[Pages 29-56]
[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
[Image of page 30]
might be willing to take it. On my way to Mangare I met the Rev. Mr Purchas and Tamati Ngapora; the former proposed that we should go to his house and talk over the object of my mission with Tamati, before seeing his people. As Tamati agreed, we went there, and after tea the notice was read to Tamati Ngapora. He listened attentively, and requested that it might be read a second time. His request was complied with. After the customary Maori silence, Tamati put the following questions to Mr Purchas:-- 'Kua tata ranei te ra o te kotinga witi?' ['Is the day of harvest close at hand?'] 'Yes;' Mr Purchas replied. Tamati then asked why the Governor had not caused an investigation to be made into the wrongs of Waikato before moving the troops? I said it was not my business to discuss that question; ample time had been given, and now that the troops had been moved forward to prevent Waikato natives making an attack on Auckland, I heard of the desired investigation for the first time. Tamati then asked why the natives could not have their king as well as the Pakehas? I replied that I had come to read the notice, and not to talk about the Maori king. Tamati, in a thoughtful mood, said that, if he had influence, there should be no fighting. He had dear friends living in the midst of the English, and dear friends living with the Maoris, and would like to know why they were to be killed. He would not cease to urge for the investigation. I gave Tamati a copy of the notice, and he left for Mangare, accompanied by Mr Purchas as far as the ferry.
"On the following morning I went to Mangare. By the time Mr Purchas arrived, to see a sick native woman, about twenty men had assembled in Tamati Ngapora's house. Inviting their attention, I read the notice to them, and asked if they wished me to read it again. Two men said there was no occasion, because they all understood it. In the course of a few minutes a native, whose name I did not obtain for the reason that his friends objected to give it, jumped up and said 'I belong to Waikato; I am going to Waikato.' He then sat down.
"Rihara then said, 'Hearken. My fathers and my friends are in Waikato; I am going to them.' An elderly native then rose, and looking at several natives who had not spoken, asked me whether I understood the meaning of their silence. I asked him to explain. He said their thoughts were the same as the previous speakers, and all would go to Waikato. Tamati Ngapora, who had been reclining, sat up and said, 'When I arrived here last night I gave the Panuitanga to the people for their consideration, without attempting to influence them either one way or the other. You have now heard their decision. I have nothing to say in addition to what took place between us last night. We are one tribe, and cannot be separated.' After this Tamati resumed the reclining position, and a general silence prevailed. It was evident that these people had made up their minds the previous night to clear out for Waikato, and as I did not deem it to be
[Image of page 31]
my duty to endeavour to turn them, I gave Tamati Ngapora ten copies of the notice and left the house. On receiving a message from Matire (Hori's widow) to visit her, I did so. There were five women with her and six men (two of whom were visitors from Ngapuhi). Matire told me that the men were willing to take the Oath of Allegiance, and I accordingly administered it to them. When I called upon them to give up their arms and ammunition to me, they said they had not any. They asked to be supplied with a distinguishing mark in order that the pakehas might know them. The women expressed great fear of the sailors belonging to the vessels of war, and hoped the Governor would protect them.
"I started for Ihumatao, with a young Ngapuhi Native as guide, and found the people of that settlement assembled at Puketapapa, a small village close by. There were about thirty men and six women. I was informed that several of the Ihumatao Natives were absent at Onehunga selling poultry, having previously disposed of some of their cattle. I read the notice to all present twice. Three men replied, to the same effect, viz., that they had all decided (including those absent at Onehunga) on going to Waikato. Their women and children would go by way of Waiuku, weather permitting, themselves and their baggage by way of Mangatawhiri. I was told there were some infirm natives here, and that the Governor would be expected to take care of them. Before I could reply, a native, who appeared to carry the feelings of the meeting with him, said, 'The turoros will be taken away by us,' and the subject was not again mentioned. After distributing copies of the notice amongst these people, I left for Pukaki, and arrived there at three p. m. Mohi, the principal chief, had just left, with his Lordship the Bishop of New Zealand, to point out a burial ground, preparatory to handing it over, together with the Native Church, to the care of his Lordship. The people of the settlement had packed up their traps, and were ready for a start. On Mohi's return, he told me without hesitating that all his people were going to Waikato; that they would go during the night by way of Kirikiri or Mangatawhiri. I told Mohi the object of my visit. He asked me for a copy of the notice. I gave him one, and he read it aloud to the people present. Repeating the decision of his people to go to Waikato, he went into his house, where Bishop Selwyn was seated. As a matter of form, I then read the notice to the Natives assembled about Mohi's house. One man only replied. He said the Natives were of one mind about going to Waikato, and that they would take their arms with them. He also said that the result of my visit to Mangare was known to the people of Pukaki. I should perhaps state that one of the three or four young men, seated outside the house, told me that they were entirely guided by Mohi: had he given the word to remain, they would have remained, and agreed to the 'pukapuka' (notice), but as he had given the word to go, they would all go. I left a few copies of the notice with
[Image of page 32]
these Natives, and returned to Mangare. Here I met with Himiona, and at his request administered the Oath of Allegiance to him. I was afterwards told that Tamati Ngapora had directed him to remain, but no reason was given.
"On crossing over to Onehunga I met Mr William Webster, of New Plymouth, who had shortly before arrived in the steamer 'Stormbird' from the South. In the course of conversation he told me that a canoe from Wangerie came alongside as soon as the steamer anchored, and that in it he recognised a native who was present and wounded at the battle of Mahoetahi, in 1860. Mr Webster could not recollect his name. The native knew him, and asked for the news from Taranaki. I understand that Mangare Natives have long been in the habit of boarding steamers to obtain information from the South, ---I have, &c"
"H. HALSE"
"To the Honourable the Native Minister.
"P.S. --His Lordship the Bishop of New Zealand told me before the notice was read to the Pukaki Natives that they had 'quite made up their minds to leave for Waikato.'
"I met his Lordship at Pukaki on the 10th July, 1863. H. H."
On the 12th of July Mr Armitage writes thus:--
"MANGATAWHIRI, July 12, 1863.
"SIR, --I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th instant, directing me to proceed to Tuakau, and administer the Oath of Allegiance to such Natives as will take it.
"Your letter reached me on the evening of the 9th, and early on the 10th I proceeded to Tuakau, and assembled the Natives there, eleven in number, including Te Atua, the principal Chief.
"I communicated to them the purport of my mission, and was informed by Te Atua, for himself and others--except Hira Kerei and Te Atua, who dissented from same--that they would not take the Oath of Allegiance, nor give up their arms, &c, nor leave their lands, unless driven away by force, which force they would resist.
"Hiri Kerei expressed his willingness to take the Oath of Allegiance; and, on my proceeding to administer it, I was prevented from so doing by threats on the part of a Native named Heri Mokena. The latter also intimidated Hira Kerei, and caused him to defer his desire to take such Oath, though he is still desirous of joining the friendly party assembled here. He is a son of the old Te Atua above mentioned.
"I have directed Waata Kukutai to invite him to come here. I have also the honour to inform you that, on Sunday morning last, I communicated the result of my mission to the Lieutenant-General, as directed by you.
"I wish also to inform you that I have sent notices to several
[Image of page 33]
King natives at the Onewhero and Takihakiha to leave that part of the river. I have done so for my own personal safety in passing to and fro between the Ia and Cameron.
"I have, &c,
"JAMES ARMITAGE.
