed an official influence co-equal with their covetousness.

But having shewn that Wiremu Kingi, as chief of the tribe, was

entitled to exercise a power of veto over the sale of the land, we proceed to another part of this unhappy history, which exhibits in a still more marked manner the injustice of the Governor's proceedings. Wiremu Kingi, as we have before remarked, claimed, and appears to have actually enjoyed, a personal right of proprietorship in a portion of the land which Teira sold. More than this, Teira took upon himself to sell land belonging to numerous members of the tribe who were living at Waikanae, Otaki, and other places, and whose "bedrooms" it was the sacred duty of Wiremu Kingi, in their absence, to protect. The Governor asserts that the right of "mana" is the only one claimed by Wiremu Kingi, evidently founding this statement upon a report of a conversation between Mr. Parris, the Land Commissioner, and the chief, in which the latter, when asked the question, "Does the land belong to Teira and party?" is said to have returned the following answer – "Yes, the land is their's, but I will not let them sell it." This, according to native idiom, by no means implied that he admitted Teira's sole and absolute right to the land. Mr. Forsaith, who is the best Maori scholar in the House, says –

"I stake my reputation for some little acquaintance with the native language and the modes of native expression, upon the assertion that the question and answer, as here given, were perfectly compatible with the existence of a claim on the part of W. King."

But this is proved beyond doubt by the evidence of the chiefs own letter to the Governor. This letter, together with Mr. Forsaith's running comments upon it, we subjoin –

"I regret," says Mr. Forsaith, "that I have not the original before me, because, even through the veil of a translation, I can see how pregnant with emphatic meaning is every sentence it contains: – 'Friend, salutations to you. Your letter has reached me about Te Teira's and Retimana's thoughts. I will not agree to our bedroom being sold (I mean Waitara here), for this bed belongs to the whole of us,' (I beg hon. members to mark this expression, 'belongs to the whole of us.' Is not this asserting a claim?) 'and do not you be in haste to give the money. Do you hearken to my word. If you give the money secretly you will get no land for it. You may insist, but I will never agree to it. Do not suppose that this is nonsense on my part; no, it is true, for it is an old word,' (this is a remarkable phrase, and embodies an allusion which I shall presently refer to and explain); 'and now I have no new proposal to make, either as regards selling or any thing else. All I have to say to you, O Governor, is, that none of this land will be given to you, never, never, not till I die. I have heard it said that I am to be imprisoned because of this land. I am very sorry because of this word. Why is it? You should remember that the Maories and Pakehas are living quietly upon their pieces of land' (a singularly quiet sentence to be penned by the turbulent leader of a mob), 'and therefore do not you disturb them. Do not say, also, that there is no one so bad as myself. This is another word to you, O Governor. The land will never, never, be given to you – not till I die. Do not be anxious for men's thoughts. This is all I have to say to you. From your loving friend.

WM. KING.' Sir, there is nothing disrespectful in this letter, nothing turbulent, but every word is pregnant with emphatic meaning."

And yet, many months afterwards, the Governor, in writing to the Duke of Newcastle, asserted that Wiremu Kingi made no claim to the land other than that which was based upon a mere feudal authority, inconsistent with the sovereignty of the Queen! It is important to note that this letter was dated the 25th of April 1859, that is, three months before the Governor declared, in his speech before the General Assembly, that Wiremu Kingi "neither asserted nor possessed any title" to the land. But there are two or three other important letters of Wiremu Kingi's which we must put on record, as shewing the real nature of the question at issue between him and the Governor. The first is a communication which he addressed to Archdeacon Hadfield on the 2d of July 1859. 9 We will quote this document, together with Mr. Forsaith's

explanatory remarks, which, as we before observed, are rendered valuable by his familiarity with the Maori language –

