APPENDIX.
[Image of page 41]
APPENDIX.
"Taita, Wellington, June 22, 1867.
"DEAR SAMUEL, --As you were many years resident in the district, I shall feel obliged if you will furnish me with any information relative to the respective claims of the Ngatiraukawa and Ngatiapa tribes, to the lands lying between the Manawatu and Rangitikei rivers.
"Your affectionate brother,
"THOMAS C. WILLIAMS.
"Rev. S. Williams, Te Aute.
"Te Aute, Hawke's Bay.
"DEAR THOMAS, --In answer to your inquiries about the Manawatu claims I may briefly state that, when the Rangitikei block of land was offered for sale by Ngatiapa in 1848 and 1849, D. McLean, Esq., Land Purchase Commissioner, called upon me at Otaki, where I was residing, and asked me to help him in obtaining the consent of Ngatiraukawa, together with Rauparaha and Rangihaeata to the sale, without which he said he could not effect the purchase. I promised him my assistance, and for that purpose entered fully into the subject with the Natives. Rauparaha and Rangihaeata were furious at the idea of Ngatiapa, whom they styled the remnant of their meal, attempting to deal with the land, and blamed Ngatiraukawa in unmeasured terms for having stopped them in their work of extermination, saying that had they been allowed to do as they wished the difficulties of that time would never have arisen. I was surprised on observing the great coolness which was manifested upon the subject by Ngatitoa, excepting only those who were living with Ngatiraukawa, as were Rauparaha and Rangihaeata and on asking the reason they told me that whatever claim they had to the land in question had been given over to Ngatiraukawa. Several members of the conquered tribes told me that they owed their lives to Ngatiraukawa--that Te Rauparaha would have killed them all had not Te Whatanui, one of the principal chiefs of Ngatiraukawa, befriended them. They always spoke of him as a father, and admitted that the Ngatiraukawa were the kai kotikoti whenua (the dividers of the land). The subject has caused considerable excitement amongst the Ngatiraukawa, but I urged them to act a generous part towards those who had been so harshly treated in past years, and after repeated discussions amongst themselves, they at length agreed to allow Ngatiapa to sell their land on the north side of the Rangitikei river, and keep all the purchase money, on condition that they were not to deal with any of the land to the south of the river. I do not, however, consider 1 that either party understood that Ngatiapa were, by this arrangement, entirely debarred from occupying portions of the south bank of the river if they wished to do so, or from receiving a portion of the proceeds in the event of Ngatiraukawa disposing of it. The Commissioner expressed his gratification at the generous manner in which Ngatiraukawa acted, more particularly in not accepting any of the purchase money, of which Ngatiapa had previously expected them to take a large share.
"Your affectionate brother,
"SAMUEL WILLIAMS."
[Image of page 42]
"MY DEAR THOMAS, --In acceding to your request that I should furnish you with some information concerning the rights of the tribes connected with the Rangitikei-Manawatu district, I will endeavour to condense as much as possible what I say on the subject. I came into the district in 1839, before the Queen's Sovereignty was established in the country, that is, before it was proclaimed a British Colony. I do not think there are many other Englishmen alive who knew the Natives of the district at that time. Ngatiraukawa were then in undisputed possession of the district. They also asserted claims to land on the north side of Rangitikei, but as they were at war with another tribe to the southward, and had their attention occupied with this, I do not recollect seeing them located on that side. The previous owners, Ngatiapa, had been conquered by them, and were held in a state of subjection; some being actually in slavery at Otaki and Kapiti, others resided on the land as serfs, employed in pig-hunting and such like occupation. They had ceased to be a tribe. They had no organisation, no rights. Even that portion of the tribe which lived between Rangitikei and Whanganui was in a state of degradation. It was without 'mana.' It would take me too long to detail the proofs of this, and it is unnecessary. There would have been then no room for questioning the title of Ngatiraukawa. There was no one to question it; it was a self-evident fact that they were in undisturbed occupation. They have never ceased to occupy and hold possession. There is then clear evidence to prove their conquest from Ngatiapa, and their possession in 1840. Well, then, as English law, on a transfer of sovereignty, recognizes all previously existing municipal rights, the title of Ngatiraukawa must remain unchanged until the present time, unless it can be shown that they have alienated their land by some formal act of their own. That there never has been any such formal act of alienation on their part is notorious. It is not, I believe, alleged that there has been any act of the kind, on the contrary, when, at the time the north side of Rangitikei was sold, Ngatiapa attempted to lay claim to the south side by building a hut there, this was forthwith destroyed by Te Rangihaeata, and the attempt was thus crushed in the bud. But further, when Ngatiraukawa, in 1849, consented to forego all claim to the north side of Rangitikei, they distinctly and emphatically, in the presence of the Land Purchase Commissioner and others, reasserted their title to the south side, and their determination to retain it. I do not think the investigation of any title could have given less trouble to the Native Lands Court than this, had it been brought before it. There was nothing complicated to unravel. After what I have said, you may think it strange that recent difficulties should have arisen. If you do think so you can have had little acquaintance with the doings of Land Purchase Commissioners. The difficulties were all purposely made by Government officers. I must try to explain what I mean. Notwithstanding the strength of the Ngatiraukawa title, there was one vulnerable point in its exterior, small indeed, almost infinitesimal. But what can escape the scent of that most omnivorous of all land sharks--a Superintendent created Land Purchase Commissioner? Let me see, then, whether I can make this point intelligible. I am now alluding to the fact that some Ngatiapa men had been allowed to return to, and live in, the immediate vicinity of the late chief Nepia Taratoa, and were permitted by him to receive some part of the money paid as rent for lands illegally leased by Englishmen. I will show how this came about. When Ngatiraukawa accepted the Christian religion, they, unlike the American slave-holders of the Southern States, deemed it inconsistent with their profession of religion to retain their fellow men in slavery. They let their slaves go free. Several of those men continued to reside among their former masters. There were some inter-marriages; they were thenceforth treated as equals, but without any thought of their being again reinstated in their former possessions. There were one or two attempts made about the year 1855 to regain a footing there, but these were instantly stopped. Subsequently it was agreed to erect a mill at Makohai, on the Rangitikei River, for the joint use of Ngatiapa and Ngatiraukawa. In consequence of this there was a joint endeavour to raise funds for the purpose agreed upon. This gave rise to the first leases to squatters, in which both parties combined, but this was only a temporary
[Image of page 43]
arrangement agreed upon for a specific purpose, with a view of arriving at an object concerning which there was no difference of opinion.
"Some time afterwards, during the Taranaki war, when the whole of the tribes on this coast had their attention more or less pre-occupied with matters of general interest, Nepia Taratoa, being alarmed, wished to have his old slaves again around him, they being for the most part avowed Kingites. He invited some of them to come to his neighbourhood. In order to secure their services, he promised to let some of his lands, and pay them with money derived from the rents; what was done was to promise them some temporary participation in the proceeds from the leased lands. This act of his, which was done without the sanction of the tribe, could not possibly be construed into a formal transfer of the land.
"It has never, I believe, been alleged that there was at this time, or at any other, any division of the land with Ngatiapa, but the joint participation by two different tribes in the ownership of land is a kind of tenure absolutely unknown to Maori custom, and utterly repugnant to the whole system. I defy any one to produce a single instance of any such joint tenure. When two tribes have lived intermingled, either one was the acknowledged superior and the other the inferior, or there were well defined boundaries to their respective possessions. In my opinion Ngatiapa had no kind of right to the Rangitikei-Manawatu block of land.
