[Pages 3-29]
[Image of page 3]
AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND,
December 26, 1863.
MY DEAR LORD,
I send you three Acts just passed by the General Assembly:--
1. An Act entitled the "SUPPRESSION OF REBELLION ACT."
2. An Act entitled the "NEW ZEALAND SETTLEMENT ACT."
3. An Act entitled the "LOAN ACT."
The first authorises the Governor to punish "by death, penal servitude, or otherwise," any person concerned in the present rebellion, and to arrest and detain suspected persons, without limit of time. It suspends the right of Habeas Corpus, and enables the Governor to constitute Military Courts for the trial of offences under the Act, which is to continue in force until the next session of the General Assembly.
The second Act authorises the Governor to establish at pleasure settlements upon any land "whether belonging to the Crown, to the Natives, or to private owners, within any district within which any land shall be situate, being the property, or in the possession of a tribe, section, or considerable number of Natives, as to whom the Governor shall be satisfied that they have been engaged in rebellion against Her Majesty's authority." Observe, it is not confined to lands of parties in rebellion, nor even to districts within which rebellion may exist; but it extends to districts within which "any land may be situate" belonging to tribes or individuals engaged in the rebellion. Within any such district, all lands, whether belonging to natives, private individuals, or the Crown, whether cultivated or uncultivated, no matter how occupied, or to what use applied, are placed at the disposal of the Government,
[Image of page 4]
for the purpose of enabling it to form settlements at pleasure, subject (except in specified cases) to payment of compensation to the owners, such compensation to be awarded by Judges appointed and removable by the Government. After appropriating so much land as may be required for the formation of such settlements, the residue of the land in such districts is to be sold to defray the charges which the Colony will be put to, including the present loan.
The third of these measures authorises a loan of three millions, to be raised upon the credit of the Colony (already burthened by loans, General and Provincial, to the amount of three millions and a half); so raising the aggregate debt of the General and Provincial Governments to upwards of six millions and a half.
These funds have been placed at the disposal of Government and appropriated, without any detailed estimates; nor has any additional taxation been proposed to meet the increased burthen on the Colonial Revenue.
The General Assembly, brought together at an inconvenient season of the year, and impatient to disperse to their homes, has been hurried into these measures of panic-legislation, with very slight information as to facts, and without time for inquiry or thought. If at any time members showed a disposition to hesitate, threats of a Ministerial crisis, for which they were not prepared, drove them on.
Towards the close of the session, the signal successes of Her Majesty's troops brought matters to a point, at which, under wise management and with reasonable forbearance towards our conquered fellow-subjects, the peace of the Colony might be secured, without recourse to these violent expedients. But the Acts are passed, and effect is to be given to them, without even waiting till the Queen's pleasure is known about them, --because there is no time to be lost. To wait till Her Majesty's pleasure is ascertained, would be to risk the objects for which they have been passed; and therefore, in open and wilful disregard of the Imperial Guarantee Act, 1857, the Settlements' Act omits the clause, expressly required, and hitherto universally inserted, in Acts touching the Waste and Native lands, namely, that it "be reserved for the Queen's assent:" and the Government proceeds to act upon a law, which it knows to be invalid.
The groundwork of these extraordinary measures is stated in the preambles to the first two Bills. The first recites, "That a combination for the subversion of the Authority of Her Majesty's Government has for some time existed amongst certain aboriginal tribes of the Colony, and has now manifested itself in acts of open rebellion; and that persons in furtherance of the said rebellion, have committed murders on some of Her Majesty's subjects engaged in their peaceful occupation; have pillaged their homesteads, and destroyed their property." The Settlements' Bill recites, "That the Northern island of the Colony of New Zealand
[Image of page 5]
has from time to time been subject to insurrections amongst the evil-disposed persons of the native race, to the great injury, alarm, and intimidation of Her Majesty's peaceable subjects of both races; and involving great loss of life and expenditure of money in their suppression. That many outrages upon lives and property have recently been committed, and such outrages are still threatened, and almost of daily occurrence, --that a large number of the inhabitants of several districts of the Colony have entered into combinations and taken up arms with the object of attempting the extermination and expulsion of the European settlers, and are now engaged in rebellion against Her Majesty's authority."
I will endeavour to supply you with the means of judging as to the accuracy of these statements.
It will be convenient shortly to review the events which have occurred in the Colony, from the breaking out of the war at Taranaki in 1860. You will remember how, at that time, Colonel Browne, the then Governor, employed military force to compel the survey and occupation of a small block of land at the Waitara, purchased of certain natives, the title to which land was disputed by adverse native claimants, headed by William King, --how the natives openly resisted the Government, and a war commenced, in which the natives in other parts of the Colony became more or less implicated, --how our want of military success at first emboldened the natives, --and how the war dragged on, with no marked success on our side, till the spring of the year 1861, when peace, or rather a hollow truce, was made, under which some of the insurgents made apparent submission, others stood sullenly aloof, others rested on their arms, prepared to resume the war upon the first occasion.
Hostilities being thus suspended at Taranaki, Colonel Browne removed the bulk of the troops from that Province, intending to turn his arms against the Waikato tribes, some of whom were the principal allies of the Taranaki insurgents. The country of the Waikato lies southward of Auckland. The River Waikato, the northern frontier of the Waikato district, is distant from Auckland about forty miles. It has been long an object with the Auckland settlers to open this district for colonization. It has a good deal of fertile land, and excellent water communication by navigable rivers running through it. The Waikato River empties itself into the sea on the west coast. The Thames and the Piako, on the other side, flow into the gulf of the Thames. Between these rivers is a rich delta. Between the Waikato River and Auckland the country is for the most part taken up by settlers; --south of the Waikato the native title is in general unextinguished.
The Waikato country is rather thickly inhabited by native tribes, divided into sundry hapus or clans, but who are spoken
[Image of page 6]
of by the general term of Waikatos. In truth, though they own a common ancestry, they are distinct from each other in their territorial divisions and social organisation. Towards the west coast, in the direction of Taranaki, are the Ngatimaniapotos (a branch of the Waikatos), a powerful and numerous tribe (under their chief Rewi), who have played so considerable a part in late affairs that I would beg your special attention to them. They are a lawless turbulent set of men, living in a remote and difficult country, and ready to engage in any work of mischief. In this respect they resemble the Taranaki and Ngataruanui natives, southward of Taranaki, who have been the great source of our troubles in that province.
Apart from the Ngatimaniapotos, and yet closely connected with them, are other Waikato tribes, under leading chiefs (of whom Wm Thompson is one), who have been for years past the principal movers in what is termed the King Movement. One of the undoubted aims of this movement has been to establish a kind of national independence, which has gathered to itself by obvious affinity whatever there was amongst the natives tending to resistance of British authority. The Ngatimaniapotos with many of the King party in the Waikato joined the insurgents at Taranaki. The Taranakis on their side acknowledged allegiance to the Native King. But the chiefs of the King party never identified themselves with the insurrectionary movements at Taranaki, and a large section of them kept themselves aloof and exerted themselves for peace.
As, in discussions upon these subjects, acts are frequently attributed to the whole body of the Waikatos, which are in fact properly chargeable against the Ngatimaniapotos, I must pray you to keep in view the distinctions which I have pointed out.