"The Hon. the Native Minister."
On the 2nd September Mr Fulloon reports as follows:--
"AUCKLAND, September 2, 1863.
"SIR, --In accordance with the Honourable Mr Wood's Minute of this day's date I have the honour to report that I saw Ihaka te Tihi at Pukekiwiriki on the 10th July, and that he told me that had he known before he left Pukaki that he had the option of taking the Oath of Allegiance and remaining at his place he would certainly have done so. As the Proclamation of the 9th July was read to him, he understood it to be a positive order to leave; but, now that he saw he could remain, he would do so with some of his men, allowing all those that chose to go to Waikato, to do so, rather than that they should remain, and eventually lead them into difficulty.
"Owing to so many old people and some eight or nine sick persons, Isaac asked for one or two days to enable those that were going to Waikato to make some arrangements for the conveyance of their property and invalids, which was granted by Mr Dillon Bell, who himself came out, accompanied by Messrs, Gorst and Mainwaring, on the 14th. Mr Bell saw Ihaki, Mohi, and about ten others, on the 15th, at Pukekiwiriki, and they all said had they known before they had left their respective homes that they could have remained they would have done so. They were then, in a long speech from Mr Bell, urged to take the Oath and return to their 'kaingas.' Mohi and one or two others spoke to the effect that, as they had been driven away from their homes without any apparent cause, they would not do so, but remain where they were, or go on to Waikato. Then Mr Bell told them why the Government had issued the Proclamation; that it was owing to a conspiracy to attack Auckland and murder all the Europeans, and that the information was received from reliable sources, in fact, from some of the principal chiefs of Waikato. Ihaka and others denied knowledge of the fact, and asked for the names of the informants. Mr Bell told them that he could not give the names without his Excellency's permission, which he would try and obtain. If he did obtain it, he would send a telegram message to me, and I could let them know. They all then said that if the Governor would do so they would take the Oath of Allegiance and remain, as this was a 'kohuru' of Waikato against them. Mr Bell left them late in the afternoon and returned to town; and at about 10 o'clock the same night Colonel Murray received a
[Image of page 34]
telegram from the Governor to capture Ihaka and the whole of his party; for report of which vide my Reports.
"During the three days that I had constant communication with Ihaka I never understood him to refuse to take the Oath or deliver up his arms, but always that he would do so as soon as a duly authorised person came to administer the Oath. His Lordship the Bishop of New Zealand will bear testimony to this.
"I have, &c
"JAMES FULLOON.
"The Native Secretary."
The following is a Memorandum by the Governor, appended to the papers on this subject laid before the General Assembly:--
"A regular plan of military operations, as against the European race, had been agreed on by many Native Chiefs when I arrived in New Zealand.
"A part of this plan was that Paparata should be the base of a series of operations against the European settlements; that the minor posts occupied should extend along the South Road from the left bank of the Mangatawhiri to Maketu and Kirikiri. The inhabitants of Tuakau and the people of Ihaka and Mohi were to take a leading part in these operations.
"Ihaka and Mohi did their best to sow dissension between the two races. They advised the people to begin the disturbance at Kohekohe in March last, and having done so went straight up the river to the people and chiefs now in arms against us. The Government was several times informed that Ihaka was doing his best to raise the natives against us, especially at Wairoa.
"Subsequently a plan was laid for a general rising, and for a massacre of a part of the European population. The chief planners of this were some of Ihaka's people. The plot was discussed, and was in part originated, close to the village, when several other natives, shocked at it, gave us warning. He did not do so, but continued in close intimacy with the disaffected people.
"He would not take the Oath of Allegiance, and when the troops moved, instead of retiring up the Waikato, fell back with parties of armed hostile natives, on the line of operations which it had been arranged they were to occupy for hostile purposes. He was at one of the points named in their plan of operations, with these armed bands of hostile natives, when the Merediths were murdered near the South Road. He was still with them when he was taken, and had neither voluntarily come in, nor offered to make any submission to the Government after the attack on the escort.
"That the Natives he was with were a hostile band, their subsequent conduct has shown. Colonel Nixon told me, when he
[Image of page 35]
went to them, he saw that some of them kept him covered with their guns so long as he remained there."
On the 12th July, General Cameron crossed the Mangatawhiri Creek, and entered the Waikato country. This hostile incursion into native territory, together with the ejection of the Natives from the frontier villages, is referred to by the King natives as the casus belli which justified them in taking up arms. The Hawke's Bay Chiefs, in their letter to Dr Featherstone of the 7th September, say that from enquiries they had made, the causes of the war were--first, "the expulsion of the Maories from their own lands, and the burning of their properties and houses, ---and secondly, the crossing of Mangatawhiri. " The same causes are referred to in the King's letter urging the natives in other districts to join him.
On the 16th July, Colonel Murray reports that he had captured twenty-three natives--thirteen men, seven women, and three children. As regards the captured prisoners I may here state that they were detained for about nine weeks, at the end of which time they were liberated. Two of them, I believe, died in confinement; but I have never heard it suggested that they had received other than kind treatment. I never heard that any charge of a criminal nature was made against them.
On the 17th July, a few days after the ejection of the frontier natives, the first attack was made on an escort party under Captain Ring. Our troops sustained a loss of four killed and ten wounded. Some of the ejected natives are supposed to have been the attacking party. On the same day the murder of the Merediths took place.
On the 18th of July the first attack was made by the General on the natives, at Koheroa, with great slaughter of the enemy.
So soon as the Mangatawhiri was crossed, the King natives took up arms. William Thompson and the leading Waikato chiefs, who had hitherto endeavoured to maintain peace, joined the Ngatimaniapotos. The whole body of the Waikato natives made common cause, and endeavoured, with more or less success, to obtain help from other parts of the colony. Communications were sent to Wanganui, Otaki, Wellington, the East Coast, and generally throughout the native districts, urging the natives of those districts to rise.
The natives of Hawke's Bay sent Dr. Featherstone a copy of a letter written to them by Matutaera (the King).
It is as follows:--
"NGARUAWAHIA, WAIKATO, August 21, 1863.
"To NOA, To KARAITIANA, To RENATA, To PAORA, and TAREHA, but to you all.
"FRIENDS, PEOPLE, --Salutations to you. This is my word to you. Be watchful of yourselves (i. e. of your own persons), lest
[Image of page 36]
you all be imprisoned in a similar manner to the chiefs of Waikato by the Governor, because the people of this island will be treated in a similar manner. Some will be punished (lit. flogged); some will be imprisoned. Be aware of the proceedings of the Governor, the people of the Hutt, Wairarapa, Otaki, and other places, that are not knowing (on the alert, suspicious). Enough of that word. Hearken all of you. On the 9th July a letter from the Governor to the people of Manukau arrived, telling them to go to the other side (i. e. South side) of Mangatawhiri, in Waikato. They left their land at Mangare, Pukaki, Patumahoe, and Te Kirikiri, which was occupied by the soldiers on the 10th. On the 11th July the soldiers arrived at Pokeno and Tuakau. The property at those places was consumed by fire. Some of the people were driven off those lands. On the 12th July the soldiers crossed to this side of Mangatawhiri. On the 13th Waikato went to Koheroa. On the 17th July was the engagement. On the 17th July (they) fought on the road. These engagements took place on the same day. On the 22nd July was the engagement at Kirikiri. There the pa was destroyed. Hearken; this (the present war) is the fence of this Island (for our protection). It will not be allowed to be broken. If it is broken, all the goods in the house will be burned. The flood will not be allowed to roll in (upon us). Friends, --the Governor has not only now made up his mind. He commenced (determined) when I went to Hauraki (the Thames); and although he went to Taranaki, his thoughts were upon Waikato. (He had already determined upon invading Waikato). Enough.