"Shortly after Nepia Taratoa's death, Ngatiapa began to assert a claim based on his liberality, which, together with rumours that their claim might be acknowledged by the Government, so alarmed Ngatiraukawa, that they early in 1863 sent a large party both to remove some cattle and sheep which were supposed to be there on the authority of Ngatiapa, and also to occupy and cultivate land close to the Rangitikei river.
"Ngatiapa made some little show of resistance, but there can be no doubt, nothing further would have been heard of Ngatiapa's claims had it not been for the unfortunate fact that, when the Government, after many months delay, thought it advisable to appoint some person to investigate the respective claims of the two tribes, they selected Dr. Featherston, the Superintendent of the Province, who had previously secured the appointment of Land Purchase Commissioner. Anything more absurd and unfortunate than this appointment it would be difficult to imagine.
"Nevertheless, Ngatiraukawa, knowing that if there was to be an open investigation their claims must be recognized as good, signed a bond, to abide by the decision of the arbitrator. Ngatiapa, on the contrary, knowing full well that their claim under such circumstances would not hold good, but must prove untenable, positively declined the investigation. They, however, handed over all their supposed rights to Dr. Featherston, in which of his capacities-- whether as Superintendent or Land Purchase Commissioner, or arbitrator appointed by the Government to act impartially--does not appear. Dr. Featherston thus became a party to the dispute. He took his side with Ngatiapa. From that time forward any solution of the difficulty was hopeless. Dr. Featherston was determined to obtain the land. Ngatiraukawa were equally determined that, so long as the Ngatiapa claim was acknowledged, they would not sell.
"As the Land Purchase Ordinance was still unrepealed. Dr. Featherston impounded the rents, that is he cautioned the squatters not to pay their rents. This was the second blunder he committed. It at once confirmed the suspicion raised in the minds of Ngatiraukawa by his acceptance of the Ngatiapa claims, that he was trying to coerce them into acquiescence with his wishes.
"The result was a dogged determination to hold their land to the last. From that time the purchase of the district by Dr. Featherston was simply an impossibility.
"I was nearly forgetting to allude to what has been repeatedly asserted, that there was danger of an inter-tribal war. Such an assertion is really ridiculous. I ought to know something of the feelings of the natives of this
[Image of page 44]
district, but I do not hesitate to say there never was the least chance of it. To suppose it possible for the miserable remnant of Ngatiapa to have ever seriously contemplated war with their old conquerors is an opinion that could only have been entertained by those wholly unacquainted with the relative numbers and antecedents of the two parties. I cannot, however, conceal my opinion that the frequent allusion by Dr. Featherston to the probability of war had a tendency to create in the minds of the natives an impression that the Government would not be sorry to see hostilities take place, in order that it might then either co-operate with Ngatiapa or make such a war a pretext for confiscation.
"But Ngatiraukawa, resting on their clear and undisputed possession ever since the treaty of Waitangi, have carefully avoided giving any excuse to the Government for charging them with acting illegally. As Parakaia rightly remarked to the Governor-- 'It is the duty of the Government to keep the peace of the country, and protect loyal men in their rights.' He and others, who have remained staunch in their support of the Government all through the war, feel amazed when they find Kingites, like Kawana Hunia, who only recently hoisted their King's flags, and strutted about with their guns on their shoulders and their two cartridge boxes on their backs, in defiance of the Government, now allowed at public meetings, at which the Superintendent presides, to utter unrebuked threats of war.
"I have, perhaps, said as much as you care to learn from me. That Ngatiraukawa were the acknowledged owners and possessors of the land in 1840 there can be no question. That they have never subsequently alienated it is equally clear. The attempt of the Superintendent to set up a claim for Ngatiapa on the ground that many years ago they owned the land, and his subsequently impounding the rents to force Ngatiraukawa to sell, are points which I hope I have made clear. I will now conclude with a few extracts from Carlyle's life of Frederick the Great, in order to show that, though Dr. Featherston is supposed to have gained some credit for cleverness by these moves, there is nothing novel or original in them.
"This Duchy of Cleve, all this fine agglomerate of Duchies, Duke Wilhelm settled were to be inherited in a piece by his eldest son . . . . This settlement, by express privilege of Kaiser Carl V., nay of Kaiser Maximilian before him, and the laws of the Reich, Duke Wilhelm doubted not he was entitled to make; and this settlement he made. The painful exactitude of Duke Wilhelm and his lawyers has profited little, and there are claimants on claimants rising for that valuable Cleve country. " Vol. l. p. 303-5.
"What greatly complicated the affair was the interest the Kaiser took in it . . . . Evidently what would best suit the Kaiser and Spaniards was this, that no strong power whatever got footing in Cleve to grow stronger by possession of such a country; better than best it would suit, if he, the Kaiser, could himself get it smuggled into his hands, and then hold it fast. Which privately was the course resolved upon at head quarters." P. 307-8.
"A letter is yet extant from the Aulic Council to their Vice-Chancellor, who had been sent to negotiate this matter with the parties; letter to the effect that he must devise all manner of quirks, and achieve it. And accordingly quirks did not prove undevisable on behalf of the Kaiser. Since you cannot agree (says the Kaiser), and there are so many of you who claim (we have privately stirred up many of you to the feat), there will be nothing for it but that the Kaiser must put the country under sequestration, and take possession of it with his troops till a decision be arrived at, which, probably, will not be soon, and the Kaiser forthwith did as he had said." P. 312.
"It was not until forty-two years after, in 1666, that an effectual partition could be practically brought about. In fact, there never was in the German Chanceries, or out of them, such a lawsuit, armed or wigged, as this of the Cleve Duchies, first and last. And the sentence was not practically given till the Congress of Vienna, 1815, in our own day, gave it; and the thing Johann Sigismund had claimed legally in 1609, was actually handed over to Johann
[Image of page 45]
Sigismund's descendants in the seventh generation, after two hundred and six years. P. 323."
"(Signed) OCTAVIUS HADFIELD.
"July 15, 1867."
The following written statement was handed to me by Mr. James Hamlin, who was Mr. Buller's interpreter in 1863; --
"The offer of arbitration was accepted by the Ngatiraukawa and Rangitanes; the Ngatiapa only partially did so.
"In 1863, Mr. Buller received instructions to draw out an arbitration bond, which I translated, and then received orders from Mr. Buller to take them up to Rangitikei, and get the three tribes to sign them. The Ngatiraukawa and Rangitane readily did so, but the Ngatiapa did not. Mr. Buller, finding the Ngatiapa would not sign the bond, suspended their salaries for being constables and assessors."