No one can understand the real state of the Colony without considering this Native King movement, its causes and its tendencies. It is a rude attempt on the part of certain native tribes at self-organization, and self-government. Its promoters have desired, as was natural, to embrace in it the whole native race; but they have never succeeded in attaching to their cause, more than a limited support, confined principally to the central parts of the Northern Island. Some of the leading chiefs engaged in this movement are men of powerful minds and patriotic intentions. Long experience in past years has taught them to regard it as hopeless to expect relief from their miserable condition of barbarous anarchy through the intervention of our own Government. So they have attempted to do for themselves the work which we have neglected. I can perceive nothing wrong in this. On the contrary, I am disposed rather to sympathise with and admire it. In 1860 a Committee of the House of Representatives reported their opinion, "That a great movement had been going on amongst the Native people, having for its main object
[Image of page 7]
the establishment of some settled authority amongst themselves; that such movement need not have been the subject of alarm; that its objects were not necessarily inconsistent with the recognition of the Queen's Supreme Authority; and that it would have been from the first and still would be unwise to counteract it by positive resistance."
Those who take a hasty view of this question may conclude that the very conception of the idea of a Native King and Native Self-Government has in it necessarily something treasonable and criminal; and that the attempt to draw a line round a certain territory with a view to exclude European settlement, has the character of unlawful conspiracy. Whatever may be my opinion, as to the wisdom or probable success of such a policy, I differ entirely from those who regard it as a political offence. I hold to the opinions expressed by the Waikato Committee, of which I was a member.
It is obvious that such a movement may become dangerous, and it may be essential for the peace of the colony to put it down with a strong hand; but what I insist on is, the broad distinction between what is politically inexpedient and what is criminal. Sir George Grey may be justified in taking up arms against the Waikato tribes and forcing them to abandon the King movement, and yet it may be tyranny to punish them for it, as for a political crime.
This question involves a consideration of what are the respective rights and obligations of two races placed in such political relation to each other as ourselves and the natives. The case is anomalous; but, I think, a pretty exact parallel will be found in the case of the American Indians and their relations with the United States. The United States inherited from ourselves the principles on which these relations are established; and they are of general and universal application.
In the case of Worcester v. the State of Georgia, Chief Justice Marshall said,--.
"America, separated from Europe by a wide ocean, was inhabited by a distinct people, divided into separate nations, independent of each other and of the rest of the world, having institutions of their own, and governing themselves by their own laws. It is difficult to comprehend the proposition that the inhabitants of either quarter of the globe could have rightful original claims of dominion over the inhabitants of the other, or over the land they occupied; or that the discovery of either by the other should give the discoverer rights in the country discovered which annulled pre-existing rights of its ancient possessors.
"After lying concealed for a series of ages, the enterprise of Europe, guided by nautical science, conducted some of her adventurous sons into this Western world. They found it in possession
[Image of page 8]
of a people who had made small progress in agriculture or manufactures, and whose general employment was war, hunting and fishing.
"Did these adventurers by sailing along the coast and occasionally landing on it, acquire for the several governments to whom they belonged, or by whom they were commissioned, a rightful property in the soil from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or rightful dominion over the numerous people who occupied it? Or has nature, or the great Creator of all things, conferred these rights over hunters and fishermen, on agriculturists and manufacturers?
"But power, war, conquest give rights which, after possession, are conceded by the world, and which can never be controverted by those on whom they descend. We proceed, then, to the actual state of things, having glanced at their origin, because holding it in our recollection might shed some light on existing pretensions.
"The great powers of Europe discovered and visited different parts of the continent at nearly the same time. The object was too immense for any of them to grasp the whole, and the claimants were too powerful to submit to the exclusive or unreasonable pretensions of any single potentate. To avoid bloody conflicts which might terminate disastrously to all, it was necessary for the nations of Europe to establish some principle which all should acknowledge, and which should decide their respective rights as between themselves. This principle, suggested by the actual state of things, was, that discovery gave title to the Government by whose subjects, or by whose authority it was made, against all other European Governments, which title might be confirmed by possession.
"This principle, acknowledged by all Europeans, because it was the interest of all to acknowledge it, gave to the nation making the discovery the sole right of acquiring the soil, and of making settlements upon it. It was an exclusive principle which shut out the right of competition among those who had agreed to it. It regulated the right given by discovery amongst the European discoverers; but could mot affect the rights of those already in possession, either as aboriginal occupants, or as occupants by virtue of a discovery made before the memory of man. It gave the exclusive right to purchase, but did not found that right on a denial of the right of the possessor to sell.
"The relation between the Europeans and the natives was determined in each case by the particular Government which asserted and could maintain the pre-emptive privilege in the particular place. The United States succeeded to all the claims of Great Britain, both territorial and political, but no attempt, so far as is known, has been made to enlarge them. So far as they existed only in theory or were in their nature only exclusive of the claims of other European nations, they still retain their
[Image of page 9]
original character and remain dormant. So far as they have been practically exerted, they exist in fact, are understood by both parties, are asserted by the one, and admitted by the other.
"Soon after Great Britain determined on planting Colonies in America, the King granted charters to companies of his subjects who associated for the purpose of carrying the views of the Crown into effect, and of enriching themselves. The first of these charters was made before possession was taken of any part of the country. They purport generally to convey the soil from the Atlantic to the South Sea. The soil was occupied by numerous and warlike natives, equally willing and able to defend their possessions. The extravagant and absurd idea that the feeble settlements made on the sea-coast or the companies under whom they were made acquired legitimate power by them to govern the people or occupy the lands from sea to sea, did not enter the mind of any man. They were well understood to convey the title which, according to the common law of European sovereigns respecting America, they might convey, and no more. This was the exclusive right of purchasing such lands as the natives were willing to sell. The Crown could not be understood to grant what the Crown did not affect to claim, nor was it so understood." --6, 7, Peter's, 229.
Again, he says, "The Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable and hitherto unquestioned right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to the Government. It may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the aboriginal boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a right, independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relations to the United States resemble that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our Government for protection, relying upon its kindness and power--appeal to it for relief to their wants, and address the President as their great Father."
"The occupancy of their lands," says Judge Washington, "was never assumed except upon the basis of contract and on the payment of a valuable consideration.
"At no time has the sovereignty of the country been recognised as existing in the Indians, but they have always been admitted to possess many of the attributes of sovereignty. All the rights which belong to self-Government have been recognised as vested in them. Their right of occupancy has never been questioned, but the fee in the soil has been considered to be in the Government. This may be called the right to the ultimate dominion, but the Indians have the present right of possession.
"In the management of their internal concerns they are depea-
[Image of page 10]
dent on no power. They punish offences under their own laws, and in doing so they are responsible to no earthly tribunal. They make war and form treaties of peace. The exercise of these and other powers gives to them a distinct character as a people, and constitutes them in some respects a State, although they may not be permitted to possess the right of soil.
"By numerous treaties with the Indian tribes we have gained accessions of territory of incalculable value to the Union. Except by compact, we have not even claimed a right of way through the Indian lands. We have recognised in them the right to make war. No one has ever supposed that the Indians could commit treason against the United States. We have punished them for their violation of treaties, but we have inflicted the punishment on them as a nation, and not on individual offenders amongst them as traitors."