"NA MATUTAERA POTATAU."
The missives to other places were doubtless to the same effect.
At the same time letters were sent to Europeans, in districts exposed to danger, warning them to leave. A good deal has been said about a letter of this kind written by William Thompson to Archdeacon Brown, of Tauranga, in the Bay of Plenty. The letter is as follows:--
"OTOROKAI, MATAMATA, July 26, 1863.
"To Archdeacon BROWN, --Salutations. Friend, hearken. The reasons are many that induced me to go and view the work between the Waikato and the Governor.
"This is a word of mine to you, to let you know my views. I shall spare neither unarmed people nor property. Do not suppose that the Waikatos are wrong and the Governor right. No; I consider that he is wrong. The faults that I have seen are, 1st, I said to him leave these years to me, do not go to Tataraimaka, leave me to talk to the Ngatiruanui; do not persist, that tribe is still hostile. It was Governor Browne who taught them. The hot-tempered Governor said, that all the land over which he had
[Image of page 37]
trod should he his, i. e. Waitara. The Taranakis then said, in regard to Tataraimaka, very good, and we will also hold the land over which our feet have trod.
"Governor Grey, however, did not agree to my proposal.
"2nd. The Governor persisting in Mr Gorst's staying as a magistrate in the midst of the Maoris. I said to Mr Gorst, go back, the Maoris do not want you. But the Governor still persisted in sending Mr Gorst. Now it appears that it was for the purpose of provoking a war that he persisted.
"3rd. The taking up of the post at Mangatawhiri.
"4th. The unwarrantable conduct of the soldiers in driving the Maoris off their own land at Pokeno.
"5th. The defeat or death (mate) of the Waikatos you have heard and know. The law discriminates in cases of crime, and does not include the many. These are wrongs which I have seen.
"Father, listen. I have consented to attack the whole of the town. If they prove the strongest, well and good. If the Maoris prove the strongest, this is how it will be: the unarmed people will not be left. Enough. You hear what I say. This turns.
"From your son,
"WILLIAM THOMPSON TE WAHAROA.
"To Archdeacon Brown."
The expression "I shall spare neither unarmed people nor property," conveys the idea that the writer deliberately intended to carry on a war of extermination. It has been so construed, and great odium, on account of it, has been thrown on Thompson and his party.
I have myself conversed with Archdeacon Brown on this subject. He assures me that the expression is idiomatic, and that the meaning intended to be conveyed is this:-- "I have determined to join the war party. I am going to fight. The native practice in war is to spare neither unarmed people nor property. You therefore are in danger, and I warn you to go." So far from regarding the letter as a savage threat, the Archdeacon treated it as a friendly warning. That such was its true construction is evident both from the general tenor of Thompson's conduct, as well as from another letter written by him at the same time to the Governor, as follows:--
"Sir, --On this very day I came to Waikato with all my tribe, I have a word to say to you about my letter to the Minister Brown--a warning from me to you to bring to the town the defenceless, lest they be killed at their farms in the country.
"But you are well acquainted with the customs of the Maori race."
[Image of page 38]
In point of fact, so far as is known and believed, William Thompson and the leading chiefs of the King party have made efforts to lessen the barbarities of war.
Here is a curious document found at Rangiriri. It contains several points worth noting, indicating a change of native habits and ideas: amongst others the injunction against stripping the dead.
PROCLAMATION.
"NGARUAWAHIA, October 3, 1863.
"Listen, all tribes of this island. This is a proclamation according to the law of God and of man.
"At the time of raising the King and his laws, his councils, his magistrates, and his chiefs, within the jurisdiction of this King were established laws held in esteem by the tribes of this island, resting on the Word of God. They continued in force up to the time of fighting, (when) these laws fell. The mode of falling was this:--He (the King) had no council, no magistrate, no policeman, no soldiers. This man, the King, was wandering about without place of abode. The place appointed for his abode was Ngaruawahia. His old council had been put aside, and the magistrates.
"2. The law consents that (the King) should be restored to his dwelling at Ngaruawahia. This is the dwelling-place of the King of the island.
"3. The law consents that a learned council be established as a fountain head for the laws of this island. If the King has a word to say, let it go before that council for them to consider. If judged right, that council will write to all the chiefs and to the chiefs of the army also.
"4. Let the magistrate attend to his work because evil has spread among the people.
"5. As for all the forces of the island, let them come to Ngaruawahia that they may be selected---
"200 out of each 1,000
"50 ......... 500
"40 ......... 400
"20 ......... 200
"10 ......... 100
"10 ......... 50.
"Listen, all tribes, all chiefs. This is my word sent to all of you.
"1. To all the tribes to occupy Meremere.
"2. If a tribe wishes to go to any place, let it be sent with the consent of the tribe, and of the chiefs of the army, lest it go or remain in discontent. If consent is not given it must stay. The cause for consideration for the great day (of battle).
[Image of page 39]
"3. About property and food. Take all guns, powder, bullets, copper caps, cartouch boxes, coats, watches, money, rings, hats. These take. The things to leave on the body of the slain are shoes, stockings, shirt and trousers, leave these on his body.
"4. Let the plunder of each tribe and of each man be brought to one heap. One for Waikato, one for Maniapoto, one for Ngatiana, each having its own guardian.
"Let the name of each man be written on the property (plundered by him). It will be marked with the King's seal. The only things which will be quickly delivered (to the man who took them) will be guns, powder, copper caps, and bullets; other property leave alone till the end, when his own will be restored to each man.
"All these laws have been consented to publicly.
"By King MATUAERA POTATAU."
Within two or three days after the ejection of the frontier natives, the first murders were committed on two settlers of the name of Meredith. Since the war began, twelve settlers have been killed under circumstances which, according to our notions, have the character of murder. The natives probably, after war begun, would regard them differently. In Auckland, so soon as the forcible expulsion of the natives was heard of, some such retaliation was expected.
Little is known of the particulars of these murders, but there is nothing to implicate the natives generally in them. On the contrary, so far as rumour and general belief go, the leading chiefs have disapproved of and endeavoured to repress such outrages. In the case of one poor woman who was murdered (a Mrs Fahey), it is said that the murderers were seized and tried by the natives themselves, --I never heard that they inflicted punishment on the offenders.
The language which we commonly hear, and which is used in official documents and the preambles of statutes, in reference to this subject, is, to say the least, exaggerated.
I may note, as to Archdeacon Brown, that he and Mrs Brown some time ago returned to Tauranga, where they found their property untouched, and in charge of a volunteer guard of natives.
I shall not trouble your Lordship with details of military operations in the Waikato; the particulars of which you have means of learning from other sources, and which culminated in a successful attack on the hostile natives at Rangiriri. The natives suffered great loss; 183 prisoners were captured, including several leading chiefs. On our side we suffered heavy loss. The defeated natives were mainly of the King party. The Ngatimaniapotos had before retreated to their own country. I am told that they there show no signs of submission, and that there is a quarrel between them and their Waikato allies. Further operations, it is said, are con-
[Image of page 40]
templated against them. The King party in the Waikato are, I believe, effectually crushed. They have lost several of their leading chiefs. The General has since pushed on and established a post at Ngaruawahia, the King's place of residence. Elsewhere throughout the colony our military success in the Waikato appears greatly to have strengthened the position of the Government, and to have quieted all fears lest the rebellion should spread. You will read the following letters with interest:--
"PENE PUKEWHAU to HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR.