The following extracts from a speech delivered by Dr. Featherston to the electors of Wellington on Wednesday evening, the 21st February, 1866, will show that the Superintendent of Wellington had made up his mind to purchase the 'Manawatu block of land' at least two months before he 'accepted' it as the only possible means of preventing an inter-tribal war--will show how that the 'good old Aaron' could, when it suited his purpose, become transformed into a 'roaring lion;' will show that the gentleman engaged by the General Government of New Zealand as Land Purchase Commissioner, &c, entertained very peculiar views with respect to a native policy:--
"Dr. Featherston, who was received with loud applause, said-- "The course I pursued then was the same as that which had for its object the promoting of what I believe to be the true interest of this Province, as in getting rid of the difficulties which lay in the way of purchasing the Manawatu block of land, and more especially in rendering my assistance, however humble it may have been, in subduing the rebel natives on the West Coast, and bringing them to submission. (Hear, hear.)" . . . "Is the British army degenerated? Was it not, composed of men having the same metal and courage as those who have fought and conquered in every country and under every clime? I consider the Imperial troops to be the finest in the world; I say that the British army stands far higher in every respect than that of any other country. Look at what has been done by any of the regiments now in New Zealand, and then tell me that those regiments are unable to cope with the Maori, and are unequal to New Zealand warfare. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I ask you, who long remember your gallant friends of the 65th, and many another regiment, whether you believe that they were not the same men in this country as they have ever proved themselves in other countries? Will one of you in this room say that men who have fought and lost their lives at Rangiriri, at the Gate Pa, at the Orakau, were unequal to cope with the Maori and unfit for New Zealand warfare? But if you dare to make such an assertion, what will you say to the signal success of General Chute between Whanganui and Taranaki, with a flying column of some four or five hundred men? That gives the lie at once and for ever to any aspersions on the English troops; that settles at once and for ever that Imperial troops, if properly handled, are equal to any emergency, and instead of being unequal to the natives, those natives are terrified at them, and dare not make a stand against them. (Hear, hear.)" . . . "Sir, I confess I never held any faith in the elaborate native policies which have been at various times propounded by statesmen in this colony. I have always adhered to the principles I enunciated twenty years ago, that as it is utterly impossible to preserve the native race from ultimate extinction, from annihilation through their connection with a civilized people, our chief duty consisted not in attempting elaborate theoretical policies, but in rendering the dying couch of the race as easy and comfortable to them as possible. (Hear, hear.) Sir, the same course which was a good policy twenty years ago, is, it appears to me, only gaining daily more strength. Twenty years ago these natives amounted to from eighty to a hundred thousand, whilst now how many are they? Not more than forty thousand at the outside, and in twenty years to come there will be but a mere
[Image of page 46]
handful left. What then is the use of hatching native policies for a race which you cannot possibly preserve?"
The following are extracts from Dr. Featherston's reports presented to both Houses of the General Assembly, by command of his Excellency:--
ENCLOSURE 1, in No. 6.
"Notes of an interview between his Honor Dr. Featherston (Land Purchase Commissioner) and Ihakara te Hokowhitukuri, at Scott's Accommodation House, on Wednesday, 22nd November, 1866.
"After mutual greetings, and some desultory conversation on other subjects, his Honor referred to the Rangitikei question, expressing his regret that, since their last meeting, attempts had been made to create discontent among the natives, and to disturb the existing arrangements for the sale of the block to the Crown.
"Dr. Featherston said-- 'But apart from all this, he felt sure that Ihakara would agree with him that to attempt to get the ownership to this particular block investigated and settled in any Land Court would be a mere farce. Every effort had been made to induce the disputants to agree to a settlement of their claims by arbitration, but to no effect. Neither tribe would admit itself in the wrong, or submit to an adverse decision of the Court. It was only after these efforts had failed that the natives talked of selling the block, and the leading Ngatiraukawa chiefs had repeatedly acknowledged, both to him and Mr. Buller, that a sale of the whole of the land in dispute was the only possible solution of this long-standing difficulty. With regard to the caricature, which seemed to have produced so much irritation and heart-burning, he would ask how it was possible that the Superintendent and Mr. Buller could, with truth, be represented as driving the natives into a sale of the land, when the offer of sale had come from the natives themselves.' Ihakara acknowledged that he could see no escape from the difficulty but by a mutual sale of their disputed claims to the Queen.
"(Signed)
"I. E. FEATHERSTON.
"Superintendent's Office,
"Wellington, 30th June, 1866. "
"Notes of a meeting at Maramaihoea, Rangitikei, on Monday, the 4th December, 1865. Present--About sixty natives (chiefly Ngatiraukawa), Dr. Featherston, and Mr. Buller.
"His Honor replied at some length. He requested them distinctly to bear in mind that the proposal for the sale of the block came, in the first instance, from the natives, and not from the Commissioner; that on separate occasions the land was offered to him by the several tribes claiming it, as their only means of settling the quarrel; and that he ultimately, in the name of the Queen, accepted that offer, subject to future terms, to be mutually agreed upon. He came up originally not to treat for the land, but to propose an arbitration of title, and to prevent the effusion of blood between the contending tribes. . . . He made no attempt to induce the natives to surrender their disputed claims to the Crown; he said not one word to them about the sale of the land. He simply endeavoured to adjust an angry dispute which threatened to embroil the district in an inter-tribal war, and he suggested to them a plan, the object of which was not to alienate, but to secure to each tribe its fair share of the land. 2 His plan was rejected by the Ngatiapa, who of their own accord offered the land in absolute sale to the Crown. As this offer virtually amounted to a pledge that the tribe would not assert their rights by force of arms, or continue any longer to threaten the peace of the district, he felt bound to accept it. But in so doing he was careful to explain to them that he did not accept the land, but such right or interest as they might hereafter be proved to have in the land. 'By so doing he disarmed the Ngatiapa and put an end to the threatened collision. He did not, however, take advantage of this arrangement to force either party to terms. He simply explained to the Ngatiraukawa and Rangitane, at Ihakara's pa, what he had done, warned them against disturbing the peace of the district, and pro-
[Image of page 47]
posed the withholding of all rents till some amicable arrangement had been mutually come to. '
"(Signed) I. E. FEATHERSTON.
"Superintendent's Office,
"Wellington, 30th June, 1866. "
"On the 27th March, Dr. Featherston had a long interview with Ihakara. This chief stated emphatically his determination to sell the disputed block, mentioned £21,000 as the price he was prepared to propose, and warned Dr. Featherston that there would, at the commencement of the meeting, be strong opposition from a section of his tribe.
"On the 28th March, Dr. Featherston, accompanied by Mr. Buller, R. M., proceeded to Turakina. On the following day his Honor held a meeting at the Ben Nevis Hotel, with about fifty of the principal Ngatiapa claimants. Dr. Featherston pointed out to them that unless the tribes would now consent to co-operate in a final effort to settle this long-standing difficulty, there seemed very little prospect of anything being accomplished at Te Takapu.
"Aperahama Tipae, in reply, spoke with much bitterness of the Ngatiraukawa and their chiefs. He declared that the Ngatiapa would never consent to unite with the other tribes in the proposed sale, and that nothing, therefore, could be gained by their attending the meeting at Manawatu. He said that while the Ngatiapa were still in favor of selling, they would not consent to divide the purchase money with the Ngatiraukawa, or with the Rangitane, and that unless Dr. Featherston was prepared to close with the Ngatiapa, irrespective of the other claimants, he would consider the negotiations at an end, and would encourage his tribe to take up arms again in defence of their rights.
"Governor Hunia made a still more violent speech against the other tribes, openly boasted that they (the Ngatiapas) had now plenty of arms and ammunition, and could easily drive off their opponents, and that they would now prefer an appeal to arms to any other course. He almost intimated that they had, during the West Coast campaign, reserved their ammunition for that purpose. This extreme violence was however distasteful to the meeting.
"Dr. Featherston rebuked Hunia, Aperahama, Tipae and others for the statements they had uttered, said they knew full well that their threats were of no avail with him; that he regarded them as mere Maori bounce; emphatically warned them against taking the law in their own hands, and, while acknowledging the services they had rendered, expressed a hope that the result of the recent campaign had been to establish a conviction in the minds of all the Maoris, that the Queen's Government was both determined and able to enforce law and order. . . .