"'Listen to me, these are not recent thoughts of mine respecting Waitara: you well know that it is this – this is Waitara, think of the words of Rere.' (This is but the literal rendering of this remarkable passage. It means more than this: it is as though the writer had said, You know all the endearing associations connected with this place: Waitara has wound itself around the very fibres of my heart). Then, further on, after alluding to Mr. Parris, he goes on to say, 'He (Mr. Parris) has lifted up his heel against me. This is what he said to me – "I was the means of saving your life." I must apprise hon. members that the literal rendering of this sentence gives but a very faint idea of the real import of the original words, 'Naku koe i ora ai.' Maori scholars will understand me when I say that this sentence to a native chief conveys a great deal more than 'I was the means of saving your life.' In short, it is a most humiliating and offensive form of expression. It does not amount to a curse, but, when addressed to a native chief, could hardly be regarded otherwise than as a grievous insult. Personally, I have but a very slight knowledge of Mr. Parris. From what I know of him I should at once acquit him of any intentional offence. But if he used this form of expression – however innocently on his part – I gather from the very fact a convincing proof that he is not possessed of that intimate acquaintance with the language and the habits of thought and feeling of the natives, which ought to be regarded as essential qualifications in a person entrusted with the delicate and difficult task of investigating a title to land. If Mr. Parris did use this expression – whether innocently or not is no matter – he could not have hit upon a more certain mode of raising a formidable obstacle to his wishes, and defeating the object be had in view, the inducing of W. King to accede to the sale. I proceed with my quotations –

"'Recently, his (Mr. Parris) and Hare's word' (I don't know whom the writer means by "Hare,") – [An hon. member: Mr. Halse] – has appeared to me that I am to be taken prisoner because I withhold the land, inasmuch as the withholding of the land is, in their estimation, the greatest of offences, and for this reason has appeared (or is reported to me) the opinion of all the Europeans that I am the worst of men. I am not able, up to this time, to discover wherein consists my guilt.' This is a very mild yet forcible appeal, as though he had said, I have resorted to a rigid self-examination, but up to the present moment I have failed to discover the justice of this general impression of my guilt. He goes on: 'If I had taken any land belonging to the Europeans, then my fault would have been proved; or if I had assaulted any European, then my accusation would have been just. But they are bringing guilt to me.'

"The original here is very forcible. It means, I am hitherto guiltless of intentional offence, but they are driving me into the position of an offender. They are forcing me to become a guilty man.

"'There is another word of his (Mr. Parris). The Europeans will not regard my words. They now say, although only one man shall offer to give up the land, they will be satisfied. Now hear me, this is bad, very bad, extremely bad.'

Again, the chief, in a letter dated 27th July 1859, writes –

"Listen: the conduct of the Europeans is unchanged. I am to be imprisoned for my obstinacy in holding the land.... This is another word of mine, do not let it grieve you. Mr. Parris is the European who strives so. Great is

the obduracy of this European. His word has appeared to me (or been reported to me) that I am to be shot, and buried outside in our cultivations, not to be carried to the burial place."

"The original," says Mr. Forsaith, "is very significant; it is as though the writer had said I am to be shot, and buried with the burial of an ass; my carcase is not to be allowed to repose in the sepulchres of my fathers. And when he speaks of the 'tohe' of Mr. Parris about the land, we must remember that this word 'tohe' (literally, striving, entreating) 'when persisted in for a long time, and stereotyped, as it were, in practice conveys the idea of an irritating, teasing, worrying process."

"Therefore I thought you might have influence with the Governor and Mr. McLean, to cause his (Mr. Parris') procedings to be stopped with reference to the Waitara – his endeavours to obtain it. Listen also, the course pursued by that European is a bad course. He is leading in the part that will end in causing men to offend."

Who will now hesitate to arrive at Mr. Forsaith's conclusion that, with the evidence of such a manifestly unfriendly feeling between Mr. Parris and the chief, the former was utterly precluded "from being the right man to arrive at the truth respecting W. King's claim." If a man possessing a happier temperament than Mr. Parris had occupied the position of land-agent, who can doubt that the dispute might have been amicably settled? But there is too much reason to believe that the purchase of the coveted block at Waitara was predetermined, without reference to the actual validity or otherwise of Teira's title. The colonists were confined within a narrow area at Taranaki. They had long been clamorous for more land, and because the natives were indisposed to sell (as they had a right to be, seeing that the land was their own, and they were able to appreciate its value), they had called upon the Governor "to compel" the natives "to sever their tribal tenancies, to lead to a sale of their lands," 10 – a proposal which Governor Browne at that time very properly rejected.

"The proposal" says Mr. Fox, 'is of consequence, as indicating the strength of the desire felt to obtain the waste lands at Taranaki; and what gives it peculiar importance is this fact, that one of the representatives of Taranaki in the General Assembly fills the office of 'Native Minister,' and has been for nearly five years one of the Governor's 'responsible advisers.'"

This significant fact may in a great measure account for the change which must have taken place in the Governor's opinions, and also for the readiness with which his Cabinet, although not previously responsible for his native policy, adopted his acts, and agreed, if necessary to employ military force.