"O friend the Governor, --Salutations! This is to say to you. The fight has been fought, and some are dead; some live. Restore to us Waikato. Let it suffice to you, the men are dead. Restore to us those who live. Enough.
"From your friend,
"PENE PUKEWHAU,
"From all the Chiefs of the Waikato.
"To Governor Grey."
"The Hon. Mr Fox to Pene Pukewhau.
"AUCKLAND, Nov. 30, 1863.
"Pene Pukewhau, --Your letter has arrived, and the matter has been considered.
"This is the reply to you, and also to all the people of Ngaruawahia.
"The Governor will hold no communication whatever with you while you continue in arms; but give up all your guns, your powder, and all your arms to the Governor. Then only will a way of communication be open for you; at present there is none. That is the word.
"From your friend,
"W. FOX."
"PENE PUKEWHAU to HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR.
"NGARUAWAHIA, Dec. 2, 1863.
"O Friend Governor, --Salutations! O Friend, we are waiting the reply to our letter. Can it have reached you or not? These are the words of that letter. Restore the Waikato men. Suffice for you the dead. Enough.
"From the Chiefs of Waikato,
"From PENE PUKEWHAU."
[Image of page 41]
"WIREMU TE WHEORO to the HON. MR FOX.
"TAUPIRI, Dec. 4, 1863.
"Friend Mr Fox, --Salutations. This is my communication to you that you may hear what was said when I went up to Ngaruawahia on the 3rd day of December. I did not see any men anywhere except at Ngaruawahia. When we arrived there they assembled, and fired from both sides of the road. We were between them while they fired as they went along. When we reached the house of Matutaera, which has a carved verandah, he and his people stood up [to receive us]. Ngatimaniapoto were on the Waipa side, and Waikato on the Horotiu side.
"They stood up for a while, and then sat down. Paroa Te Ahuru stood up to make a speech. 'Welcome, my child. Welcome, all of you, your ancestors and your fathers. Come to see your fallen tribe and your broken canoe. My fighting has ceased; peace made.' After him Tikaokao stood up, --'Come, my child, come to see your fallen tribe and your broken canoe.' Then Patera Te Tuhi stood up, --'Welcome, my brother, come to see your fallen tribe and your broken canoe.' Then I, Te Wheoro, stood up, -- 'Welcome me, O my father; welcome me, O my brother; I am come here to see the fallen tribe and the broken canoe. It cannot be helped. It is right, O my fathers, that peace should be made. I have nothing to say, I did not come to speak, but the speech is in the letters. Do not let us make speeches, but be quick and answer the letters.' They sent to Tamehare for Tamehana. They came to me and said, --'If we give up the guns we shall perhaps be made prisoners. We don't clearly see how to answer the Governor's letter, because we are afraid of the steamers and soldiers which are coming this way. For this reason we came here from Paetai.' I said to them, --'I have nothing to say to you; I was not sent here to deliver a message.' In the morning Ngatimaniapoto came to cut down the flag-staff at Ngaruawahia. Waikato would not allow them. The quarrel was great. Both sides fired without aiming. Then Tamata Ngapora, Mohi Te Ahiatenga, Patere Te Tuhi, Paora Te Ahuru, and W. Thompson gave it (the flag-staff) to me with these words, --'Wheoro, we give over the flag-staff to you with those buried here, and Ngaruawahia, for you to give over to the General and the Governor. Especially let not the remains of the buried be ill-treated by the soldiers. As for Ngaruawahia, the cultivations, leave them alone. We are going away through fear.' Moses gave his koeroa (a weapon made from the jaw of a whale) for the General for a pledge of peace, and the flag-staff for a pledge of peace. I returned with the letters for the Governor.
"These were all the chiefs then present:--Tamata Ngapora, Mohi Te Ahiatenga, Wi Tamehana, Tikoakoa, Paroa Te Ahuru, Patere Te Tuhi, Kai Ngarara.
"Enough, from your loving Friend,
"WI TE WHEORO."
[Image of page 42]
I turn now to the civil measures of Government and the Legislature.
Upon the breaking out of hostilities at Taranaki, the Government conceived a plan for locating military settlers upon the lands expected to be obtained from the insurgent natives. They took upon themselves to issue proclamations inviting volunteers from the neighbouring provinces and colonies, with promises of grants of land upon a kind of military tenure. The same course was repeated in the case of the Waikato war.
The principles involved in these proclamations, considered in connection with the New Zealand Settlement Act, demand, I think, consideration from the Imperial Government, at least if it thinks itself any longer concerned in such matters. That the Crown has a right to assume possession of lands belonging to native tribes who take up arms against it, cannot, of course, be disputed, but these proclamations, to which legal effect purports to be given by the New Zealand Settlements Act, are of far wider scope, and amount, in fact, to a revolution in our Colonial policy, as regards the territorial rights of the natives.
The first time on which a question of this kind arose, was during Mr Fox's government, when my opinion was asked as Attorney-General, as to the power of the Government to take native land, "for roads and permanent military positions or purposes of defence."
My opinion was as follows:--
"These questions cannot be answered by reference to ordinary rules of law. Land over which the Native Title is not extinguished, cannot be dealt with as Waste Lands of the Crown or private lands, with a view to the formation of roads or the maintenance of military positions. In Great Britain, as in all civilized countries, there are special laws providing for those exigencies of Government. In this colony provision is made for the same objects in the various general and provincial laws and regulations relating to Waste Lands, and in local acts relating to Highways, &c. But these laws and regulations do not affect land over which the Native Title is not extinguished. By the Treaty of Waitangi the Crown guaranteed to the natives their territorial possessions; the natives on their part ceding to the Crown the sovereignty. The power of the General Assembly under the Constitution Act to legislate in respect to the Waste Lands does not arise, until the land has been ceded to the Crown by the natives.
"But, in my opinion, the right of passage through a country, and ex necessitate, the right of using and constructing all the ordinary means of passage, such as roads, bridges, &c, is an essential condition of sovereignty. It belongs to and is exercised in fact by all sovereign powers. Property is held by private persons subject to this and other conditions of a like kind. It is a power
[Image of page 43]
constantly exercised by our legislatures, which, for this purpose, are the Sovereign Power.
"But as regards Native Lands (until they become subject to the power of the General Assembly by cession to the Crown), the Crown is in my opinion the sole Sovereign Power. And whether we consider (as is sometimes done) the lands of the natives as properly lands of the Crown, subject to the occupational right of the natives, or as lands over which the natives hold private proprietary rights, by a kind of allodial tenure; in either point of view, the Crown as Sovereign, by virtue of what is termed its Eminent Domain, has in my opinion the right of making roads through such lands, in order to enable it to exercise its functions of sovereignty.
"It is scarcely necessary to consider the question of possible damage to private property. The Government, of course, only proposes to carry roads through uncultivated land. If a possible case of damage should arise, it will be one for compensation.
"The same principle, in my opinion, governs the question as to land required for purposes of military protection or defence.