"Although the discussion lasted for several hours longer, nothing definite was arrived at, the whole of the natives present declaring that they would not take a penny less than £40,000, and that the other tribes should not share the payment with them; that their great desire was to fight, and take the land by right of conquest. . . . .
"On the morning of the 5th April there were about seven hundred natives present. . . . Ihakara said, . . . "His offer to sell the land to Mr. McLean had not been listened to by the tribe, and he had on that account resolved to retain Rangitikei. He would have continued to oppose the sale of the land had he been able to discover any other way out of the difficulty. There were only two ways open to him--one was to fight the Ngatiapa, and take forcible possession of the soil; the other was to sell the land to the Queen, and to let the Ngatiapa sell also. . . . Had the title to the block been clear he would probably have asked a million pounds for it! but as it was fighting ground he would ask Dr. Featherston for a very small price, only £21,000. Horomona had proposed that the price to be paid to Ngatiraukawa should be £20,000. He would add another thousand to this, and ask for this payment on behalf of all the tribes concerned. This would show that he was selling, not for the sake of the money, but to prevent fighting. If his share should only be
[Image of page 48]
sixpence he would be satisfied. It was the price of peace. He thought more of the blood of his young men than of the Queen's gold and silver. After describing the boundaries of the block, Ihakara concluded by calling on Dr. Featherston to accept his offer, and pay the money.
"Speeches were then delivered by the following, viz:--Wiriharai, Tohutohu, Takana, Te Kooro, Reupena Te One, Horopapera Te Tara, Hare Hemi Taharape, Heremaia, Te Tihi, Paranihi Te Tau, Henare Hops, Te Rewiti, Henare Te Herekau, Rawiri Te Wanui, Parakaia Te Pouepa, Te Kepa Kerikeri, and Rota Tawhiri. All these speakers declared themselves more or less opposed to the sale.
"Henare te Herekau urged that a further attempt should be made to get the exception clause in the Native Lands Act repealed, and to have the question of title in this case investigated and adjudicated on by the Native Lands Court. In this proposal he was supported by Parakaia te Pouepa, from Otaki . . . .
"April 7. . . . Many who at the outset had declared against the sale, were now avowedly favourable to it, and it was evident that the spirit of opposition had been in a great measure crushed by the resolute determination of Ihakara and the other leading chiefs to effect a sale of the block.
Ihakara made a final speech to the following effect. . . . "Dr. Featherston, the land is yours. Give me the payment. Here are the people, let them consent. Refuse not, lest there be fighting. . . . Listen not to the words of my relatives (meaning the opposition). Pay the money and all the opposition will disappear. It was so when the Awahou block was sold. Rangitikei is in your hands, hold it fast for ever and ever! The people are now waiting for your reply."
It was here determined to send a deputation of ten chiefs to fetch the Ngatiapa. Governor Hunia first gave an angry refusal, and afterwards consented to attend the meeting. "The Ngatiapa were received at Te Takapu with every demonstration of good feeling."
April 14. --The utmost anxiety was manifested for a final and decisive reply, and at the appointed time the natives had assembled, and were waiting eagerly for Dr. Featherston's arrival. . . . .
"Ihakara called upon Dr. Featherston to reply to the speeches that had been made. The latter invited any of the chiefs present who might wish to address the meeting before he closed the proceedings to do so. The discussion was thereupon resumed. Ihakara and the leading selling chiefs were more earnest than before in pressing the sale of the block, while Hunia Te Hakeke openly declared that if the meeting should break up without the sale having been effected, he would return at once to pa-building, and would decide the title by a trial of strength with the Ngatiraukawa.
"Parakaia again brought forward his scheme for a settlement of the question (by a reference to the Land Court), but the proposal was scouted by the Ngatiapa. It was tacitly admitted by Aperahama Te Huruhuru and Nepia that, although they were now opposing the sale, they could not suggest any other way of settling their quarrel with the Ngatiapa.
"About 3 p. m. Dr. Featherston rose and made the following speech, which was interpreted to the meeting by Mr. Buller, R. M.:-- . . . "Ihakara and other speakers bad given a truthful history of the dispute, and he had little or nothing to add to it, but as there were many present whom he had not met at previous meetings, he was anxious that it should be made clear to all how it was that he first came to act as mediator between them--how it was that he came to be dragged into this long-standing quarrel. Not one of them dared to assert that he had ever asked them to hand over either the quarrel or the land into his hands. Not one of them dared deny that the three tribes had themselves forced upon him, whether he liked it or not, both the quarrel and the land in dispute. On the contrary, Ihakara and others have declared that he had appeared amongst them only after all other mediators had failed in persuading them to desist from appealing to arms for the settlement of the dispute. But he had not come up of his own accord or uninvited. He came up at the request
[Image of page 49]
both of the tribes and of the Government Why had they invited him? was it not because during a long period they had ever regarded him as their friend --as one in whose justice and integrity they had implicit faith? Why had the Government urged him to undertake such a difficult mission? Simply because they know that the tribes had confidence in him, and would be more likely to be guided by his advice than by that of any other person. He would call upon them to say whether by the steps he had taken to stave off the inter-tribal war, and to bring the quarrel to an amicable termination, he had done anything to forfeit their confidence. When he arrived amongst them, in January, 1864, he found both parties in a state of angry irritation--hostile pas erected--the red flag flying--nay, the very day for the commencement of the strife almost fixed, both parties proclaiming that, rather than surrender their claims, rather than admit the slightest claim on the part of their opponents, they would fight and die on the land. . . . What did he do? For many days he went backwards and forwards between the litigants, proposing various terms, urging them to come to some compromise. . . .
"What he now wished clearly to ascertain was whether any one of the proposals he made in 1864 to the tribes can be carried out.
"It was then proposed to settle the question by arbitration. Arbitration means that each tribe should appoint a certain number of arbitrators; that if the arbitrators cannot agree, they appoint a third party to decide between them. This was a custom constantly adopted by pakehas, and the decision of the arbitrators or umpire is accepted as a final settlement of the matters referred to them. Now suppose that they had gone, or will to-day agree to go to arbitration, and that the award of the arbitrators had been or will be that the land in dispute belongs to the Ngatiraukawas and Rangitanes, would the Ngatiapas have acquiesced, or will they now acquiesce in that decision; or if the arbitrators decided that the Ngatiapas were the sole owners of the land will the other tribes assent to give up their claim? (Universal dissent.) Unless the three tribes are prepared to pledge themselves to abide by the award of the arbitrators, arbitration is useless, and will only embitter the dispute, and lead to a recourse to arms.
"Another proposal was, that the three tribes should divide the land--but they objected to this, that they never could agree in what proportions the land should be divided--whether each tribe should take a third, or one tribe a half, and two tribes the other moiety; but even if this difficulty could be got over, who was to decide what portion of the land was to belong to this tribe, what portion to the other--who was to decide whether one tribe should not be confined to the sand hills, another tribe to the good land--whether one tribe should not have all the land for which, according to one proposal, he had been called upon to pay two shillings an acre, another tribe all the five shilling land, the third all the land they were asking one pound an acre for. Can these difficulties, which were pointed out in January, 1864, be now overcome? Is a division of the land now practicable? (Kahore, kahore.)