We have given Mr. Parris's version of his interview with Wiremu Kingi. Let us now have the benefit of the chiefs own account of that, affair, contained in a letter dated the 5th of December 1859 –

"Friend, listen to me: this is my saying, that you may explain to me the new policy of the Governor. I heard from Mr, Parris, on the occasion of my going to town, to prevent the money of the Governor being given for Waitara, 100l. I said to him (Mr. Parris) 'Friend, keep your money.' He answered me, 'I will not.' I replied, 'There will be no land upon which your money can alight.' Upon which he (Mr. Parris) answered, 'This is wrong. When the Governor comes it will be very wrong.' I replied, 'Be it so. It is for you to bring me the wrong (i. e. you must be the aggressor.') Enough for me, I keep the land. I also said to him, 'Land that is obdurate ("pakeke," i. e. disputed land,) the Governor is not desirous of having.' He replied, 'That was formerly, but now the Governor has a new method.' My belief is the Governor is seeking to quarrel, as he is putting death before me. Therefore I ask you to enlighten me, as you have perhaps heard of the Governor's new method (or policy).... Listen, the land will not be given up by me. If the Governor without cause attacks me, and I am killed, then there will be no help for it, because it is an old saying – the man first, the land afterwards (i. e. first kill and then take possession). Therefore I make known my words to you, that you may quietly understand my offence, and also the offence of all the Europeans – of Mr. Parris, of Mr. Whiteley, of the Governor. They say this piece of land belongs only to Teira. But it is not so: it belongs to us: all to the orphans and the widows this piece of land belongs."

In this letter, again, Teira's title to the land was clearly disputed, and the right of other members of the tribe to a share in the ownership was as distinctly asserted – "To the widows and the orphans this piece of land belongs." In March 1859, the Governor had pledged himself at Taranaki itself, that he would never consent to buy land, "without an undisputed title." Have we not shewn, again and again, that Wiremu Kingi disputed Teira's right to sell this land? Why, therefore, did not the Governor fulfil his promise, and institute an investigation, before permitting Mr. Parris to strike a bargain with Teira? But we are gravely told that an investigation was instituted, and that it actually occupied a period of eight months before the first instalment was paid to Teira. But it appears that this inquiry, if it may be so designated, was conducted by Mr. Parris, the very land-agent who was the principal party to the negotiation with Teira! What, therefore, was the natural result? Why, not only that Wiremu Kingi's rights, both as a chief and an individual, were ignored, but that the rights of a large number of other members of the tribe, living at various places, were as deliberately passed over. It appears that not fewer than one hundred persons own the land which Teira "and his party" took upon themselves to sell, and which a British Governor bought with the consent of only a fraction of the owners. The principle which had been previously adopted, and which alone could ensure justice and satisfaction to all parties, was, that the consent of every individual owner, however small his allotment might be, should be obtained before a purchase could be effected. But how stands the matter at the present moment in connection with the Waitara block? We have before us a very interesting letter which Riwai Te Ahu, a native clergyman of Otaki, has

addressed to the Superintendant of Wellington. This gentleman explains clearly enough how the mistake as to the meaning of Wiremu Kingi's remarks in the interview with Mr. Parris was made – that when the chief said that Teira had a right to the land, he meant his own pieces in it.

"If inquiries had been made on both sides of the question – if what they (W. K.'s party) had to say had been heard, and their inquiries had likewise extended to us (at Waikanae, &c. ) – it would have been evident that Teira and his party were in the wrong. Had such inquiries been made, they must have exclaimed – 'Well! their pieces are dotted about amongst those belonging to persons who refused to sell, and amongst ones who dwell here.'"

From Riwai Te Ahu's letter it appears that each man's inheritance was clearly defined by stone-posts, and that Wiremu Kingi's own land was so indicated, and bore the name of Te Porepore: –

"Now this land was not divided into different portions for the different hapu, for Ngatihinga and Ngatituaho, and for Ngatikura and Ngatinenuha and other hapu holding within the block, which has been purchased by the Governor. No, they were all intermingled, the boundaries of each individual's land having been marked by stone-posts by our ancestors; besides these hapu are not of two different tribes: they are all of one tribe. 11

"All of these different portions of land have names given to them by our ancestors: the name of William King's is Te Porepore. One portion of land belonging to his son and daughter, which was the property of their mother, is that on which Te Hurirapa's pa stood, which was burnt by the soldiers. Another portion of land is at Orapa, to the south of where their old pa stood. All these portions are contained in the block asserted to be Teira's, and have all been taken by the Governor.