"I do not find any express authority on these questions, which are out of ordinary course, but see
"Vattel, Book 1. cap. 20, sec. 112 et seq.
"Book 2. cap. I), sec 180.
"Book 3. cap. 10, sec. 183, 184.
"HENRY SEWELL.
"November 22nd, 1862."
This opinion was controverted by the Assistant Law Officer, who thought that an Act of the Colonial Legislature was necessary to authorise the taking of native land for the above purposes.
These opinions were referred to the present Attorney-General, Mr Whitaker, who gave the following opinion:--
"In my opinion the Crown has a legal right to use land, over which the native title has not been extinguished, for the purpose of making roads and for military defence.
"In order to arrive at a correct conclusion on the point, it appears to me to be essential to determine what is the nature of the Native tenure of land, and in relation thereto, what are the relative positions of the Crown and Aborigines.
"From the year 1840 to the present time I am not aware of an instance in which either the Crown or Legislature, Imperial or Colonial, has recognised a title in the Aborigines cognisable in a Court of Law. But, on the contrary, it has throughout been assumed, both on the part of the Crown and by the Legislatures, and in some instances, distinctly declared, that native lands are in law Demesne Lands of the Crown. The Ordinance of the Legislative Council of New Zealand (Sess. I., No. 2, 1841) which declares and enacts that all unappropriated lands within the colony,
[Image of page 44]
subject to the rightful and necessary occupation and use thereof by the Aborigines, are, and remain, Crown, or Demesne Lands, especially may be referred to.
"Assuming then the land over which the native title has not been extinguished to be Crown lands, subject to the above-mentioned qualification, it follows of course that the Crown has a right in law, so long as there is no interference with the rightful and necessary occupation and use thereof by the Aborigines, to use the land for the above purposes.
"It may be objected that this would be contrary to the treaty of Waitangi.
"To this I answer, that a positive enactment of the Legislature would prevail over the terms of the treaty if there were any conflict; but, without discussing the precise meaning of the second article, it appears to me that such is not the case.
"Under the first article all the rights and powers of sovereignty which the ceding parties then exercised or possessed, or may be supposed to exercise or possess over their territories, were ceded to Her Majesty; and it appears to me that a right of road through those territories, and of constructing the necessary conveniences for the exercise of that right, as well as a right of constructing works necessary for military defence, are essential and necessary incidents to the Sovereignty, and were therefore ceded to Her Majesty.
"FREDERICK WHITAKER.
"21st February, 1863."
If we carefully examine this opinion, as practically exemplified by the New Zealand Settlements Act, it is this, --that native lands are demesne lands of the Grown, subject only to the rightful and necessary occupation and use thereof by the Aborigines; --that the title of the Aborigines is not cognizable in a court of law, and is liable to be overridden by an Act of the Colonial Legislature; --that an Imperial treaty with the aboriginal race is not, as American jurists would hold, a fundamental part of the law of the colony, limiting the power of the Colonial Legislature; but that, in case of conflict between the two, a positive enactment of the Colonial Legislature will prevail over the terms of the treaty. I have great respect for Mr Whitaker, but I dissent from his doctrines. If they can be maintained, the territorial rights of the natives are held upon a slender tenure. If they are practically enforced, the pacification of the colony will be postponed to a remote date.
The second ground of Mr Whitaker's opinion is that on which mine was based, viz. --that the right of carrying roads through a country is a common incident of Sovereignty. Though he does not advert to the right to compensation, I take for granted that he would admit such right, to the extent of the owner's
[Image of page 45]
rightful use and occupation. I founded my opinion on the general principle of the eminens dominium of the Sovereign power. As to the question, where that sovereign power resides, I thought, and still think, that quoad the territorial rights of the natives till ceded, the Crown, exercising its functions through the Imperial Executive, is the sovereign power. The powers of the Colonial Legislature are defined and limited by the Constitution Act, which confers the right of legislation on the General Assembly, only over lands ceded by the natives. It will be necessary, for the protection of the natives, scrupulously to guard against the Colonial Legislature exceeding its powers in this respect. I thought so, in the case of the Native Lands Act of last session, an act passed ostensibly for their benefit; I think so, as regards the New Zealand Settlements Act just passed, which is of an opposite character.
The Government of the United States holds the rights of the Aborigines so sacred, that it does not assume the right to carry roads through their land, except with their consent. This is, I think, an extreme view. The circumstances of this colony make it indispensable that such a right should reside in the sovereign power. It is only by means of roads that the peace of the colony can be permanently secured. In this we shall be following the example of the Romans in Britain, --of England herself in the cases of the Highlands and Ireland. This is a work which may be done without violating any constitutional rights.
But I could not have imagined that the principle, which authorizes the State to take land of its subjects, for purposes of a strictly public nature, such as roads or military posts, making compensation, could be so stretched and misapplied as to justify the taking land for the purpose of parcelling the same out amongst new settlers, or reselling at a profit.
Upon this question, the Duke of Newcastle expresses himself as follows (22nd March, 1863):
"I should hesitate to admit, as a matter of strict law, that Her Majesty had the power, without any legislative sanction, of appropriating for any purpose, the acknowledged property of any of her subjects.
"But even if it were true, that the peculiar legal condition of New Zealand authorized the application of this arbitrary principle, I am of opinion that the question cannot be dealt with as one of strict law.
"With a large proportion of the native population either already in arms or prepared to take them up in defence of their supposed rights, and most especially of rights to land, policy not less than justice requires that the course of the Government should be regulated with a view to the expectations which the Maories have been allowed to base on the treaty of Waitangi, and the
[Image of page 46]
apprehensions which they have been led to entertain respecting the observance of that treaty.
"I cannot doubt that the proposed appropriation of land, if effected contrary to the will of the owner, and justified on principles, which, whether technically correct or not, are alike contrary to the principles of English and native law, would be considered as a violation of native rights; would be resisted on the spot, and would provoke throughout the islands warm resentment and general distrust of British good faith. It will be very fortunate if, under these circumstances, the colony escapes the revival of the war, now happily dormant, in more than its original intensity."
His Grace will find it difficult to reconcile these views with the principles of the New Settlements Act.
On the 29th August, Sir George Grey transmits to the Duke of Newcastle a Memorandum by Ministers, dated 31st July, as to the formation of Military Settlements.
His Excellency in his despatch refers to this merely as a plan for the location of settlers "upon land intended ultimately to be taken from the territories of tribes in arms against the Government." His Excellency probably had in view, not so much the confiscation of land by act of law, as, what is usual in such cases, compelling the natives to cede land, as a condition of peace. There is no reason to doubt that the natives when beaten will submit to such a cession. The Waikato natives have in fact already intimated as much.
The Ministerial Memorandum, referred to by the Governor, proposes generally to locate the settlements on "lauds to be taken from tribes in, arms against us."
Founded on these proposals, the Proclamations were issued; and no doubt were meant, at the time, to apply only to lands of natives actually in arms against us. The views of the Colonial Government appear to have expanded as they advanced.
Constitutional objections might be raised to these Proclamations, as assumptions of power not warranted by law. So far as they may have encroached on the powers of the General Assembly, the subsequent legislation of that body has removed the objection, by confirming and giving effect to the Proclamations. But the precedent is dangerous, and the Assembly has ground to complain, that it has been obliged to legislate on the subject, under compulsion, in order to keep faith with parties with whom the Executive Government has entered into actual (though unauthorized) engagements.