"Another proposal had been made during the discussion by Parakaia and others, that they should take the land into the Native Lands Court, and have the title of the three tribes claiming an interest in it investigated by that Court. But Parakaia had omitted to tell them many things connected with that Court. He had not told them that all the tribes must consent to take the land into the Court--that each tribe must employ surveyors to mark out the boundaries of the land it claimed--that the tribe must be prepared to accept the decision of the Court. Were they all prepared to comply with any one of these conditions? Would they all consent to go into the Court! (No, no.) Would any one of them dare to send surveyors upon the land, every inch of which they had declared to be in dispute, to be 'fighting ground?' 3 Would they agree to abide by the decision of the Court? (Enough, enough.)
[Image of page 50]
"He had gone through the proposals for the purpose of ascertaining whether one of them was practicable. Let the tribes say with an united voice, that they agree to any one of them, that they will go to arbitration; let them say that they will divide the land; let them say that they will submit their claims to the decision of Judge Parakaia, and he would declare his concurrence in it.
"He now gathered that the six tribes assembled before him were all but unanimous in scouting every one of these proposals, and were more than ever convinced that the only possible solution of the dispute was, to use their own words, an absolute sale of the whole of the land in dispute to the Crown, and after having for many days patiently heard all they had to say, he had no hesitation in expressing his entire concurrence in that conviction.
"During the whole time the discussions had lasted he had refused to take any part in them, or to answer a single question, or to give the slightest inkling of his intention. They had declared that they had said all that they had to say, and now formally called upon him to declare, whether or not, as the only means of preventing bloodshed, he was prepared to accept the block and complete its purchase. He knew the responsibility which his decisive answer would entail upon him, but he had not the slightest hesitation in giving it. . . . He, Dr. Featherston, repeated what he had then and often since said, that he would purchase no land without the consent of the people. But what did he mean by the consent of the people or tribe? He did not mean that the opposition of one man (not a principal chief) should prevent a whole tribe selling their land. Neither did he mean that a small section of one tribe should be allowed to forbid some six or seven tribes disposing of a block which they were anxious to sell. However much he might insist upon having the consent of the tribe, of all the real and principal claimants, he would be no party to such a manifest injustice as would be implied by one or two men, probably possessing little or no interest in the land, forbidding the tribe selling it, or in a small section of one tribe opposing the wishes of some half dozen tribes, especially when the carrying out of the decision of the majority was the only meant of avoiding an inter-tribal mar.
"The question then that arose in his mind was whether there was such a consent of the tribes assembled before him to the sale as would justify him in at once declaring his acceptance of their offer. . . . . He would, therefore, call upon every one of the tribes to declare publicly before this meeting by their chiefs whether or not the tribes consented to the sale.
"He would call upon the several tribes to give their answer by the chiefs. He called upon the Whanganui tribes to say whether or not they were agreed to the sale. Tamati Puna at once said, 'We are unanimous; all have consented.' Dr. Featherston then called upon the Ngatiapa to declare what their decision was. Governor Hunia on the part of their tribe, said, 'You know our decision; we all insist upon the sale.' What say the Muaupoko tribe? Hoani Te Puihi replied on behalf of the tribe, 'We are all unanimous in favour of the sale.' What is the answer of the Ngatitoa to this question? And he called upon Matene Te Whiwhi, Tamihana Te Rauparaha, and Hohepa, distinctly and severally to reply on behalf of the tribe they represented. The three chiefs, one after the other, declared that the tribe were unanimous. What said the Rangitane? Peeti Te Aweawe replied, 'We, also, are unanimous; all have consented.' Lastly, he would call upon the Ngatiraukawa, who he knew were divided in their opinions. Ihakara expressed his regret that they were not like all the other tribes unanimous in favour of the sale, but the large majority of them were so determined to sell, especially all the principal claimants, that he insisted upon the purchase being completed. Knowing that those who were at present holding out would soon become consenting parties, he never would listen
[Image of page 51]
to any other mode of adjusting the dispute. Dr. Featherston then said that his course was clear. Five of the six tribes were unanimous in their determination to sell, and of the Ngatiraukawa only a small section opposed the sale. Of that section the two principal chiefs, Nepia Taratoa and Aperahama Te Huru, had some time since given their consent, and had repeatedly protested against the delay that had occurred in bringing the transaction to a close. Great chiefs like them were not in the habit of repudiating engagements entered into in the face of the whole tribe. He was certain, therefore, that the present opposition would not be persisted in. Of the other opponents many had already told him that they would abide by the decision of the majority, and would sign the deed of purchase. He felt, therefore, so confident that the deed would ultimately be executed by all the real claimants, that he had no difficulty in publicly announcing his acceptance of the block, and in congratulating them upon this long-standing feud being thus amicably settled and finally adjusted.
"[This announcement was received with great applause, not a few of the opponents exclaiming, 'Rangitikei is fairly sold, is for ever gone from us!']
"Dr. Featherston then reminded them that there were other questions to settle, viz. --the price, in what proportion the purchase money was to be divided, and what chiefs were to distribute the money. The two latter might be left till the deed was signed, but the price must be fixed before the meeting broke up. Several amounts had been mentioned, some exorbitant, others not unreasonable. Let the tribes leave this matter in the hands of their chiefs, and they would find him prepared to meet them in a liberal spirit. This was ultimately fixed at £25,000. . . . .
"The deed of purchase has been prepared with due care, and is now being executed in the district by the several tribes claiming the land. The deed will be signed by over a thousand natives, and on its completion the purchase money will be handed over to certain chiefs, as in the case of the Upper Manawatu and other purchases, to be nominated by a general meeting of the tribes at Parewanui (Rangitikei), of which sufficient notice will be given. The chiefs will divide and distribute the money in such manner as may be agreed on among the tribes sharing it, and it is not anticipated that any difficulty will arise.
"(Signed)
"I. E. FEATHERSTON.
"Superintendent's Office,
"Wellington, 30th June, 1866."
The following appears in the speech of his Honor the Superintendent on opening the third session of the fourth Provincial Council of the Province of Wellington, April 26, 1867:--
"MR. SPEAKER AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PROVINCIAL COUNCIL, --
. . . . . . .
"When I last met you, I announced that I had entered into an agreement with the various tribes claiming a title to the Manawatu Rangitikei block, by which I hoped to set at rest the formidable land dispute which had for several years threatened the peace of the Province. After intimating that at the great native gathering at Takapu, on the banks of the Manawatu, I had formally accepted the cession of the disputed block to the Crown as the only means of finally and for ever removing the cause of strife, I informed; you that the final deed of surrender had yet to be executed, and that it would require to be signed by between one and two thousand claimants, and that several important questions had yet to be settled--namely, as to what tribes the purchase money was to be paid, what proportion each of the tribes should receive, and what chiefs should be appointed to receive and distribute the money. It is satisfactory to me to be able to state that the deed of cession has been duly executed, nearly seventeen hundred claimants having signed it, and that the questions just adverted to have been finally and amicably settled.
"From the detailed minutes of the proceedings, which will be laid before
[Image of page 52]
you, you will observe that at the Parawanui meeting in December last, probably the largest gathering of natives ever held in this Province, the six tribes claiming to be more or less interested in the land, after long and angry discussions, failed to come to any arrangement as to the division of the money, and then appealed to me for my opinion on the subject, distinctly guarding themselves from being bound to adopt it. While anxious to evade the responsibility of deciding a question which, by the terms of our agreement, rested with the settlers--a responsibility which I had from the first declined to undertake--I, nevertheless felt that the alternative was one of peace or war, that if the meeting should break up without the completion of the purchase, the rival tribes would at once assert their conflicting claims by force of arms, and that the whole of the West Coast district would be speedily plunged into a general Native disturbance. To prevent, therefore, any further complication of the question, and to aid those chiefs who were really anxious, at almost any sacrifice, to preserve the peace, I at length submitted a proposal to the meeting, which though at first violently denounced by the Ngatiapas, was ultimately unanimously accepted by all the tribes concerned as perfectly fair and equitable. Chiefs were then appointed by the sellers to receive the respective shares, and the distribution of the money was left entirely to the Natives. I stipulated, however, with the Ngatiraukawa chiefs that a liberal sum out of their share should be set apart for the outstanding claimants of that tribe, and this was accordingly done. Since the payment of the purchase money, upwards of one hundred and fifty of these (mostly remote) claimants have given their consent to the sale and signed the deed. There is, however, still a small number of Ngatiraukawa dissentients to whom, in the event of their persisting in their refusal to accept the sum set apart for them, it may be necessary to make an award in land to the extent of such claims as are admitted by the sellers.