"All the portions of land belonging to us and those who opposed the sale – Ngatikura and Ngateuenuku, and some of Ngatihinga and Ngatituaho, besides portions which belong to the hapu, have all been included in the block of land which the Land Commissioner of Taranaki asserts to belong to Teira alone. What can be the meaning of this expression – 'William King was permitted to live on that land by their consent when he returned from Waikanae?' Who can venture to make such an assertion? It was no such thing; each man knew the portion of land inherited from his ancestors. Was it by their assent that Te Porepore became the property of William King when he returned from Waikanae? Was it by their own permission that Te Huirapa became the property of his children when they returned from Waikanae, which has been taken away by the soldiers? Was it by their permission that our lands, inherited from our ancestors, became our property, which lands have all been taken from us at the point of the sword? In my opinion such an assertion is like deadly poison. According to the opinion of the Land Commissioner of Taranaki, Teira was quite justified in asserting his right to sell the whole of that block, and William King was utterly wrong (in denying it). In our opinion Teira's act was a great crime, and nothing can be said in his behalf which can hide his unjust act.

"In conclusion, I must say that I am unable to suggest any thing to my people to pacify them in their sorrow about our lands: they are very much

grieved about the seizure of the lands of our ancestors. If that land should be permanently wrested from them, then this saying will be handed down through all future generations – that land was forcibly and unlawfully taken away by a Governor appointed by the Queen of England."

There was another letter addressed by several chiefs and natives to the Superintendant of Wellington, in which the same facts were related. But enough, we think, has been said to cast the gravest doubts upon the right of Teira to sell the land, and to prove indisputably that the Government committed a fatal error when, in the teeth of their former pledge, they purchased land with a defective title. Can we not cordially agree with Dr. Featherstone, when he says that the simple question is, whether "the Government is justified in ejecting vi et armis certain chiefs and their people from lands of which they are the rightful owners, and which they had inherited from a long line of ancestors?" Surely all conscientious and reasonable Englishmen can give but one answer.

Who can wonder that a brave and high-spirited people, finding that the Government were determined to wrest from them their lands, should rise up in self-defence? But even this might not have happened, and the war have been averted, if another fearful error had not been committed. The Governor having consulted his responsible advisers, and they, unfortunately for themselves and for the colony, having decided to support His Excellency in the course which he had marked out, a proclamation of martial law was transmitted to Colonel Murray, the officer in command at Taranaki, with a despatch informing him that its publication was to be left to his own discretion. As soon, therefore, as a number of women, said to be the wives and daughters of Patuhakariki, the principal chief of Teira's hapu, obstructed the surveyors in their attempts to survey the disputed land, Colonel Murray issued the proclamation of martial law. Could any thing be more monstrous or illegal than this? Martial law is an instrument of terror which ought never to be made use of except in the most extreme cases, and when every reasonable means of pacification has been exhausted. But in this instance no violence had been attempted, for it is absurd to give that character to the interruptions of a few unarmed and defenceless women. The worst, however, remains to be told. The proclamation of martial law was in reality a declaration of war, and could only be so interpreted by the natives. We subjoin this extraordinary document: –

"Literal translation of the Proclamation of Martial Law from the version published in Maori: –

"PROCLAMATION.

"By the Governor, Colonel Thomas Gore Browne, Principal Chief, C. B., &c. &c., this Proclamation is by the Governor of this Colony of New Zealand.

"Because soon will be commenced the work of the soldiers of the Queen against the natives of Taranaki, who are naughty (rebellious), fighting against the authority of the Queen. Now, I, the Governor, do openly publish and proclaim this word, that the fighting law will extend at this time to Taranaki as a fixed law until the time when it shall be revoked by Proclamation.

"Given by my hand, under the great seal of the Colony of New Zealand, at Auckland, this day the twenty-seventh day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

"THOMAS GORE BROWNE, Governor.

"By order of the Governor,
"E. W. STAFFORD, Secretary of the Colony.
"GOD SAVE THE QUEEN."