In 1814 the American war ended. Great Britain, during the war, had contracted alliances with Indian tribes within the territories of the United States, and employed them against the enemy, the United States protesting against their savage modes of warfare. In arranging terms of peace, Great Britain insisted on including their Indian allies in the treaty. This the American Plenipotentiaries decline.
"The Indians," they say, "residing within the United States are so far independent that they live under their own customs, and not under the laws of the United States; that their rights upon the lands which they inhabit or rule over, are secured to them by boundaries, defined in amicable treaties between the United States and themselves; and that whenever those boundaries are varied, it is also by amicable and voluntary treaties, by which they receive from the United States ample compensation for every right they have to the lands ceded by them. They are so far dependent as not to have the right to dispose of their lands to any private persons, nor to any power other than the United States, and to be under their protection alone, and not under that of any other power. Whether called subjects, or by whatever name designated, such is the relation between them and the United States." They therefore deny the right of Great Britain to interfere in any manner between them and these tribes. To this the British Plenipotentiaries rejoin, "The American Plenipotentiaries, probably aware that the notion of such a qualified independence for certain purposes and not for others, could not be maintained, either by argument or precedent, have been compelled to advance the novel and alarming pretension, that all the Indian nations living within the boundary of the United States must in effect be considered as their subjects, and consequently if engaged in war against the United States, become liable to be treated as rebels or disaffected persons. They have further stated that all the territory which these Indian natives occupy is at
[Image of page 11]
the disposal of the United States; that the United States have a right to dispossess them of it, to exercise that right whenever their policy or interests may seem to them to require it, and to confine them to such spots as may be selected, not by the Indian natives, but by the American Government. Pretensions such as these Great Britain can never recognise. However reluctant His Royal Highness the Prince Regent may be to continue the war, that evil must be preferred if peace can only be obtained on such conditions." The American Plenipotentiaries deny that these alleged pretensions have been stated by them either in terms or in substance. The question is settled by a general amnesty.
Did the New Zealanders any more than the American Indians imagine that by placing themselves under the guardianship of the British Empire they forfeited their inherent rights to govern themselves according to their own usages, and to retain the ownership of their land? As to the latter, the treaty of Waitangi expressly reserves to them their territorial rights. As to the former, it is true they surrendered to the Queen the "Kawanatanga"--the governorship--or sovereignty; but they did not understand that they thereby surrendered the exercise of the right of government over their internal affairs, a right which we never have claimed or exercised, and could not in fact exercise. The acknowledgment of sovereignty by the New Zealanders was the same in effect as in the case of the American Indians. It carried with it the exclusive right of pre-emption over their lands, and the exclusion of interference of foreign nations. No doubt it imposed on us the right and the duty of extending our law to them so soon as they should be able and willing to understand and accept it; but it could not authorise us to inflict on them the penalties of laws which they never heard of, expressed in language of which they are ignorant. It could not for instance subject them to the penalties of Popish Convict Recusants for refusing to take the oath of allegiance, as has been absurdly argued in this colony; a doctrine which has even received countenance from the Supreme Court.
I have searched the records of this Colony and find everywhere intimations of similar doctrines as to our relations with the Native race. Practically we have adopted the same rule. We have left to them the internal management of their own affairs; we have refused to extend the jurisdiction of our courts to the settlement of their disputes; we deny them the electoral franchise. When we go to war with them we make treaties of peace; and we have always heretofore extended to them the rights of belligerents. In the very case of the insurgent tribes at Taranaki, Governor Browne proposed to them terms of peace which some of them accepted. The Colonial Government seeks now to escape from the logical conclusion drawn from this fact by treating Col. Browne's offer as a condonation of a supposed treason.
[Image of page 12]
Nor is there anything inconsistent with these views in the language from time to time used by the Imperial authorities in reference to the government of the Natives.
Lord Stanley in his despatch to Governor Fitz Roy, of the 10th February, 1841, says,--
"I know of no theoretical or practical difficulty in the maintenance under the same sovereign of various codes of law for the government of different races of men. In British India, in Ceylon, at the Cape of Good Hope, and in Canada, the aboriginal and the European inhabitants live together on these terms. Native laws and native customs, when not abhorrent from the universal and permanent laws of God, are respected by English legislatures and by English courts; and although problems of much difficulty will occasionally arise out of this state of things, they have never been such as to refuse all solution, or as to drive the local authorities on the far more embarrassing difficulty of extending the law of England to persons wholly ignorant of our language, manners, and religion."
The Emperor of the French has adopted similar principles in reference to his Arab subjects in Algeria. "He refuses," says an article in the Guardian newspaper, of the 5th August, 1863, "in spite of the pressure of French colonists, either to confiscate land thus nomadically occupied, or to force upon the tribes the French law, for which they are not yet ripe."
The Constitution Act recognises the same principles. It empowers the Crown to set apart native districts, within which the natives may enjoy their own usages and customs, so far as they may not be repugnant to humanity. If instead of attempting in an irregular way to constitute a native district, within which they might enjoy the rights of self-government, by making their own laws, to be executed by magistrates of their own choice, they had moved the Governor to exercise the powers expressly vested in him for that end by the Constitution Act, would they not have observed a strictly legal course? And because in their ignorance they have pursued the substance, but neglected the form of law, shall we hold them guilty of treason?
It is of course possible to embarrass this question by difficulties of a superficial kind. The Queen's sovereignty, it is said, extends over the whole Colony. All persons therefore within it are subjects of her Majesty. All are therefore subject to the same law. This is the sort of flimsy reasoning to which Lord Stanley gives the answer which I have quoted from his despatch. Natives as well as settlers are, it is true, equally subjects of her Majesty, but there is nothing inconsistent with her Majesty's paramount authority in permitting natives to enjoy as law their own usages and customs, nor anything criminal in their seeking to embody this native law in some fixed form under a head and magistrates of their own choice. On the contrary, I perceive in
[Image of page 13]
such a movement an effort which, rightly directed, might have elevated and saved the race.
The risk of course in such a case is that such distinctions may grow into absolute separation. There was obvious danger in leaving it to take its own course. A wise and vigilant Government would have turned the King Movement to good purpose; but the Government of the Colony has been neither wise nor vigilant. In 1857 a feeble attempt was made and abandoned to introduce civil institutions into the Waikato district. In 1860 the King Movement had become a dangerous political fact; exciting the native mind to a high state of inflammation, in which state of things it was thought politic by the Government to initiate a war by way of corrective. What has followed has been the inevitable sequence of cause and effect. When war broke out at Taranaki, the party of the King Movement sympathised with and assisted the insurgents: and, with a view of crushing the insurrectionary spirit, Colonel Browne determined in the summer of 1861 to attack the Waikatos.