"The question of reserves is now in course of settlement. The Ngatiapa and Rangitane have accepted the portions allotted to them, and the Ngatiraukawa reserves will be defined as soon as the claims of dissentients have been satisfactorily adjusted. The back rents, amounting now to between two and three thousand pounds, which were impounded by me in order to prevent hostilities in 1863, are still unpaid, as I have been anxious to get all the minor details of the purchase arranged before re-opening a question not altogether free from difficulties, though not of a very formidable nature. And I here must bear testimony to the great patience and forbearance shown by both the Ngatiapa and the Ngatiraukawa chiefs with respect to this matter.
"After nearly four years of constant anxiety on this subject, it affords me no small gratification to repeat my assurance to you of the final and peaceful adjustment of this our only native difficulty; for, in spite of all that has been said and written, I do not hesitate to assert that the Manawatu-Rangitikei purchase, while from its very nature, and the magnitude of the interests involved, probably the most laborious one ever undertaken in this country, is as complete and satisfactory a purchase as could have been effected from the Natives under the peculiar circumstances of the case. My chief difficulty has been caused by a few designing Europeans, who, from selfish motives have, by intrigues with the Natives, and misrepresentations in the newspapers of the Colony, endeavoured to foment tribal strife and frustrate the purchase--attempts which, had they been successful, must have entailed upon the Province, and upon the natives themselves, the most calamitous results. . . .
"I feel that I am entitled to say that in no previous land purchase has so liberal a price been paid, or such ample justice done to all the natives concerned in the transaction.
"The thanks of the province are due to His Excellency's Ministers for the readiness with which, in compliance with my request, they advanced (in anticipation of the sale of the land purchase loan) the funds required to enable me to meet my engagements with the natives. And I venture again
[Image of page 53]
to express a hope that the Council will, knowing how much the successful issue of these long pending negotiations is due to Mr. Walter Buller, bestow upon him a substantial recognition of his valuable services.
"The Small Farm Association will naturally be disappointed at the slowness of these dealings with the natives."
The following letter appeared in the Wellington Advertiser:--
"Otaki, May 22, 1867.
"THE HON. J. C. RICHMOND, --
"SIR, --I have read Dr. Featherston's speech to the Council at Wellington, delivered on the 28th April, 1867, in which he says that Mr. Buller had finally and completely settled the reserve for Rangitane. This statement all have seen published in the Government Gazette of date May 2, 1867.
"This is my reply to those false statements of Dr. Featherston, which appear in the Gazette--I say to myself surely Dr. Featherston must be in the dark, has he not been informed, is he not aware of the fact of Rangitane's reserve having been suppressed. Sir, you will see the statements of Parakaia and Hoani Meihana published in the newspaper (Advertiser) of the month of March. On the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th of that month we interrupted the survey, we finally stopped it on the 9th, by carrying away all the poles, the bottles and pegs that were stuck in the ground; the bill-hooks we took from the hands of Mr. Buller and his Maori friends, and carried them to the village. Was not that a prohibiting of that work; is it necessary to slay a man with an axe, to kill him outright in order to stop a survey? Is not taking all their implements away sufficient? for not only did we take them away, but we carried them all with us to our homes. Ninety men were present, and contended about those bill-hooks that were taken. Parakaia returned the four bill-hooks, retaining the poles, and two bottles, in all sixteen, here the matter ended. The pakehas took down their tents and retired, the Maoris retired, Rangitane retired. Hirawanu and his people retired; those only remained who had opposed the survey. Buller and I left. This letter which I now send you is to contradict that statement which appears in Dr. Featherston's Gazette, that the survey was finally and completely settled. Look here. Buller knows in his heart that these statements of mine are correct, notwithstanding the falsehood and deceit, Buller, that you and your friend are publishing and practising.
"Sir, please to publish this in the Government Gazette,
"PARAKAIA TE POUEPA."
The following letters and protests from the Ngatiraukawa non-sellers are extracted from papers presented to both Houses of the Assembly:--
Copy of a letter from Parakaia to Pouepa and others to the Assembly:--
"Manawatu, 14th April, 1866.
"To the Assembly, --
"That is the word expressing our intention to hold fast to the land which was publicly spoken to Dr. Featherston. First,--This side of Rangitikei I kept back from the hand of Governor Grey and Mr. McLean, that is to say from Ngatiapa, and I surrendered the other side to that Governor. After that Governor Browne urged (upon us to sell) Rangitikei and Manawatu. I agreed to sell Te Awahou and Te Ahuoturanga; the desires of these tribes were accomplished (in respect of the sale of those lands) to this Governor and that Governor, the desire to sell land to the Queen has ceased. This is my heart's core that you are striving to obtain. 'We do not like to give up this small piece to you.' That was the constant word of Ngatiraukawa to Dr. Featherston on the 5th April. The third word was to the effect that the Land Court alone could solve the difficulty attending this land. This is what we are waiting for.
"On the 14th April Dr. Featherston made answer to us. His words were clear to the four tribes. His attaching blame to us was a new word. There
[Image of page 54]
are eight hundred of Whanganui, there are two hundred of Ngatiapa, Rangitane, and Muaupoko are one hundred; but you, O Ngatiraukawa, are a half--a small portion. Another word of Dr. Featherston's was, 'We went together with these tribes to fight against the rebel tribes upon the authority of the Queen; they have consented to the sale. I have agreed to their (proposal). This land is in my hand.' Now we objected to his word. 'Your doing is simply taking our land by force. The eight hundred of Whanganui are not present at this meeting. You utter your mysterious words (kapu tauranga) to intimidate us.' He replied, 'That is all. It is done. I will give the money to the sellers.' We answered, 'It is wrong. I will hold on to my own land for ever. I will not take your money.' This was always the word of all the people."
(Here follow the signatures.)
"Statement by Henere Te Herekau and Hare Hemi Taharape.
"Manawatu, 16th April, 1866.
"This is what was publicly said to Dr. Featherston on the 5th April. These are the words of Ngatiraukawa against the sale of Rangitikei:--
"Dr. Featherston, listen attentively. Act justly towards those within your Province. Ngatiapa were desirous of selling this land on a former occasion. Ngatiraukawa refused to let it be sold, and it was not sold. They permitted the opposite side of the River Rangitikei to be sold. It was sold to Governor Grey. Ngatiapa were satisfied. The River Rangitikei constituted the boundary. Subsequently Ihakara wished to sell Manawatu, Ngatiraukawa assented to his wish, and Manawatu was sold to Governor Browne. The boundary began at Kaiwi thence to Omarupupaka, and continued to Pukingahau, where it ended. This was the permanent boundary. Afterwards Te Hirawanu sold the upper part of Manawatu. Ngatiraukawa assented, and that was sold to Governor Grey during his second government of New Zealand; Te Hirawanu was satisfied, and the boundary was fixed at Mangawharawhara Te Kotopiko, and Paripuwha, above Oroua, where it ended. This was a permanent boundary. This land which you are wishing to purchase we will never allow you to purchase--this must be kept for our support. It must be carefully subdivided. We will pay the surveyor and assist him.