There are one or two things about the proclamation which will at once strike the reader's eye, and excite his grave reprehension. Neither at the time of its original concoction, at Auckland, nor at the period of its publication by Colonel Murray, were there any natives "fighting" against the authority of the Queen

We should imagine that such an act as the drawing up of a proclamation of martial law at Auckland when no disturbances whatever existed in the proclaimed districts, and its being forwarded to a military officer, with instructions to use it or not, as he might think fit, is almost without a parallel in the history of Colonial misgovernment. How could the Governor or the Colonial Secretary, on the 27th of January I860, sign a proclamation which declared that the natives were "naughty, fighting against the authority of the Queen," when at that time they had committed no act of hostility? It is also worthy of notice, that the proclamation is addressed not merely to the natives concerned in the quarrels about the land, but to all the natives at Taranaki; which was pretty much the same as though a magistrate, upon hearing that a disturbance had broken out in Whitechapel, should read the Riot Act to the pacific inhabitants of Mile End, as well as to the actual disturbers of the peace. But when the natives were further told "that the fighting – law will extend at this time to Taranaki as a fixed law, until the time when it shall be revoked by proclamation," what were they to understand from this but that the Governor had made up his mind to fight, and that war, in fact, was declared. From this moment peace became impossible; and when the Governor, on his arrival at Taranaki with troops, in the month of March, invited Wiremu Kingi to see him, the chief mistrusted his intentions, and kept away.

These, then, are the most serious of the facts upon which we base our opinion that the present war in New Zealand is an unjust and unnecessary war. That opinion is shared in by a large number of the most influential and deservedly – respected of the Colonists, and, as we have seen, by those noble-hearted Missionaries – from the Bishop of New Zealand downwards – who have proved themselves to be the true representatives of the Christian religion. The facts of the war have been insidiously misrepresented at home.

The voice of calumny has been raised more especially against Bishop Selwyn and Archdeacon Hadfield. The conviction that they have done their duty – that they have endeavoured to protect that race whose dearest rights are menaced – will sufficiently sustain them. But they may be also comforted by the assurance that the tide will soon turn in this country. Already, in many quarters, the war is regarded with the gravest suspicion. Some of its advocates have shewn the cloven foot too much by proposing to take advantage of the war to abolish the treaty of Waitangi, as though a local dispute at Taranaki, even if justice was on our side, which it is not, could form any ground for putting an end to a treaty entered into with the general body of the natives. The selfishness and the iniquity of this proposal reveal the existence of a colonial element hostile to the natives, which will require the utmost vigilance and fidelity on the part of their friends to keep under control. The Church Missionary Society deserves a high tribute of praise for the earnestness of the co-operation which it has rendered to its worthy representatives in New Zealand. The Memorial which it has presented to the Duke of Newcastle states the facts of the case, and makes known the policy which should be adopted with a clearness and a force that leave nothing to be desired. The treaty of Waitangi must be sacredly maintained, otherwise a war of races will take place, the issue of which it is impossible to predict; and the British nation will be involved in a responsibility and an expense which Sir Cornewall Lewis, writing on their behalf, has distinctly repudiated. With reference to the war at Taranaki, the first thing that both justice and sound policy suggests is, to enter into a truce with Wiremu Kingi, of whose good feeling towards the English we have received many trustworthy assurances. The land question at Waitara must then be settled on strict principles of justice. If it should he ascertained – as we have no doubt will be the case – that the just authority of the chief has been trampled upon, and the rights of the real proprietors ignored, the false steps which have been taken must be retraced, and the land restored to those who alone are entitled to possess it. A native chief, speaking on this subject at Waikato, said –

"The Governor ought to have gone and inquired into the conduct of Te Rangitake (King), then returned, consulted Potatau, and formed a committee of missionaries, magistrates, and chiefs, to inquire into the matter, and if they found that Rangitake is wrong, settle the matter by giving the land to the Governor."

Let the advice of the native be now acted upon, and the aid of impartial persons invoked for the purpose of settling the dispute. We have faith that if such a mediation is employed – if we employ Christian instead of warlike agencies to bring the war to a termination – peace may be restored to that unhappy province, which is now the scene of so much misery and bloodshed.

7 "Story of New Zealand," Vol. I. p. 97.

8 "New Zealand War," p. 26.