Fortunately for Colonel Browne, the Colony, and I think the credit of the British army, Colonel Browne's plans were interrupted. Had he then attempted an invasion of the Waikato the chances are that it would have led to disaster. At that time there was no road to the River Waikato beyond Drury--a distance of not more than twenty-five miles from Auckland. Beyond Drury, for about twenty miles, the intervening country was dense, impenetrable bush, through which it would have been impossible to keep communications open. The projected invasion became practicable, only after Sir George Grey had completed the road to the river; till then, the idea of such an invasion into the native territory appeared to me, as I know it did to men of military science, a rash adventure. Colonel Browne's plans were put an end to by the appointment of Sir George Grey as his successor, in July, 1861. Just about the same time, a material change had taken place in the Colonial Ministry. The war party went out of office, and were succeeded by Mr Fox and the party who, with him, desired, if possible, to bring about a peaceful solution of our Native difficulties. I joined Mr Fox's Government as Attorney-General in July, 1861, exactly at the same time that Sir George Grey's advent was announced. Between the new Government and the new Ministers, there was a general agreement in political views. With as little delay as possible, we inaugurated what has been termed "Sir George Grey's policy,"-- I prefer calling it the "Policy of 1861." In truth, it was not more Sir George Grey's policy than it was that of his Ministers. It was an attempt to give practical effect to the principles enunciated the year before by the Waikato Committee. Whatever there may be of credit or responsibility in the policy so inaugurated, I claim an equal share of it on behalf of the Colonial Ministers. If it has failed, as it is alleged to have done, a just
[Image of page 14]
proportion of the blame must equally fall on us. The essence of that policy was to supply the natives with Civil Institutions, founded on the principle of self-government, but subordinate to the paramount authority of the Queen We hoped in this way to satisfy their reasonable requirements, and to divert the King Movement into a safe channel. We prosecuted this object with diligence, and, I think, with a fair prospect of success, till the General Assembly again met in 1861. To assert that it had at that time positively succeeded would be an exaggeration. The cure of a deep-seated chronic disease, such as that with which we had to deal, could not be effected suddenly. Our operations had been partial, and the results were imperfectly developed. As might have been expected, we made mistakes. In some cases magistrates and officers were appointed, who were not equal to their duties. We spent money too freely, thinking to attach the Natives to the new institutions by motives of self-interest, instead of addressing, as I think we should have more wisely done, their higher and better impulses. But upon the whole, a work had been begun which, with time and patience--unless interrupted by external disturbances--might have restored peace to the Colony, and reconciled native self-government with British supremacy. By such a course, I am persuaded, and by no other, can we hope even now, to prevent a conflict of races, and to pursue a course of peaceful colonization.
The Assembly met at Wellington in July, 1862. The instant the session opened it was apparent that there were influences at work to counteract what we had begun. Those who had led the country into war and looked upon force as the sole means of quieting the natives, would have been disappointed at the success of principles opposed to their own. There was besides strong personal dislike both to Mr Fox and Sir George Grey. The latter in some of his despatches laid before the Legislature, had reflected severely on the war policy of Colonel Browne. The old Ministers took up the cudgels ostensibly in defence of their chief, but mainly in a spirit of self-justification. Believing, as they conscientiously did, that a policy of peace would be unsuccessful, they determined, nevertheless, that the experiment should be carried out, in order that what they believed would be its signal failure might redound to the discredit of Sir George Grey. In the same party spirit they compelled a change of Ministry, and both Houses of the Legislature refused the Duke of Newcastle's offer of Ministerial Responsibility in Native affairs in resolutions and addresses which a not unjust criticism has pronounced to be petulant, unstatesmanlike, and inconsistent. Mr Fox resigned, and a new Government was formed under Mr Domett-- a gentleman whose views and sympathies were wholly on the side of the war party. The new Government professed its intention to give fair play to the policy of 1861, but it was impossible that a Ministry which disbelieved in that policy could carry it into
[Image of page 15]
successful operation. It has not surprised me to hear from their partisans that it has failed. Judging from after events, my belief is that, under the system of Responsible Government, from the moment the Ministry of Mr Fox was displaced by that of Mr Domett, the hope of a peaceful settlement of our Native difficulties was at an end. The change of Ministers in itself created distrust in the Native mind. They watch the course of public events, and understand the characters of leading men. Mr Fox to them represented a friendly principle. They asked why he had been displaced? Mr Domett has also taken a sufficiently prominent part in public affairs to be also known to them. His sentiments are expressed in a memorandum, to which I shall presently draw your attention, and in which, after developing his plans for planting military settlements in Native districts, he says:--
"It may be objected to the foregoing plans that they are based solely on the idea of force; and it is true that physical power is the main element of the conception. The basis of physical power is the best and only one on which to rear the superstructure of moral sway.
"Power, first, as the only thing that commands the respect of these undisciplined men, after it, the humanising influences; after it, every wise and mild treatment to elevate and improve them. This is the natural order of things. Until you get rid of the rank growths of savagery, how can you rear the plants of civilization? The axe and the fire are wanted before the plough and the seed corn."
I do not think I misconstrue this somewhat florid language as meaning that we must thrash the natives into submission before we can hope to civilize them. I differ from Mr Domett. I think it is a shallow and unsound philosophy which bases civil society on physical force. Men are bound together in civil communities by higher influences. By these alone can we hope to raise the New Zealander from his present degraded state. To crush him is to destroy him. There is a remarkable chapter in De Tocqueville's America, in which he expresses sentiments with respect to the American Indians exactly the opposite of those of Mr Domett, and considers it hopeless to civilize the broken remnants of their tribes, because they have been conquered. Guizot traces the mode in which the barbarous races of Europe emerged into civilization, by processes exactly the reverse of those which Mr Domett proposes to have recourse to in the case of the New Zealanders. But these are speculative opinions. I desire to point out that, under a Minister entertaining Mr Domett's views, there was little chance of a peace policy succeeding.
I am told that this policy has failed. I do not admit the fact. I do not admit that it has been fairly tried. I write with imper-
[Image of page 16]
fect information on this point. The Government has, I will not say, suppressed, but at any rate, omitted to lay before the Assembly any papers on the subject; but so far as I can judge, under the most unkindly influences, it seems to me to have borne and to be bearing good fruit. The northern natives are quiet. There are no signs of disturbance at the Bay of Plenty, the East Cape, the Wairarapa, Wellington, or Wanganui. Even close upon the Waikato itself, in the district of Taupo, the Magistrate placed there under Mr Fox's administration, remains doing his work; and his people are steady supporters of the Government. In the Waikato, the experiment, I will not say has failed, for from the first it was regarded as hopeless, at least by many persons, myself included, until a right direction had been given to the King Movement. The fact that, under circumstances so exciting as the present war, the great bulk of the country remains quiet, is a practical testimony in favour of the policy of conciliation and forbearance. Some Magistrates have been removed from their districts, it is true, hastily, and I think when the circumstances come to be examined it will be found injudiciously; but the broad fact remains and is incontestable, that the Native districts I have enumerated, including three-fourths of the native territory, are at this moment in a state of peace. They are, it is true, anxious and distrustful of our intentions. What the effect will be of the measures now about to be inaugurated, it is impossible to foresee.
I propose now to follow the course of events, from the session of the General Assembly, 1862, to the present time, with such imperfect means of information as are open to me. It has been matter of grave and frequent complaint, that the Assembly has been left without information upon vital questions on which it was called on to legislate. Whether purposely or carelessly, the Government seems to have omitted to publish anything which does not in some way tend to justify their measures.