About 2500 persons have been drawn from the neighbouring provinces and colonies upon the strength of these Proclamations. I hear that a farther draft is intended from the same sources. Nothing but pressing and urgent necessity (which has for the present disappeared) can justify a forced immigration of this cha-
[Image of page 47]
racter. To drain the neighbouring provinces and colonies of the sound part of their population (which they are importing at great cost) is a manifest wrong. To introduce the lees and sediment of a labour-market tainted with convictism is to inoculate ourselves with a terrible social disease.
The General Assembly met on the 19th of October. The season of the year was inconvenient and unusual. Members from the southern provinces were impatient to get back to their homes. So it has happened, that the important business which they have been called on to transact has been hurried through without time for thought or deliberation.
Almost immediately after its meeting, a change, or rather a reconstruction of the Ministry, took place. Mr Domett retired from the Premiership, and Mr Bell from the office of Native Minister. The former was succeeded by Mr Whitaker, the Attorney-General. Mr Fox undertook the joint offices of Colonial Secretary and Native Minister. The principles of the new government must not, however, be confounded with those of the government of which Mr Fox was the head, and of which I was a member.
A change of government at the commencement of a session is attended with great inconveniences. The new government was obliged to plunge into its work, without preparation. This circumstance will to some extent palliate its mistakes.
Mr Domett, previous to retiring, laid before both chambers of the Assembly a paper, which I transmit, containing his views of the policy proper to be adopted. It is remarkable for its boldness, and I may add its novelty. It startled everybody. Passing far beyond the scheme propounded in the Ministerial Memorandum of the 31st of July, he broadly developes a plan for planting military settlements throughout the whole native territory. He has evidently studied the geographical circumstances of the colony, but the scheme rests only on his individual authority, and is supported by no corroborative details or opinions of qualified engineers or surveyors. Politically, economically, and strategically, it does not appear to me to deserve a moment's consideration. It is founded on the idea of sweeping clean, as it were, of native title a great extent of territory round each of the settled districts, and drawing a defensive cordon of military settlements round them. In this province of Auckland, for instance, it is proposed to draw a line across the Island from Raglan on the West coast to the Bay of Plenty on the East, and thence Northward to the mouth of the Thames. On this line, estimated at about 120 miles, Mr Domett proposes to place a series of villages, about a mile apart from each other; each to contain 100 military settlers. Allowing land to each of these settlers at a certain rate, the total extent required for them will be 500,000 acres. "There is," he says, "in the Waikato and
[Image of page 48]
the Thames ample land for these purposes, and a large residue for sale."
A similar scheme is proposed as regards each of the other settlements in the Northern Island. This notion of establishing a pale, with an outside native district, has always appeared to me the most fatal mistake which could be made. Its inevitable result must be collision and a conflict of races. A border country is in its very nature a country of war. The character of the settlement now proposed is based on that idea. I observe that Sir George Grey refers to his experience at the Cape on this subject; but in South Africa the establishment of a frontier line is a necessity. Outside there are a number of independent native races, against whom it is necessary to create a barrier. Here the natives are within our own borders, and it is our policy, as well as our duty, to endeavour to incorporate them into our own political community. Good laws, strict observance of our engagements, and forbearing treatment, will, I am persuaded, be a far better defence to the colonists against hostile attack than a line of detached military villages.
Looked at in a military point of view, I have heard a general expression of opinion that the scheme proposed is extremely dangerous. Supposing, as the case supposes, that outside the pale we shall have to guard against a number of hostile natives, rendered desperate by expulsion from their lands, the more extended our frontier is, the more exposed we shall be to attack, --the further our extremities are from our centre, the more difficult will be our communications. There could be no peaceable colonization within such a district, except by first exterminating the natives. For merely defensive purposes there could not be a better frontier line than that which we already have, namely, the Waikato River on the one side, and the coast line on the other. Economically, as I have never seen any estimates in detail of the cost, it seems to me idle to discuss a scheme which includes as one of its conditions the possible maintenance of 20,000 military settlers, with their wives and children, for an indefinite period.
Apart from these considerations, it is a proposal founded on wrong. I do not argue that the lands of those tribes or individual natives, who have taken up arms against us, are not rightfully at the disposal of the Crown; though even as regards them, I doubt the disposing power of the Colonial Legislature; and, in applying the rule of confiscation, we are bound to take into account the extenuating circumstances in particular cases. But three-fourths of the natives are clear of this quarrel. Many of them are in actual alliance with us. The southern tribes at Taranaki with the Ngatimaniapotos in the Waikato are the guilty tribes upon whom punishment ought to fall. It serves the interests of a party to set up an outcry against the whole native race, in order to justify an abandonment of those principles which we have hitherto professed as our rule.
[Image of page 49]
It will no doubt be said that these plans are Mr Domett's, and not those of the present Government; and I am bound in justice to add, that when the new Ministry was first formed I heard from some of them a faint disclaimer of Mr Domett's scheme. The present Government has carefully abstained from announcing any specific scheme of its own. Whenever in the course of discussion anything could be elicited from them as to its details, the lineaments and features of their policy, obscure though they were, betrayed an alarming resemblance to Mr Domett's. And when we look at the act by which they propose to give effect to it, we perceive an absolute identity of principle between the two.
After the formation of the new Ministry, one of their first steps was to propose in both houses resolutions adopting Ministerial Responsibility in Native affairs, in accordance with the Duke of Newcastle's final decision. Having thus assumed the conduct of Native affairs, they introduced the Suppression of Rebellion Bill.
I believe that everyone was prepared to arm the Government with all requisite powers for enabling it to bring the war to an end. So far from there being party divisions in the Assembly, there was a general desire to merge all political differences: nobody was prepared to enquire into, or cavil at the circumstances which had placed us in danger. The object was to provide against it-- Whatever the Government had done to meet the emergency, the Legislature was, I believe, unanimously ready to sanction and give effect to; whatever powers they could reasonably have asked for, would have been granted without a dissentient voice.
But I heard with a feeling of painful amazement the introduction of The Suppression of Rebellion Bill.
I have already noticed its leading provisions. To apply the law of treason to natives who have taken up arms against us, under the circumstances which I have narrated, is in itself repugnant to justice and reason. To punish by death belligerents taken in arms, who surrendered themselves as prisoners of war, and who were complimented by the General on their conduct as brave men, would be an outrage to humanity. To extend this penal provision to the case of all persons "concerned in the rebellion" no matter in what degree; to authorize the infliction of this punishment by military courts, composed possibly of inferior officers, in a summary way, without the ordinary constitutional guarantee to insure a prisoner a fair trial, is to make that law which is in itself a violation of the first principles of law. There are 180 prisoners taken in arms at Rangariri now on board the hulk in the harbour. I have perfect confidence in Sir George Grey that, so long as he remains here, he will permit no inhumanity to be practised against these men; nor do I impute any intention of that kind to the Ministry, who forced this measure through the legislature. But it is no apology for a law, that those entrusted with its powers dare not put them in force; and the legis-
[Image of page 50]
lature which has armed a Government with such powers is morally responsible for their abuse.
The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act throughout the colony, even in the peaceful gold-digging regions of the South, is matter of less moment. No one, at least no European settler, imagines that he will be dragged from his bed in the middle of the night, and placed out of the protection of the law, at the will of a tyrannical governor or minister; but I confess to having a very uncomfortable feeling at the idea of living in a country where such a power exists. It may be said, that if we choose to pass laws of this kind we have only to blame ourselves. That is true; but the law is in fact directed against the natives, who are unrepresented in the Assembly.