9 Archdeacon Hadfield has been most unjustly assailed in this country and in New Zealand for not having sent copies of this and subsequent letters from William King to the Government. We have not space for the Archdeacon's complete vindication of himself from these imputations, but the following extract from a letter, which is addressed to the Southern Cross (Sept. 1860) will suffice: "I am blamed for not having communicated these letters to the Governor. It is said, that as the Governor requested me to inform him of any thing connected with the native population which I might consider important, and that as I had promised to do so, these letters ought to have been forwarded to him. But the Governor's request and my promise occurred some time after the receipt of William King's two first letters. His letter of December only reached me some weeks after its date. The Governor was then at the South, and I expected to see him in Wellington. It was also generally understood that the Assembly was to meet there early in March. Still it may be asked why I did not comply with William King's request. My reason for not writing to the Governor on this subject was my entire reliance on the assurance I received from him, when he did me the honour to visit me at Otaki, in May last year, that nothing would induce him to use force in order to obtain land about which there was a dispute, or yield to his responsible advisers, if ever they should endeavour to press upon him such a step. I should certainly have thought I was offering an insult to His Excellency had I taken any step calculated to imply that I thought it possible he could commit an act of injustice. I never for a moment entertained a suspicion that William King and his tribe would be forcibly ejected from land to which they had an undoubted title. What was the Governor's answer to the settlers at New Plymouth when they prayed him not to adopt any course inconsistent with the Queen's sovereignty? It was an indignant repudiation of the implied possibility of his doing any thing of the kind. Such an answer is exactly what I might have expected had I suggested my belief in the probability of his beginning an aggressive war – a war, the ruinous and disastrous nature of which it is dreadful to contemplate – without even, as it appeared to me, a reasonable pretext." But as we have already shewn, in the month of April 1859, between two and three months before William King's first letter to Archdeacon Hadfield, the chief had written to the Governor claiming that the "bedroom" which Teira had offered for sale, was the property of the tribe. The attempt therefore to fasten responsibility upon the Archdeacon for not communicating information with which the Governor was already acquainted is evidently intended to divert attention from the real question at issue.

10 "The War in New Zealand," by William Fox, p. 21.

11 The Ngatiawa, which embraces all the hapus named.

APPENDIX.

APPENDIX.

EXTRACT FROM THE BISHOP OF NEW ZEALAND'S PASTORAL LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN NEW PLYMOUTH.

(From the Southern Cross.)

IT has always been my lot to be accused of opposing the interests of my own countrymen in the settlements of the New-Zealand Company, by supporting the claims of the native inhabitants. The root of all this appearance of opposition (for I deny that it was real) lay in the fact, that the Agents of the New-Zealand Company, while they recognised, by partial acts of purchase, the right of the natives to the land, did not sufficiently investigate the titles, and therefore failed to extinguish them. The solution of the question was made more difficult, by the large supply of double-barrelled guns which were given to the natives in payment for the land. A transaction which was supposed to give to two or three thousand Englishmen an absolute right to dispossess seven thousand armed New Zealanders, was concluded within a space of time, in which no honest conveyancer would undertake to draw a marriage settlement upon an encumbered estate. This was the wholesale mistake, which led to all the misfortunes and disappointments of the Company's settlers. If the purchases had been conducted with more deliberation, over small blocks of land, and with the consent of all the owners, there is reason to believe that the colonists would have remained undisturbed, as the purchases of private settlers have, almost in every instance, been sustained by the testimony of the native vendors. It is against all experience to say that either the New Zealanders are unwilling to sell land, or that, having sold it, they will not allow the purchaser to enter into possession. The Ngapuhi Chief, Hongi (to whose jealous fear of the forcible occupation of the country by the English many of the feelings of the natives of the present day may be traced), always encouraged the sale of land to the European settlers, and protected them in the enjoyment of their rights. I presume that it was in reliance upon this well-known character of the New Zealanders, that the first settlement was formed at Port Nicholson, before the arrival of Governor Hobson, as a federal government under the sovereignty of the native chiefs. When I find myself accused of blighting the prospects of my countrymen, I think it sufficient to point to the Province of Auckland, in which I nominally reside, where every merchant, and almost every settler would be ready to admit that the province owes its present wonderful prosperity to the peaceful union of the two races. One hundred and fifty coasting vessels bring native produce into the port of Auckland. Five large rivers, navigated by innumerable canoes, bring down from the heart of the country the flour ground in more than twenty native water-mills. Fifty thousand natives draw their supplies of clothing, tobacco, and hardware from its stores, paying a large share of the indirect taxation of the country, without so much as asking for a share in its representative institutions. I am sure that it has been the constant feeling in the Province of Auckland, that while the New Zealanders thus con-

fidingly leave to our race the entire control over the revenue accruing from their industry, so much the more must be our bounden duty to legislate wisely and equitably for them. I am not aware that a single syllable has ever been said in that province about taking possession of land which the native owners were not disposed to sell. The result of this equitable system may be judged of by a single fact, that when Captain Fitz Roy waived the Queen's right of pre-emption, 70,000 acres of land were bought by English purchasers in the course of a few months; and the great argument alleged in favour of the "Penny Proclamation," (as it was called) was, that the natives would be discontented if they were restricted in the sale of their land.