I gather that, during the latter part of the year 1862, an uncomfortable feeling was growing amongst the Waikato natives. Their suspicions were awakened as to the real intentions of Government. It was announced that the Governor was about to place an armed steamer on the Waikato. The road to the Waikato being completed, the General established a military post on the river, at a place called the Ia. The prospect of the steamer seems especially to have alarmed them. They held Runangas, and declared their intention, if possible, to stop it.
On New Year's day Sir George Grey left Auckland for the Waikato almost alone. I refer you to his despatch to the Duke of Newcastle of the 6th of February last, and its enclosure, which I believe to be official (taken from the New Zealander newspaper). "The Governor was welcomed," says the Reporter, "by natives of all parties, Kingites included, with the most unfeigned affection, the natives expressing their surprise at seeing their Father
[Image of page 17]
so unexpectedly and alone." The next morning, at a great meeting, the whole assembly stood up, taking off their hats, and when the Governor told them, in answer to their questions, that all his intentions were good, they welcomed His Excellency as their Father, the countenance of their Father Potatau, their friend the Governor, --saying that had he not left the country the King movement had never been dreamt of." The same feeling was expressed at subsequent meetings, at which, amongst other things, they stated frankly their objections to the steamer--which objections were answered by Sir George Grey, who seems to have removed their suspicions. Then they discussed the King movement, with respect to which the natives said that hitherto they had employed all their energies to establish the institution, and had no time to devote to the making of laws, but that now the thing had obtained a position amongst the people, they would elect from amongst their chiefs those who were most learned, to form rules and laws for the good Government of the people, --these laws would be handed by Matutaera to the Governor for his sanction, and if assented to by the Governor, they should become law.
How this occasion was lost for turning the King movement to good use, and settling our native difficulties, at least with tho Waikatos, has yet to be explained. Sir George Grey in his despatch intimates indeed that the natives subsequently withdrew from the proposed arrangement, but the ground which (as he says) they alleged for such withdrawal, namely the wrongful detention of the Waitara was within his own control, --and the subsequent cession of the Waitara shows that this circumstance need not have stood in his way. But the golden opportunity went by. Sir George Grey returned to his place, and the natives relapsed into their state of distrust, which was aggravated by new circumstances.
It will, I believe, be found that the real difficulty was the state of things at Taranaki. We still retained the Waitara. The natives still held the Tataraimaka block. It was impossible that the latter could be permitted. Forcibly to resume it was to risk, as the event proved, the revival of war--a result which the Waikato natives, I firmly believe, desired to avert. With this view they proposed, as I am informed, themselves to obtain the surrender of the block. Sir George Grey, perhaps rightly, thought that such a course would be derogatory to the Government. He declined their intervention, and in the beginning of March he proceeded to Taranaki.
Now it will be necessary to follow the course of events at Taranaki and in the Waikato side by side,
Sir George Grey's movements at Taranaki produced considerable excitement amongst the Waikatos, who foresaw the results. The Ngatimaniapotos prepared themselves to take part with the Taranakis in resisting the resumption of the Tataraimaka block.
[Image of page 18]
It is, I believe, known, that they instigated the attack on the escort on the 5th of May. I have no doubt that from this time they began to plan hostilities against the settlers. They forcibly carried away some half-caste children from their European parents; in some instances separated native wives from their European husbands, threatened the out-settlers, and generally assumed an attitude of hostility.
In March an occurrence took place which, though not in itself very important, led to important consequences, and indicated an increasing spirit of disaffection.
During Mr Fox's government it was thought right to try the experiment of placing a Magistrate in the Waikato. By offering the King natives Institutions under our own law, it was thought possible, that they might be induced to abandon the King movement. The Government employed for this purpose Mr Gorst, a gentleman of great ability and attainments, but whose tact and judgment do not appear to me to have been equal to the occasion, who understood the language, and was on friendly terms with some of the leading chiefs of the King party. Mr Gorst's mission as a Magistrate was not successful; but he was personally liked by many of the chiefs, and was for some time allowed to remain in the district unmolested, though unable to enforce his magisterial authority. Whether it was wise to continue him at his post, after the natives had distinctly shown their indisposition to receive him, may be questioned. To force a magistrate upon them was putting them to a severe test. They rejected it. Under Mr Domett's government, a new experiment was tried. An industrial school was established at a place called Te Awamutu, under Mr Gorst's direction, and at first with good results. Natives of all parties sent their children to school. Carpenters and blacksmiths attached to the new Institution found their services appreciated. Altogether it promised well. In an evil hour, however, it was determined to set up a Maori newspaper (the Pihoihoi), in opposition to the Maori Gazette (the Hokioi) published as the official organ of the native King. (You see the natives have advanced sufficiently to set up a newspaper of their own). The Pihoihoi had, I believe, the best of it in point of ability, and was writing its antagonist down. Its leading idea was to bring Kingship with its institutions into contempt, by treating it with ridicule. The King natives smarted under Mr Gorst's clever writing, and resented an attempt to undermine their political institutions. Sir George Grey had told them that he meant to dig round and overthrow their Flagstaff, and they saw that he was employing Mr Gorst and his newspaper as a means to his end. The Ngatimaniapotos determined to put a stop to the obnoxious publication. After several threats, at length, on the 24th of March, they made an attack on the printing press, which they broke up and carried off, types and all, though without personally molesting Mr Gorst or his party. This act of violence was exclusively the work of the
[Image of page 19]
Ngatimaniapotos. Matutaera, William Thompson, and the other leading chiefs of the Waikato strongly disapproved of and endeavoured to prevent it. The printing press and materials were subsequently restored, though in a damaged state. Aporo, a native chief, one of the ringleaders, was afterwards arrested in Auckland, tried in the Supreme Court, and convicted, to everybody's amazement, of larceny. The stoppage of the publication was considered by the Judge to be a sufficient lucri causa to invest the transaction with a larcenous character. He is, I believe, now undergoing a sentence of two years' penal servitude in Auckland gaol. This affair is invested with more importance than it deserves, from the manner in which it is appealed to by the Government and its partizans as a proof of a treasonable conspiracy against the Queen's authority, and of a plot to exterminate and expel the settlers.
Another outrage was committed by the natives. Sir George Grey's despatch of the 30th March, 1863, refers to it, but does not fully disclose the facts. I will state them from what I believe to be good authority.
The Government had proposed, for some time past, to build a School and Court-house on the banks of the Waikato river, at a place called The Kohekohe. The Native owners consented--at least the principal ones, though a question was afterwards raised upon this point--and the plan was proceeded with in the spring of this year. As the buildings advanced, it became evident that they were designed for something beyond their avowed object; in fact it was clear--and is admitted by the Government--that, under colour of a School and Court-house, it was meant to erect a building capable of being turned into a police station, or, if need be, a military stockade. The plan of the building and the strength of the timbers betrayed its real purpose. The Natives became alarmed. Coupling it with other circumstances--the movements at Taranaki, the advanced military post, and the coming steamer--they regarded it as an indication of hostile intentions on the part of Government. "There is death in it," they said; so they determined that the building should not proceed. In a remarkably orderly manner, they removed the timbers, floated them down the river, and delivered them on the Queen's land at The Ia.