In the Legislative Council, Mr Swainson, the former Attorney-General, argued that it was not competent to the Colonial Legislature to pass an act manifestly repugnant to the first principles of the law of England. He argued that at any rate it should be so modified, as not upon its face to assume to deprive the Court of Queen's Bench of its jurisdiction within the Colony. The minister however declined the suggestion.
It was matter of surprise to me that such a measure should have passed through the House of Representatives, until I was told by several members, that they had been assured by the Government that it was founded on The Suppression of Disturbances Act of 1833, an Act of the Imperial Parliament. I was startled, but of course was unable to resist the cogency of such a precedent. I examined the Statute-book. I found that in truth the measure had no resemblance to the Imperial Act of 1833. It is in fact taken from the Irish Statute-book of 1799, an ill-omened source from whence to draw political legislation. In the Legislative Council I drew attention to the fact that Lord Grey, in his speech in introducing the Act of 1833 in the House of Lords, expressly pointed out the differences between it and the Irish Act of 1799. I shewed that in the Act of 1833 no alteration was made in the law itself; martial law was not established; no new punishments were introduced; but the Act simply constituted military courts, composed of officers of rank, presided over by a qualified lawyer, to act as Courts of Judicature in disturbed districts, administering the ordinary law in lieu of the ordinary courts. I dwelt specially on the care with which the Act guarded these Courts against dealing with cases punishable with death, and prohibited them from inflicting, in any case, the punishment of death. Even so guarded, Lord Grey admitted and apologised for the unconstitutional nature of the measure.
I endeavoured in vain to induce the Minister to modify his bill in accordance with this precedent.
A strange perversity of judgment seems to have prevailed on this question. Everybody admits that, in an emergency like the present, recourse must be had to military force; and everybody is
[Image of page 51]
prepared to pass whatever acts of indemnity may be required to protect those concerned in its exercise against legal consequences. "But because," says the Government, "it is necessary, in a passing emergency, to exceed the law, therefore we demand a suspension of the law itself." They do not distinguish between acts of indemnity, which are a constitutional form of absolution for things done under special emergencies, and which the legislature jealously guards, and the legal enactment of a kind of plenary indulgence beforehand for violence or excesses of any kind or degree committed under colour of authority.
I turn to the second of these measures, the New Zealand Settlements Bill.
The nature and effect of this Act you will be able to test by that scheme of Mr Domett's, to which I have particularly drawn, your attention. The bill appears to have been framed with special reference to that scheme and with a view to give it practical effect.
Passing by the constitutional objections to a measure which exceeds the powers vested in the Assembly, and omits a qualifying clause expressly required by an Imperial Act, we urged, that, as a penal measure, it was an Act of ex-post-facto attainder, repugnant to the ordinary principles of justice. If indeed, under any circumstances, it were just to inflict the penalties of treason upon a people ignorant, to use Lord Stanley's expression, of our language, laws, and customs, it was unjust to make such law retrospective. We were bound to give due warning, and a locus paenitentiae to those who were to be brought under its operation. At any rate, he said, the application of the law should be confined to the guilty parties, --at all events to the guilty district.
The sophisms by which the measure was defended were:--1st. That not to make the Act retrospective, would be to nullify it. If the natives were to make submission, there would be no confiscation.
2. That to take land from natives not in rebellion, or from settlers, by force of law, is not confiscation, provided we give them what we in our judgment consider to be an equivalent, --money--the quantity to be assessed by tribunals appointed and removable by ourselves.
3. That all property is held subject to claims which the State may make, for objects of public utility or necessity. If therefore the State considers it useful, or necessary for the public security, to take into its own hands the land of a district, for the purpose of parcelling it out amongst military adventurers, or selling it to repay the cost of war, that is a legitimate object, to which all private proprietary rights must be subservient.
Laws founded on doctrines of this kind are so profitable, that it would be dangerous to trust the most virtuous of governments with them. There is peculiar danger in the case of a Colonial Government acted on by popular impulses, liable to be set in motion for objects of self-interest, agitated by a passion for land, and wholly unchecked by an outside public opinion.
[Image of page 52]
These two measures together constitute a new native policy, founded on a reversal of the principles which have hitherto guided us. The one applies to the natives the extreme rigour of our law of treason, unmitigated by any of those salutary checks by which ordinary citizens are protected.
The other virtually sets aside all native rights to land, as subordinate to the paramount object of colonization, and to be dealt with at the will of the Colonial Legislature. Arguments may be adduced in support of these measures, but it will be impossible to give effect to them without violating our engagements with the natives, and provoking resistance on their part, which will be certain to end in a conflict of races, disastrous to both, and fatal to the weaker.
I was assured in the passage of these bills, that the Government intended to use the powers vested in them with moderation. I do not doubt the excellence of their intentions. All governments intend to use arbitrary power with moderation; and I have no doubt that the Colonial Government of New Zealand will, in the present case, act up to its intentions, --until, it may be, an accidental panic may agitate the people of Auckland, or until some strong temptation may present itself of acquiring native land (another Waitara for instance) against the consent of the native owners. If occasions such as these should arise, I have no confidence in the strength of purpose in the Colonial Government, armed with such laws, to resist popular impulse.
As regards the third bill to which I have referred, I wish you to read Mr Fitzgerald's speech in the House of Representatives upon the second reading of it. It contains an admirable review of the whole scheme. In England this loan may perhaps be regarded as a purely colonial affair, affecting nobody but ourselves, --except perhaps our English creditors. It is not, however, possible to separate it from the others. Through it the whole scheme is to be effectuated. Will it answer its end? Nobody can tell; for we have seen no calculations or estimates, not even a digested plan of operations. Looked at financially, the enormous debt (in the aggregate six millions and a half) with which the Colony is now to be loaded must be a millstone round its neck for years to come. As to this Northern portion of it, I know not how it will be able to bear it. Of the three millions now to be borrowed, it is estimated that £900, 000 will be spent in the province of Auckland. But the Southern Provinces are resolutely bent upon fixing that as a charge specifically upon the province for whose benefit it will have been incurred. The Allocation Act has declared as much. But the whole revenue of the province of Auckland does not exceed £70,000 or £80,000 a year, and it has just incurred a provincial debt of, £500,000, now in the hands of English creditors, which will be posterior in security to that just imposed by Act of the Assembly. I do not attempt to draw in-
[Image of page 53]
ferences from these facts, which may be prejudicial to the credit of the Province and the Colony.
It is true that the Colonial Treasurer calculates that the profit which the Colony will derive from the sale of native lands will clear off the whole three millions about to be borrowed, including the expenditure on lighthouses and telegraphs. He says: "Exactly what amount of land will be available it is difficult to say, but if we take all the land belonging to the rebel natives in the Thames and Waikato, at Taranaki and Wanganui, I think there will be nearly, after locating the settlers upon it, a balance of something approaching two millions of acres" (the value is elsewhere estimated at £2 per acre). "And we consider, that although it will be impossible to realise upon that all at once, yet before long the proceeds of those sales will repay the whole of this expenditure which we now ask the House to grant." According to this estimate, the Colony will be a gainer by the transaction; for we shall have established electric telegraphs and lighthouses out of the profit arising from the confiscation of native lands. As the Loan Bill passed through the House of Representatives, provision was carefully made for keeping the profit of the transaction to the Colony. No part of it is to go to repay the Imperial Government the cost which it is now incurring in putting us in possession of these lands. There is prudence, if there be not justice, in this arrangement. But in truth such calculations are visionary. There is no good reason for anticipating that the present loan will be repaid from the sale of native lands. We shall be fortunate if it should prove to be the limit of our loss.