The general appearance of the Province of New Plymouth justifies the belief, that, in respect of the joint interest of the two races, the state of the case is essentially the same as at Auckland. The coasting craft and canoes of that province are here represented by the almost innumerable carts which may be seen on market days coming from north and south into the settlement. Almost as many native ploughs are constantly employed in augmenting your exports. I hear of 125l. paid by a native purchaser as the price of a pair of working bullocks. The threshing machines in use in the settlement are said to be the property of native farmers. The river Waitara is stated to have exported in one year 500l. worth of produce; every shilling of which has been spent in your stores; and has paid its per centage to the revenue administered by your Provincial Council. Surely, then, it is as unjust as it is impolitic to grudge to an industrious people the possession of land which they have shewn themselves so able and willing to cultivate; and to look with an evil eye upon the places which remain waste; and even to threaten force, if they will not consent to sell the land, which, whether cultivated or not, is admitted to be their own. It is strange indeed that your advisers in the local newspapers (2) who dwell so much upon the sixth commandment, should forget altogether that the same law has also said, THOU shalt not covet. They may disguise it to their own consciences, but it is my duty, as a minister of the Law and of the Gospel, to lift up my voice against the publication of opinions, which would lead on to the sin of murder as the direct consequence of the sin of covetousness. I offer to my countrymen my best assistance and influence with the native people in all their just and lawful desires, but I have no fellowship with covetousness, because Ahab found it to be but the first step to bloodguiltiness. Surely there is enough of blood already crying out of the ground against the Christian nations of Europe – against Spain, and France, and England – to make us tremble for the issue of our own connection with the New Zealanders. I cannot remain silent while opinions are being expressed and plans proposed, which, if you prove to be the stronger, would destroy the New Zealanders; or, if you be found the weaker, would destroy yourselves.

ARCHDEACON HADFIELD ON THE LAND LEAGUE.

The advocates of the war having ignominiously failed in their various attempts to bring discredit upon Archdeacon Hadfield, have resorted to the expedient of representing Otaki, where he resides, and where his influence with the natives is justly great, as the head-quarters of on anti-land-selling league. This, like the charge against the Archdeacon that he had maliciously concealed certain letters of Wiremu Kingi (before alluded to) from the Governor; and that he had instigated the natives of Otaki to petition for the recall of the Governor – a statement which had no element of truth whatever in it – is simply intended to divert attention from the conduct of the real originators of the war. There

is grave reason to believe that the whole story of a land league, in the sense of a general combination of the natives to prevent any further sale of their lands, is either a fabrication altogether, or a gross exaggeration. Certainly William King had no connection with it. In a lettter to the New-Zealand, Spectator (dated Nov. 3. 1860) Archdeacon Hadfield sheds considerable light on the subject. He says: –

What I now assert, and until proof is adduced to the contrary by those who can shew where this imaginary league exists, must continue to assert, is, that there is no such league, and that there never has been any such league; that the whole story is an invention, a fabrication, an imposition; that it either is a fiction, or the Government is chargeable with gross negligence for never having taken steps to put down a conspiracy having objects so clearly avowed and so dangerous as Mr. M'Lean states them to have been seven years ago. But I am quite sure that no proof can be adduced to the contrary. It may be suggested that I am ignorant of the subject. But until the questions I have asked above are satisfactorily answered, there is such a prima facie appearance of incredibility about it, that the charge of ignorance is hardly worth refuting. But Mr. M'Lean is debarred from making such an objection, because he has stated his belief that the league commenced at Otaki, in which case no one would be more likely than Mr. Williams and myself to have some knowledge of this league; but we both assert it to be a fiction.

The Native Minister made use of language in the House very similar to that used by Mr. M'Lean. And during the whole of the debates on the origin of the Waitara hostilities, it was really amusing to notice how every speaker on the Ministerial side of the House, when all arguments in defence of either the justice or necessity of the war seemed to fail, immediately had recourse to the land-league. William King was called a land-leaguer (I think Mr. Richmond invented the term), and this invariably produced a (hear hear). This was considered an unanswerable argument, on the principle, I presume, of omne ignotum, &c. This imaginary league did more service on the Government side of the House than all the other fictions invented for the occasion put together, such as, Teira's chieftainship – William King's armed resistance to the survey – or his refusal to meet the Governor before war was officially declared. The general ignorance displayed on the subject by the Native Minister and his supporters may account for, though it does not justify, the use made of this bugbear. But Mr. M'Lean cannot be excused in the same way. I must repeat, that the language contained in the passage cited above from his statement deliberately made before the Committee of the House, is the most barefaced and shameless fabrication that I ever knew to be officially made.