No one can, of course, justify this proceeding, but the circumstances, I think, extenuate the offence. The Native owners of the land had consented to the building of a School-house and Court-house. Some of them, at all events, dissented from the building of a Stockade. They were, perhaps unreasonably, but not unnaturally, alarmed at the unexpected appearance of a building adapted for military purposes, commanding an important point of the river. They misconstrued the intentions of Government; and the appearance of disguise about the transaction, (unintentional as I believe), tended to foster their suspicions.
[Image of page 20]
This very unfortunate circumstance created, perhaps more than any other, distrust in the mind of the Waikatos, as to the intentions of Government.
The apprehension of Aporo upon the charge of larceny, for the attack on Mr Gorst's printing press, created a good deal of excitement in Waikato. The Ngatimaniapotos began to concoct schemes for rescue or retaliation. Connecting itself with the events at Taranaki, it drew to a head the dangerous humours which had been some time gathering. It was from this time that threats began to be used against the out-settlers, and warnings were given them which induced them, for the most part, to leave their districts, and come to Auckland.
I now turn to Taranaki. On the 6th of April the Governor writes to the Secretary of State developing his plan of operations. As to the Waikato tribes generally, regarding them "as the head and front of a great and general conspiracy" he proposes "gradually and surely to take measures which would not only place the settlement of Auckland in a state of fair security against them, but would place us in a position which would enable us, with just hopes of success, to strike a blow at them, if they deserved punishment; and at the same time so to threaten them that, if we ever required to take measures against the natives elsewhere, they would hardly venture to detach any considerable force to aid such people when a force capable of readily invading their territories lay at their own door."
I do not think I misconstrue this language as conveying Sir George Grey's intentions, the result of a long-settled determination, to carry war into the Waikato, in the event of his movements at Taranaki leading to a renewal of hostilities. The Waikato natives appear, in truth, to have rightly divined the Governor's intentions; and their alarms were not without foundation.
I am not prepared to argue that Sir George Grey was not justified, as a measure of policy, in thus planning a blow against the Waikatos, in anticipation of possible hostilities at Taranaki. That question may be left an open one; but I utterly deny that a war so commenced can be stigmatized with the opprobrious terms of "treason" and "rebellion" on the part of the natives; or that resistance to an attack originated by ourselves, under such circumstances, can be made a ground for charging them with High Treason, or treated as evidence of a plot to exterminate and expel the European settlers.
Sir George Grey's operations at Taranaki at first promised a favourable result. He took possession of the Tataraimaka block, without resistance. It soon, however, became apparent, that the Natives did not mean to surrender it quietly. There were rumours of intended ambuscades. On the 4th of May an escort, consisting of two officers and eight men was attacked, and fired
[Image of page 21]
upon, by a body of about forty natives: eight were killed. The war had recommenced. The question, whether this unprovoked slaughter of the escort ought to be treated as a case of murder has been a subject of discussion. According to our views, it undoubtedly had that character: a large portion of the Natives so regard it; others, mixed up with the former war, would consider it is an event following in the ordinary course of war. We cannot so regard it; but we ought not, I think, to pass unqualified condemnation on those amongst the Natives who, judging by the light of their own customs, may extenuate the offences of their countrymen. Sir George Grey is of opinion that, had the Waitara been previously surrendered, as in his judgment it ought to have been, this catastrophe might have been avoided. I offer no opinion on this point. If it were so, it would be a circumstance to be taken into account in weighing the moral guilt of the transaction.
From this point we must date the renewal of the war. Within a few days after the attack on the escort, Sir George Grey surrendered the Waitara. He alleges as the ground for this step (which I think was at least unfortunate in point of time) that new circumstances had been discovered, disclosing a fatal defect in the original purchase. The two Houses of the Legislature in their late session adopted resolutions intended to convey reflections on Sir George Grey for the course thus taken. They declared at the same time, that the case required further investigation, following the old Rhadamanthian rule, "castigatque auditque." It may perhaps be well that I should state my own view about this unhappy Waitara question. It will, I think, be found to turn on simple questions of fact. The purchased block consisted of about nine hundred acres of land. Upon a portion of this, William King and some of his people occupied a pah, with some adjacent cultivations, under an agreement which, according to one party, amounted to a tenancy at will; and according to the other party, was a permanent tribal arrangement. So far as Colonel Browne was concerned, I have no doubt whatever, from circumstances within my own knowledge, that he never meant to include in the purchase this debateable land, I mean the portion of the block occupied by William King and his party. It is also clear, that the Colonial Ministers and the officers of Government engaged in the transaction, did intend to include it in the purchase. There can be no doubt that such a purchase was an unwise one, to say the least. On the other hand, my opinion always has been, and still remains, that William King's opposition to the Government was grounded on political motives, and was not merely, if at all, intended to be in assertion of his proprietary claims. His object was to circumscribe the area of British Settlement, and to resist any further acquisition of land by the Government. The verdict of posterity will, I believe, be
[Image of page 22]
that war under these circumstances was excusable, but exceedingly unwise. Sir George Grey's cession of the Waitara may well be justified on grounds of expediency.
I need not recapitulate the military operations of Taranaki. Indeed, the imperfect state of the papers laid before the General Assembly prevents me from following their course with exactness. Generally, however, for some weeks operations were carried on with the usual gallantry and success on our part which has marked all General Cameron's movements, but without any decisive result. It then appeal's that, for reasons not stated, but doubtless with a view to attack the fountain head, the Governor determined to transfer the scene of action to the Waikato. In, I think, the month of June, the principal body of the troops returned to Auckland, leaving only a garrison at Taranaki, under Colonel Warre.
Meanwhile the news of the attack on the escort of the 4th of May had produced a great sensation throughout the Colony, both amongst Natives and Europeans. By the Natives it was variously received. The Ngatimaniapotos and their adherents regarded it with satisfaction, as the completion of their own work. They thought, no doubt, that it would have the effect of rousing the natives throughout the Colony, and bringing on a general war, which they had been for some time trying to stir up.
On the 15th of April, Mr Fulloon (an officer of the Native department) reports thus:--
"It is quite apparent that the Ngatimaniapoto and Lower Waikato are doing and will do their best to provoke hostilities, but the Ngaruawahia and the Ngatihaua people are afraid of war."
On the 25th of April, Mr Purchas writes from the Waikato:--
"A great discussion has been going on at Kihikihi, between Rewi and his followers, together with Reihana, on the one side, and Te Paea, Potatau, and Ngaruawhia on the other. Rewi's side are for an immediate descent upon the Ia, with a view, I am told, not of attacking the troops, but of making a raid against the settlers, while Te Paea and Patera strenuously oppose the plan:"--
On the 2nd of May, Mr Purchas reports that "Matutaera (the King) was greatly vexed at the proceedings of Maniapoto."
Waikato was divided into three parties--one, the party bent on war, consisting of the Ngatimaniapotos and their adherents, under Rewi; another consisting of loyal natives, of whom Waata Kukutai and William Naylor are the principal chiefs; a third, comprising the leading men of the King movement, including Matutaera himself, William Thompson, and others, who, though
[Image of page 23]
bent on furthering the King movement, were yet sincerely anxious to maintain peace.
I can offer no reliable estimate as to the relative proportions of these three parties in point of numbers and influence. The smallest numerically was that of the loyal natives, but their chiefs were men of great influence. The violent party was, I conceive, numerically the strongest. The young men generally throughout the Waikato sympathised with it. The middle, or King party, included the leading and most influential chiefs of the Waikato, and though the young men of their tribes were disposed for mischief, yet the influence of the chiefs was sufficient to keep them to a great, extent in check.