If indeed circumstances really justified us in incurring this enormous debt, the most ordinary prudence in finance would oblige us to make provision for the increased burthen by specific taxation. Mr Domett's views on this subject are no doubt the rule which governs the Colonial Treasurer who held office under him. "How to procure the money?" Says Mr Domett: "It is not necessary, and certainly it is not desirable, to raise any of this by additional taxation. To borrow on an estate so rich in undeveloped resources, and so easily and rapidly improvable as is a young colony like New Zealand, and to borrow for the purpose of developing these resources and improving such an estate, is not only prudent, but is the simple duty of those who have the management of it."
I do not presume to guess at the reception which these views will meet with in England. In this Colony I need not say, that a policy which promises to open so easily the door to the acquisition of native lands, at a cost partly supplied by imperial funds, and partly by a bill drawn on posterity, is extremely popular.
My object in this letter has been to give a fair and dispassionate outline of the circumstances of the war, without offering an opinion on questions, as to which the lack of information prevents us at present from judging. Till the papers moved for in
[Image of page 54]
the late Session of the Assembly are printed, it will be impossible to form an accurate judgment as to the general policy of the course pursued by the Government.
Nearly a month has elapsed since our success at Rangariri, and since the natives have made distinct overtures of submission; and as yet nobody can divine the intentions of Government. The war is prolonged, at least if that can be called war, in which there is no apparent enemy; for the natives have disappeared from all the country in the neighbourhood of Auckland. We continue to scour the bush, but without meeting any armed parties of natives; nor have any outrages been committed giving signs of their presence. The last affair of note took place on the 13th of December.
I subjoin the particulars from the Southern, Cross newspaper of December 15th, 1863:--
"Intelligence reached town yesterday that Captain Jackson's company of Forest-Rifles had fallen in with and engaged a party of Maoris, within a few miles of Papakura. On enquiry we find that the affair took place a long distance back in the bush, in the direction of Paparata.
"The following are the particulars, as far as we can ascertain them:--Captain Jackson and Ensign Westrupp, with twenty-eight men of the Forest-Rifles, left on the 11th, for the purpose of scouring the bush. They did not fall in with any natives until Sunday morning, when the action took place. On Saturday evening tracks were discovered, and these were followed up with success. About day-light on Sunday morning smoke was seen in the bush, at a distance of from four to five miles, and an advance was cautiously made with the view of taking the natives by surprise. The advance was conducted in silence until the sound of a bell was heard, and then the voice of a man singing, as if engaged leading the devotions of the encampment. A consultation was held as to whether it would be better to divide the party and make two attacks; and it was finally determined that the party should keep together, and attack simultaneously. The Forest-Rifles therefore crept stealthily forward, Ensign Westrupp and a few men in advance. As the Maori encampment got nearer, the coloured men who were of the party took the lead, and then succeeded in getting pretty close to the natives, before they were discovered; and as the man on the watch did not give the alarm, it is supposed he thought these men were friends coming to them. The advance file had then got to within about thirty yards of the natives, and Ensign Westrupp (we believe) ordered them to fire. The order was obeyed, and the Maori sentry fell dead. A rush was then made on the encampment, the entire party coming up and delivering fire. The panic amongst the Maoris was intense. One man stood upright, without making an effort to escape or defend himself, and was shot down. Another was wounded in the shoulder by private John Smith, formerly of
[Image of page 55]
the Wairoa Rifles, and the native fired at Smith in return, but missed. He then clubbed his double-barrelled gun and struck at Smith, who parried the blow with the barrel of his rifle, and closed with the native. Although the Maori was wounded, he would have proved match enough for Smith in this hand-to-hand struggle, but for Ensign Westrupp, who came to the relief of his man, and shot the native in the head. He fell, but again rose to his legs, when another man blew out his brains. That was the only instance of resistance shewn by the natives, except a few shots which did no harm. Four of the Maoris were left dead on the field, and several wounded men were carried away, principally by the women of the party. There was an order given not to fire at any of the women. There was a good number of women and children.
It is subsequently stated that a good deal of plunder was found in their possession.
Stripped of immaterial circumstances, the case, as stated, appears to be, that some days after the natives had made signs of submission (the white flag was in fact flying throughout the Waikato), Captain Jackson and his corps tracked a body of natives through the bush, followed them up on Saturday night, and on Sunday morning, guided by the sound of a bell (some accounts state the sound of voices singing a psalm), surprised a congregation of natives, men, women, and children, in the act of, or preparing to join in Divine worship, fired upon them, and killed seven men. Great credit is given to him for his care in avoiding the women and children, but it is supposed that one woman was hurt.
In justice to Captain Jackson I should add, that the statement that the natives were engaged in Divine Worship has been since contradicted, but I know not on what authority. There has been no investigation of the facts, and one only knows the particulars as they were circumstantially narrated at the time.
The natives thus surprised had been, no doubt, engaged in hostilities against us. They had some fire-arms amongst them, and some articles which had been plundered from a settler's house, and one of them made resistance. It may or may not be the fact that they were engaged in Divine Worship. This is clear, that the act, as so represented, has been spoken of in terms of the highest commendation by the local press of this province, an unmistakeable sign of the temper of the public mind.
I presume that, however repugnant to one's notions as a civilian, this mode of warfare may be justified by the usage of civilized nations; but I am bound in that case to say, that placed side by side with native ambuscades directed against military escorts, the usages of civilized man do not appear to advantage as contrasted with those of his savage enemy.
They have asked for terms of peace--the only reply as yet
[Image of page 56]
has been, a demand for unconditional surrender, with the actual giving up of their arms. We offer them no conditions in return, but we hold over them the terrors of the Suppression of Rebellion Bill, and keep the sword suspended; need we be surprised if, under these circumstances, they act as desperate men? I hear rumours of another stand being made by them, in which they are preparing for a final death-struggle.
There has been a terrible murder just committed by a native, upon a settler's wife and daughter at Kaipara, about twenty miles to the north of Auckland. The motives of the act are not clear. There are grounds for supposing it to have proceeded from revenge, and the barbarous custom of Utu. The Government appears to have acted with decision. The natives on their part behaved remarkably well in surrendering the delinquent, who is in gaol awaiting his trial. But this is an indication of what may be expected, if the natives are suffered to continue, as at present, ignorant of the intentions of Government; fear will goad them into a state of desperation. This will lead to acts of violence, which will in turn produce retaliation on the part of the settlers, and so the work of extermination will begin.
As regards the Ngatimaniapotos, and Taranakis, our difficulty remains, as at the first. These turbulent and lawless tribes will, it is to be feared, for years be a source of trouble and anxiety, for which, as I believe, the true remedy is to carry roads through their country, and to maintain an armed colonial police of sufficient strength. As to the great body of the natives, there are no circumstances in the present war which can warrant us in departing from the rules of justice and forbearance which we have hitherto observed towards them.
Believe me to remain, my dear Lord,
Your very sincere and faithful servant,
HENRY SEWELL.
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