I shall probably be asked whether there was not such a land league at Otaki many years ago, and whether this league did not keep gaining ground for some years, until a general meeting took place in the Ngatiruanui country seven years ago. The answer has been given by Mr. Williams: "The Otaki and Manawatu natives (principally Ngatiraukawa) entered into an agreement not to sell any more land within certain boundaries, over which they had an undoubted control according to native custom. This agreement was, however, cancelled in 1852."

It would simply be an absurd and unwarrantable abuse of language to call this local agreement, made for the prevention of the further sale of land until some internal differences and disputes had been ad justed, a league. But this agreement, made for a temporary purpose, and which terminated in 1852, is the only agreement of the kind that has ever existed here. To assert, therefore, as Mr. M'Lean does, that this local, temporary agreement, which he calls a league, and which actually ceased in 1852, "kept gaining ground for some years until

a general meeting took place in the Ngatiruanui country" where the murderous resolutions already referred to are said to have been agreed upon, and that it ultimately developed itself in an anti-land-selling league which occasioned most of the difficulties and opposition which were encountered in the attempted purchase of Waitara, is to state what is absolutely false. Mr. Williams confirms my statement: he says – "The meeting at Manawapou, in the Ngatiruanui district, had no connection whatever with the agreement entered into at Otaki and Manawatu, which had been cancelled two years before."

I have already denied that any such resolutions as those mentioned by Mr. M'Lean were adopted at the Manawapou meeting. The attempt made at that meeting to get up a land-league utterly failed; and failed, let it be observed, through the advice of the few Natives who attended from Otaki and its neighbourhood. The decision arrived at was that stated by Mr. Williams – "that each tribe should be left to manage its own affairs; the very opposite of an anti-land-selling league. Mr. Williams likewise correctly says – "what is called the land-league at Waitara was entirely of a local character." It was in fact a mere temporary agreement among members of the same tribe, the actual owners of the one particular district, not to sell any more land. I have distinctly stated in my evidence (42) what the cause of Rawiri Waiaua's death was. Until my statements made on that occasion are refuted, I must decline to attribute his death, and the deaths of those persons who shared his fate, to an imaginary cause.

There may still be objections raised by persons little acquainted with this subject. It may be asked – How comes all this talk about a land league if no league exists? Is it possible there can be all this smoke without any fire to cause it? A very few words will suffice to answer this. I believe there has been, during the last ten years, no general disinclination on the part of the Natives to dispose of their lands. Purchases of several extensive districts have been made. But it will hardly be denied by any one competent to give an opinion on the subject, that very great dissatisfaction has existed (which has, during the last few years, increased) with the mode in which transactions have been carried on by the Land Commissioners in reference to the purchase of land. Quarrels have been fomented, and, as in the case of Taranaki, when Rawiri was killed, and in the disturbances at Ahuriri, many lives were lost. The result has been the formation from time to time of separate and independent agreements in various tribes for protesting against, and peaceably resisting, the mischievous proceedings of the Land Commissioners. But I positively deny the existence of any combination, or confederacy, or league, between any two distinct tribes.

W. M Watts, Crown Court, Temple Bar.

Conditions of Use

By their use of these ebooks, texts and images, users agree to follow these conditions of use:

These ebooks, texts and images may not be used for any commercial purpose without permission from the University of Auckland Library.

These ebooks, texts and images may not be re-published in print or electronic form without permission from the University of Auckland Library. However, educators are welcome to print out items and hand them to their students.

Users are not permitted to download our ebooks, texts, and images in order to mount them on their own servers for public use or for use by a set of subscribers. Individuals and institutions can, of course, make a link to the copies at ENZB, subject to our conditions of use. It is not in our interest or that of our users to have uncontrolled subsets of our holdings available elsewhere on the Internet. We make corrections, add tags, add images, etc. on a continual basis, and we want the most current text to be the only one generally available to all Internet users.

These texts can potentially be used as the basis for additional TEI tagging or for some other etext or ebook project, but we ask that you let us know before you start, so that we can coordinate work on that text and make sure that we are not working on it simultaneously. We would like a copy of the improved text for our collections.

Request for permission form