Beyond Waikato the occurrences at Taranaki did not produce the effect of rousing the natives.
On the 11th May the Superintendent of Wellington writes thus:--
"My own impression is, that inasmuch as almost in every Runanga that has been held in the province, the Natives, whether loyal or King's men, have declared that Tataraimaka belonged to the Queen, and have deprecated any assistance being afforded to the Taranaki tribe in any attempt they might make to dispute the occupation by the troops, they will repudiate and denounce the barbarous onslaught."
From Wairarapa, Mr Wardell, resident magistrate, reports on the 23rd of June, "That the King's Runanga of the district decided last month that the Tataraimaka had been fairly bought by the Queen, and that the Governor should be allowed to take peaceful possession of it. And further, when the news of the murders of the 4th of May reached them, they expressed but one sentiment, namely, that the murderers should be punished, and that if the tribe refused to give them up, the whole tribe should be treated as murderers."
On the 7th July the Governor transmits to the Secretary of State an address from the Ngapuhi natives (the great Northern tribe), numerously signed, disapproving of the murders, and expressive of their royalty. On the 13th of July the Governor transmits to the Secretary of State addresses of a like kind from Natives of the Bay of Plenty and the Thames.
On the 28th of July Sir George Grey expresses his opinion to the Secretary of State that "the existing insurrection will only be a partial one, and that the majority of the native population will remain faithful to the Government."
Down to the latest period, before the commencement of hostilities, in the Waikato itself there were the same divisions of party and opinion which I have noticed. On the 16th June, Archdeacon Maunsell writes to the Governor, enclosing letters
[Image of page 24]
from an alarmist native, in which he says that he (the Archdeacon) does not coincide with his views: and that "of Thompson and Matutaera he has of late heard several indisputable reports that confirm him in his belief that they desire peace."
On the 30th of June, Mr Ashwell, the Missionary, writes from the Waikato, referring to a plan for an attack which the Ngatimaniapotos were meditating, "that he thinks most of the Ngatihaua are opposed to it, but some are favourable."
On the 7th of July, Mr Purchas reports an interview with Tamati Ngapora, one of the leading "King" Natives, in which Tamati says --"That if" (as the event proved) "no murder was committed nor any attack made before next Sunday, then his mind would be greatly relieved, as he would feel sure that the advocates of peace had gained a hearing, and that the people were quietly considering the matter."
I have now brought matters down to the very verge of the Governor's movement into the Waikato, the first act of which may be dated from the ejection of the frontier natives (to which I shall presently refer) on the 11th and 12th of July, and the crossing of the Mangatawhiri, by the General, on the 12th of July.
The following letters, written at a subsequent time by leading Native Chiefs of Hawke's Bay to the Superintendent of Wellington, represent the state of things in the Waikato at the time the war commenced in that district, from a Maori point of view; --
"MATAHIWI, September 7, 1863.
"To DR. FEATHERSTONE, --Friend, Salutations to you. The report has reached us of your visit to Otaki, where you were told by W. Tako and Heremia that they had received a letter from the Kingi telling them to kill the Europeans. We have doubts about this. We enclose the letter the King wrote to us, which is simply a caution to us, and which we send to you, that you may see yourself what he says. If the letter to Wi Tako and Heremia had been from him, he would have sent a similar one to us, to urge us also to turn upon the pakeha.
"Sir, we have been searching in vain to make out why our pakeha friends say that murders were the cause of the war in Auckland. Not being able to satisfy ourselves, we sent an express messenger to the seat of war to make enquiries, and he returned last Saturday evening. His report was that the Governor's war had not been caused by murders as the Pakehas alleged. Murders could not be heard of (i. e. preceding the war). The only grounds that could be alleged were--first, the expulsion of the Maoris from Auckland, from their own lands, and the burning of their properties and houses; and secondly, the crossing of Mangata-
[Image of page 25]
whiri. If you know of any other cause, we should be glad if you would point it out to us, that we may speedily know it.
"Sir, we can clearly see the error of our Native tribes in slaying the pakehas at Tataraimaka. But at the same time we cannot lose sight of the error (or injustice) of the Governor in not making known his decision respecting the Waitara in proper time (i. e. before any other steps were taken), that (the Waitara) being the source of the evil in New Zealand, and having made clear what is the root and source (of the evil) before following up the branches i. e., Tataraimaka, &c
"We were here waiting in vain to see (or hear from) the Governor upon the subject of our request to him, when he visited us, that the Waitara should be investigated. The Governor on that occasion stated that it was Waikato that was holding it (Waitara) back (from investigation); to which we replied, 'Give Waikato one more trial, and if they do not consent, enough to them. Then do you fix a day for the investigation, for there are many tribes who wish for one, and let us turn and investigate that evil that it may quickly be done away with.' All at once we were astounded by hearing that pakehas had been killed at Tataraimaka. The next thing is we are again astonished by the news--'Ah! here is Waitara handed back to us.' It was held back until evil was created (i. e., the renewal of hostilities,) and then returned. Why not have returned it in a time of peace that it might have been seen whether the evil (of the Maori) would have been audacious enough to have climbed over (ki te piki mai) the Governor's just acts; and if so, it would have been clear that the Maori had (independently of the Waitara question) evil intentions towards the Europeans.
"Sir, use your best exertions to put down the evil in this Island of ours, being assisted by your friends exerting themselves in the same cause--that of drawing over the people to what is right.
"That is all.
"From RENATA TAMAKIHIKURANGI,
"KARAITIANA TAKAMOANA,
"TE WIRIHANA TOATOA."
"PAWHAKAIRO, October 19, 1863.
"To DR FEATHERSTONE, --Friend, Salutations to you. Hearken. Many men assembled on Saturday, at the Pawhakairo, to wait for you, as we wished to hear what you had to say, and to let you hear what we had to say. When you did not come, we were all dark (much annoyed). Enough. We now send our letter after you. Friend, exert yourself to discover the cause of the war, which the Governor is now carrying on in Waikato. The war we hear of, but the cause we do not know. The Pakehas tell us that the causes were ambuscades, and murders on the
[Image of page 26]
part of the Maoris. We have not heard of those ambuscades and murders. This was what we heard of--Rewi's demand for war, after Aporo had been apprehended and imprisoned. Rewi proposed then to fight, but it was disapproved by Matutaera, by Tamehana, by Te Paea, and the Chiefs of Waikato. In consequence of their strong opposition, Rewi desisted, and he came to Taupo to the tangi for (the death of) Te Heuheu. On his return, he was met on the road by the news of the driving away of the Maoris from their land, of the crossing of Mangatawhiri by the troops, and of the death of Te Huirama. As our messenger, whom we sent for information about the Waikato war, was returning, he met them on the road, and then they went to Meremere--Rewi himself, and his tribe the Ngatimaniapoto. The going of Taati te Waru and Porokoru Titipa's party was not an unwarrantable act. They had been requested by Mohi to follow him, after he had been expelled by the Governor. As for the driving away of the Government and all the Pakehas, it was Rewi who called upon the Ngatimaniapoto to drive them away. It was then that the Waikato commenced to find fault with Rewi. As for the stand made by Te Huirama at Te Koheroa: when it was seen that the soldiers had crossed Mangatawhiri, and that they were coming to fight the Waikatos, he stood forward to ward off the blow. We heard from the Pakehas that Rewi intended (or attempted) to murder the Governor, the time he went up the Waikato; but we disbelieve it, for we had from the Maoris a full account of the Governor's visit to Ngaruawhia, of his viewing Potatau's grave, of Te Paea's weeping, and of Matutaera being followed, that he might come and see the Governor at Ngaruawhia. How comes it then that we were not told of Rewi's murderous intentions towards the Governor?