"Dr. Featherston made no reply whatever to these statements of ours.
"On the 12th of April we, Ngatiraukawa, stood in the presence of Dr. Featherston and expressed our opinions strongly. Dr. Featherston, do not purchase our land without our assent, lest you do wrong. If there be any dispute about our land, let it remain as it is. Let a law court act that it may be finally settled, because a court has been established for Maori lands. Do not pull a man down by the back part of his head lest he have a bad fall and death follow. For our land will not be given up to you to purchase, never. No work has ever been completed in wrong-doing. When it is agreed upon by those dwelling in the land, then a sale may be completed.
"Dr. Featherston replied, 'There are 800 men of Whanganui, 200 of Ngatiapa, 100 of Rangitane and Muaupoko tribes, which went with me to fight against the bad tribes. They have agreed to sell; this land has become mine: I will give them the money.'
"Ngatiraukawa replied: 'We shall retain our own land, we shall not receive your money.'
"On the 16th of April we again stated our views to Dr. Featherston. 'Listen, Dr. Featherston: Do not give your money to those who are selling the land, but survey the land, that you may see the land belonging to those men who are selling; then you will be acting rightly, but you give your money first to those who are selling the land, and then when you go with your chain to survey our lands, your chain will not touch the land--it will be interrupted. You, the pakeha will be angry without a cause, inasmuch as you are seizing our land illegally.
[Image of page 55]
"Withhold your money, lest it be the occasion of stirring up strife, and the people of this place be brought into trouble by you.
"HENERE TE HEREKAU.
"HARE HEMI TAHARAPE"
"Hare Hemi Taharape to the Hon. the Native Minister.
"Manawatu, 18th April, 1866.
"To Colonel Russell, --
"This is my protest against the proceedings of the sellers of Rangitikei, who have settled on my piece of land without authority. This is it. I will explain my boundary.
"It commences at Paranui, &c (here follows a statement of the boundaries.)
"I will not take Dr. Featherston's money if offered by him of his own accord for my land. Sufficient.
"From HARE HEMI."
Copy of a letter from Nepia Taratoa and others to His Excellency the Governor:--
"Matahiwi, Rangitikei, April 24, 1866.
"To Governor Grey, --
"Friend--Salutations. This is a statement of ours for your information. Rangitikei is our residence. The piece of land belonging to my father, withheld from your hand, did not produce a murmur from the tribes. After that Governor Browne (arrived.) Ngatiapa wanted to sell, but my father and all the tribes arranged for another place; Manawatu (was offered) to that Governor of ours. Governor Browne did not say any bad words to us in those years; that he would kick us with his feet, or would seize our lands close to Manawatu, even to all its branches. No, it was rather our Superintendent who seized the reserves excluded from that purchase of the Governor's at Manawatu. Te Paretao was one, Te Rewarewa was another seized by him. Now this is Rangitikei which is being seized. If trouble should come upon us this year it will be through Dr. Featherston. This land selling is not by the residents of Rangitikei.
"Ihakara belongs to Manawatu, others belong to Whanganui, and others belong to Porirua. These are the voices (people) approved of by your friend Dr. Featherston. The reason why this land is seized is that these voices (people) intimidate others.
"This kind of selling is very wrong. Enough. This is another word to you. This land purchase is by your second Provincial Government. (Should read:-- 'This land purchase is a foul wrong that is being perpetrated during your second term of Government.' T. C. W.) Enough then. It is for you to prevent this land being now seized by Dr. Featherston. The people have written to the Assembly enough."
(Here follow the signatures.)
Copy of a letter from Nepia Taratoa and others to the Honourable Native Minister:--
"House of Matene,
"Otaki, 30th April, 1866.
"To Captain Russell (Native Minister).
"What we have said is true. Neither Ngatiapa, Rangitane, nor Muaupoko have anything to do with it (the land).
"This is the truth. On our arrival they were all killed or beaten by Te Rauparaha. The authority of the land had also departed, and they remained slaves.
"Again Te Rauparaha was continually slaying the people who had murdered his children. On account of our long residence among them, at last Te Rauparaha ceased slaying them, and then they lived.
"The word of Te Rauparaha went forth: Let all the land remain for Ngatiraukawa as far as Rangitikei, and as far as Otaki.
[Image of page 56]
"By this we obtained authority over these lands, and by this our withholding the land is just. Again we have been living on it for many years.
"The people of Ngatiraukawa who have joined in the sale of the land, and Ngatiapa, these people are jealous on account of the small pieces of land belonging to them; another reason is that they have no influence amongst the people who have large pieces of land at Rangitikei.
"Now these are the people who possess the authority and the greater portion of the land."
(Here follow the signatures.)
"We have lived on the land thirty-one years.
"The fire of Ngatiapa has not been kindled up to the present day. 4
"This is why our speech has been put forth--first, to Governor Grey; second, Governor Browne; third. Governor Grey again.
"Our determination to hold fast to the land is fixed, and we will never cease."
Copy of a letter from Kooro to One and others to His Excellency Governor Grey:--
"Puketotara, 13th June, 1866.
"O Friend Governor Grey, --
"Salutations to you. This is a writing to you from us, so that you may know our thoughts respecting the land which is being sold by Hoani Meihana and Tape te Whata. It is situated between Rangitikei and Oroua. We, the chiefs and all the people, are averse to the sale of that land. This is to be a lasting possession for us. The boundary commences at Whitirea, in the region of Manawatu, thence towards the sea by way of Te Atatuhi to Otupere; the boundary turns off there and goes to Kaikokopu, thence to Kakukuera, Omanuka, Puketotara, Te Kawau, Totarataepa, Kopuapokoro Te Puta, Whakamoetakapu, Pareoa, Papauku; there it strikes off and goes to Umutoi on the Oroua, Te Awahuri, thence following the course of the Oroua to Puketotara meeting the formed boundary at Whitirea. We are the proprietors of this tract, that is to say, of that portion of the block towards Oroua and Manawatu. There are also some persons dwelling on the side towards Rangitikei who are holding on to it. Perhaps they have been to you to explain their views, and to let you know who they are; so therefore, when you have seen our thoughts do you send them on to the Runanga, so that they may also see.
"This is all we have to say to you from the men of the following hapus":--
(Here follow the signatures.)
"Enclosed is a sketch map of the piece of land in question for you to look at."
Copy of a letter from Kooro and others to his Excellency the Governor:--
"Puketotara, 13th July, 1866.
"O Father the Governor, --
"Salutations to you. Mr. Buller has come to Puketotara here, and has desired us to sign our names to the document disposing of Rangitikei and Oroua, but we did not consent to do so for we are not willing to sell our land. Our letter and chart also were sent to you on the 13th June, 1866. That is our fixed determination for ever. Do you then take care of the letter and the chart also.
"This is all from us."
(Here follow the signatures.)
Copy of a letter from Rawiri Te Wanui and others to the Hon. the Native Minister:--
"Otaki, July 19, 1866.