"We inform you of the things which we have heard, that you may enquire and see whether they are correct or not, and then inform us, and show us what words caused the wrong. Enough.
"From your friends,
"RENATA TAMAKIHIKURANGI,
"KARAITIANA TAKAMOANA,
"WIRIHANA TOATOA."
Up to this time it is clear that whatever may have been the evil designs of some natives in the Waikato, no overt act of hostility had been committed by them, except so far as the Ngatimaniapotos were concerned in the hostilities at Taranaki. There were, it is true, plans and designs abroad which threatened to imperil the peace of the Colony and the safety of the settlers. I do not presume under such circumstances to quarrel with Sir George Grey for striking the first blow. I do not say that the doubtful attitude of the King party may not have justified him in directing his first attack upon them. That question may be left an open
[Image of page 27]
one, and the action of Government under very difficult circumstances deserves the most favourable construction. But I am sure that there is not one tittle of evidence to show that at that time the King party (apart from the Ngatimaniapotos and their adherents) meditated hostilities against the settlers, or were engaged in a plot to exterminate and expel them, or in any other criminal designs, except so far as the King movement may be regarded as criminal. On the contrary, there is evidence to show that the leaders of that party were exerting themselves to maintain peace, and that they actually opposed and checked the Ngatimaniapotos and the other violent natives, but
"Saepe Diespiter
Neglectus incesto addidit integrum."
Along the northern side of the Waikato river are a number of native villages intermixed with European settlements. The inhabitants of these villages belong to Waikato tribes and partake of the sentiments of their people. In the event of a general rising there would be risk to the settlers from these natives. In case of war, some of them at all events would join the enemy. It is alleged that the Government had evidence that some of these natives were engaged, in concert with the Ngatimaniapotos, in a distinct plan to attack the settlers. This may be true. I have, on the other hand, been assured by good authority that some of them were loyal and peaceable men.
Looking, no doubt, to the safety of the settlers, --probably having regard to the intended military operations, --not choosing, in fact, to leave a possible enemy in the General's rear, --the Government determined, either to disarm the natives of these frontier villages, and so incapacitate them for mischief, or to eject and force them to retire across the river.
Here again is a measure for which, under the circumstances, the Government may be held justified; though the manner in which the operation was conducted was, I think, open to great exception; but we are bound to take these circumstances into account when we seek to incriminate the natives for the part they have taken in the war which ensued.
Regarded as a measure of policy, I cannot but think that, had these native families, with their women and children, been permitted to continue in their own settlements, under judicious treatment they would have been in the nature of hostages, and that, without interfering with proper defensive measures. The ejection of these villagers en masse was sure to drive them into open rebellion. The loyal would become rebels under such treatment. At any rate, if such an operation were necessary to be performed, the work should have been done effectually. To eject men from their homes with arms in their hands, leaving them free to go where they pleased, was simply to cast abroad a blazing firebrand. From that moment war was begun.
[Image of page 28]
I subjoin in detail the documents relating to this transaction. On the 9th of July, 1863, the Native Minister addressed the following circular to certain Magistrates:--
No. 1.
"NATIVE OFFICE, AUCKLAND, July 9, 1863.
"SIR, --Immediately on receipt of this letter, you are to proceed to Ihumatao, Mangare, Pukaki, Patumahoe, Tuakau, and Pokeno, and there administer the Oath of Allegiance to such natives as will take it. You will also require them to give up their arms and ammunition to yourself, to be sent by you to Otahuhu, Drury, or Queen's Redoubt.
"You will give notice to those natives who refuse to take the Oath and deliver up their arms, to quit the settlement herewith.
"I have, &c.,
"H. HALSE, Esq., J.P.,
"JAS. ARMITAGE, Esq.,
"MAJOR SPEEDY, J.P.,
"TITUS ANGUS WHITE, Esq.,
"J. C. GORST, Esq., J.P."
Enclosure 2 in No. 1.
NOTICE.
"To Natives of Mangare, Pukaki, Ihumatao, Te Kiri Kiri, Patumahoe, Pokeno, Tuakau.
"All persons of the Native race living in the Manukau district, and on the Waikato frontier, are hereby required immediately to take the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, and to give up their arms to an officer appointed by the Government for that purpose. Natives who comply with this order will be protected. Natives refusing to do so are hereby warned forthwith to leave the district aforesaid, and retire to Waikato, beyond Mangatawhiri. In case of their not complying with this order, they will be ejected.
"BY HIS EXCELLENCY'S COMMAND."
July 9th, 1863.
On the 10th of July Major Speedy writes to the Native Minister:--
"MAUKU, July 10, 1863.
"SIR, --I have the honour to forward you the enclosed Warrant and to inform you that agreeably to your instructions, I proceeded this afternoon with my interpreter to Patumahoe, and after having distributed among several natives of the Settlement
[Image of page 29]
copies of His Excellency the Governor's Proclamation of the 9th instant, and having explained its purport, I only found one native, who is named in the margin, willing to comply with the same, who, after taking the Oath of Allegiance, delivered me up his gun (a double-barrel).
"I do not consider there is another belonging to the Settlement who would do the same; but, on the contrary, are ready to join in rebellion against the Government.
"I am informed they are preparing to leave the Settlement, but I fear only to form themselves into marauding parties.
"I have, &c,
"JAMES SPEEDY,
"Resident Magistrate.
"The Native Minister, Auckland."
On the 10th of July, Mr Halse writes:--,
"MANGARE, July 10, 1863.
"SIR, --I have the honour to inform you that the Mangare Natives have decided upon going to Waikato to join their relatives and friends there.
"Tamati Ngapora expressed himself grateful to the Governor for allowing him and his people to depart in peace, and wished to know whether they would be permitted to remain here till after Sunday next.
"Tamati proposes to send the elderly women and children by way of Waiuku, and their luggage by way of Mangatawhiri, and would be glad to be informed if any objection exists to such a proposition.
"The only other thing I think it necessary to report is that the answer of all the people, when I read the notice was, why does not the Governor 'whakawa' (investigate) the 'he' (misconduct) of Waikato before he puts forth the 'ringa kaha' (strong hand).
"I am now off for the other settlements, and hope to get back this evening. --I have, &c.
"H. HALSE.
"To the Honourable the Native Minister."
On the 13th of July, Mr Halse writes thus:--
"NATIVE OFFICE, AUCKLAND, July 13, 1863.
"SIR, --I have the honour to inform you that on receipt of your letter dated the 9th instant, I immediately left for Mangare, Ihumatao, and Pukaki, for the purpose of administering the Oath of Allegiance to such of the Natives residing at those villages as