"To Colonel Russell, --
[Image of page 57]
"Salutations to you, O Friend! We have heard that Dr. Featherston is coming to bring the money for Rangitikei. O Friend, give heed, as regards our land at Rangitikei, we are not willing that other tribes and other men leap on to it, and sell it. Is it right that a party, not interested take upon himself to sell land or a house belonging to some one else? No, that person would not agree to it, for another man to sell it in that way. Is such doing in accordance with the law, that which Dr. Featherston and his colleagues are doing? Is that which Dr. Featherston is doing correct in your estimation? To our mind it is wrong; it is not according to law, it is wrong; do you also condemn it? Let not Dr. Featherston come here and go on disturbing the (relations which exist) between you and us. But rather carry it out in accordance with the law. Let the Court decide between Dr. Featherston and his friends the sellers of our land on the one part, and us on the other part. That is all."
(Here follow the signatures.)
"Wellington, 9th May, 1866.
Notes of an interview between the Hon. Colonel Haultain, acting for the Native Minister, and thirty-five natives of the Ngatiraukawa tribe, on the subject of the sale of the Manawatu block.
"After some preliminary conversation, Henere Herekau, in the name of all present stated the object of the interview. He said that those present represented the Ngatiraukawa tribe who were opposed to the purchase of their land by Dr. Featherston. In the first instance only eight of their tribe agreed to the sale; subsequently, however, in consequence of the representations of Dr. Featherston and Mr. Buller, seven more agreed, and ultimately seventeen. Those present, however, were unanimously opposed to the sale, and not one of them had signed the agreement.
"Parakaia Pouepa then spoke, and said that he came to protest against Dr. Featherston's statement that 1,100 natives consented to the sale. He had not seen that number, and those who consented belonged to strange places; they came, he believed, from various parts of Whanganui.
"Colonel Haultain then informed them that Dr. Featherston had not sent in any report to the Government of what had taken place in respect to the purchase of the Manawatu block, but when Mr. Buller came down a full report would be made to the Government. In the meantime they were not in a position to state what they would do, not having sufficient information to enable them to judge of the case.
"He wished them to leave a document, signed by all of them, stating their objection to the sale to Dr. Featherston. Parakaia then read a document (enclosed) which was to be accepted as expressing the opinion of all present.
"In reference to this document, Parakaia said that they had applied first to Mr. Fitzgerald, secondly to the Bishop, and thirdly to the Government, and expressed in general terms strong disapproval of the course taken by Dr. Featherston in respect to their land.
"Colonel Haultain then told them that he would take the letter, and it should be considered by the Government when they had received Dr. Featherston's report. In the meantime they might rest satisfied that no sale would be allowed unless the owners of the land agreed to it." 5
Extract from a copy of a letter from Hunia Te Hakeke and others to the Honourable the Premier:--
"Turakina, March 23, 1866.
"Friend Mr. Stafford, and your colleagues, --You know (because) you have distinctly seen that the land of the Ngatiraukawas is at Maungatautari. They have sent in their claims. Let the Europeans clearly understand that
[Image of page 58]
(Maungatautari) is their land."
. . . . . . . .
(Here follow the signatures.)
Copy of a letter from Hunia Te Hakeke and others to his Honour I. E. Featherston:--
"Turakina, August 1, 1866.
"Friend, --
"Salutations to you. We have received your letter of the 26th of last month. O sire, good are you! Great is our joy for the words of your letter to us. We have seen your words, showing us the works of the two men of Ngatiraukawa. We have not seen his work, cutting boundaries; he does it clandestinely in the bush. It is not right for him to cut boundaries at Oamarupapako; his work is wrong; he has no land here. The boundaries of his forefathers are at Maungatautari, where he can do such work of his. Our land we don't like him to take the smallest portion of; our selling of the land to you has been proclaimed to all these tribes. Parakaia's work is that of a thief; we have not seen his boundaries. We do not wish that the smallest piece be left in his hands; we have completed the consent of the large boundaries.
"Friend, Dr. Featherston, mine and Mr. Buller's work is at an end--the writing the names of the people.
"Friend, the thought is with you to draw near the day for the meeting at Parewanui, in the weeks of this month. What do we care about that man Parakaia causing trouble; if he is able to cause trouble among the Native tribes his body will see death, 6 as it has been settled by all the tribes, the consent of my work to you.
"From your friend,
"Hunia Te Hakeke,
"And eight others."
Copy of a letter from a Ngatiraukawa chief (non-settler) which was published in the Advertiser:--
(To the Editor of the Advertiser.)
"Otaki, April 23, 1867.
"This is an answer on the part of the Ngatiraukawa for our elder brothers, the pakehas, and the Government of New Zealand, to Ihakara Tukumaru's letter. He states in his letter that we have no claim on Rangitikei. Do you listen? He, on the contrary, has no standing place on the Rangitikei block, not even the smallest spot. It was only when he joined us in asserting our claims against the Ngatiapa, in 1863, that his foot rested at Tawirihoe. It is true that Ngatiapa had a claim formerly, but it has been ours by conquest since the year 1831, and the date of our taking possession of this land.
"We don't deny the claim of Rei and Tapa, and their people each to his small piece.
"Is it right, we should like to ask, for strangers to dispose of another man's property? We say that a man ought to have the disposal of his own property either to sell or to withhold, it is for himself to determine, especially when he has been many years in possession of his property. We have been thirty-six years in possession of the land at Rangitikei, and have held it, and yet all these tribes, whose names have been written, are said to have sold Rangitikei to Dr. Featherston.
"Say, then, our elder brothers, on what ground do these tribes rest their claims to Rangitikei. In our opinion they have no claim. This is the reason why they have no claim, because it has become ours by conquest, in the
[Image of page 59]
same way that you pakehas obtain land. We are right in keeping possession; we do so under the protection of the law, and in obedience to law.
"And now, our elder brothers, cease from hiding the law. Let it come and ascertain the right of Ihakara's title, and that of the tribes who are acting with him. Ihakara has not a leg to stand upon--he has no claim to Rangitikei--his claim rests upon lies. By these means he got hold of his Pakeha accomplices and his lies have been taken up by his Pakeha friends, and they all lie together. Let us have done with that. What we still ask of you, elder brothers, who, together with us, are bothered about this matter, is to cease from withholding the law. Let us have the law, that the matter may soon be settled. It is for this reason that we repeat, let the law come.
"(Signed)
"NGATIRAUKAWA.
"Sir, please print this in your paper."
The following appears in the New Zealand Advertiser's Summary of June, 1867, published in Wellington:-- "Again we are able to report that no disturbances have taken place with the Natives since we last wrote. The English troops are gradually going, and Colonial troops are idle. At Tauranga, the last place where the disaffection manifested itself, the Arawa contingent has been disbanded, and the Hau-haus have quietly dispersed, or come in and taken the oath of allegiance, being thoroughly beaten and disheartened, and absolutely starved into submission. We believe that the prospect of a sojourn at the Chatham Islands, under an armed guard, and with compulsory work to do, has had more effect in bringing this about than the presence of all the Imperial troops that could be mustered in the island. There seems to be a strange misapprehension in the minds of some of the authorities at home with regard to the retention of a regiment in this Colony. They conceive that if a regiment is left we are going to pay for it. We are going to do nothing of the sort. The Governor may recommend its retention, but the Ministers elected by the country will take no responsibility in the matter. Let the regiments stay by all means, but let them be solely at the Imperial charge, for we cannot afford to keep up the expensive game of the past six years. We are well enough able to take care of ourselves, including our Maori brothers, without further Imperial interference, and we certainly shall not pay to have that interference."
