New Zealand, the Manawatu Purchase Completed, or, the Treaty of Waitangi Broken

Williams, Thomas C. (Thomas Coldham),

First published by Williams and Norgate in 1868

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

Epub © 2013 Early New Zealand Books Collection

ISBN 978-1-927288-90-0

[TITLE PAGE]

NEW ZEALAND.
THE MANAWATU PURCHASE COMPLETED;

OR,
The Treaty of Waitangi
BROKEN.

by
THOMAS C. WILLIAMS.

WILLIAMS AND NORGATE,
14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON
AND 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH.
1868.

The more I have reflected upon this subject, and the more information I have received respecting it, the more I have been confirmed in the persuasion that the main requisite for the support and preservation of the Natives of New Zealand is that justice should be done to them; and that, if savage tribes have hitherto melted away before the white man, it is only because the white man takes so little trouble to discover what is justice, when he stands in the threefold character of judge, jury, and principal in the suit." – "Earnest address to New Zealand Colonists with reference to their intercourse with the Native inhabitants." By the Rev. Montague. T. G. Hawtrey, M.A.

[PREFACE]

PREFACE.

THE following pages contain matter bearing upon the famous Manawatu purchase which, I trust, may not prove uninteresting to those who are acquainted with the past history of New Zealand.

There are those who think that the Waitara purchase and the Waitara war were a great injustice and a cruel wrong. An open investigation into all the circumstances in connection with the Manawatu purchase, may tend to throw some light upon the question as to who have been "the cause of that long and protracted war, the burdens of which now hang about our necks, to the hindrance of public and private prosperity."

The Reverend, afterwards Archdeacon, Henry Williams, in 1840, translated the Treaty of Waitangi, "and repeated in the native tongue, sentence by sentence," all Governor Hobson said. He afterwards, requested by Governor Hobson, "fully authorised thereto by Her Majesty's instructions conveyed to him by her principal Secretary of State," obtained the signatures to the Treaty of all the principal chiefs on the North side of Cook's Strait, as far as Whanganui.

As I hold the opinion, in common with many others, that the Treaty of Waitangi has been clearly broken by the Government of this country in their dealings with the Natives for the acquisition of the Manawatu block, and as I am the son of the Rev. Henry Williams above-named, I need offer no apology for

now coming forward to assist the Natives "on the north side of Cook's Strait" in standing up for their rights guaranteed to them by the said Treaty.

I bring no charge against the colonists, for whom, as a body, I, in common with Parakaia and many of his countrymen, have a great respect. I believe them to have been misinformed and misled. When I ask any intelligent Maori the question "who are to blame for the past and the present state of things in New Zealand?" the reply is a ready one – "Ko nga kai mahi o te Kawanatanga." When I am myself asked a similar question, my reply is the same – "the Government and the officers of the Government."

THOMAS C. WILLIAMS,

A Native of New Zealand.

Taita, Wellington, July 18, 1867.

THE MANAWATU PURCHASE COMPLETED.

NEW ZEALAND.

THE MANAWATU PURCHASE COMPLETED.

"The Magna Charter of the New Zealander, as between himself and the British settler, is the Treaty of Waitangi; a treaty to which the faith and honour of the British Crown were pledged in 1840, and the obligations of which have since been again and again reaffirmed by the representatives of the Crown in the Colony, and by statesmen of all parties in the Imperial Parliament. It is sufficient to refer to the noble stand taken on this point by Lord Derby (then Lord Stanley), when Secretary of State for the Colonies: –

"I repudiate, with the utmost possible earnestness, the doctrine maintained by some that the treaties which we have entered into with these people are to be considered as a mere blind to amuse and deceive ignorant savages. In the name of the Queen I utterly deny that any treaty entered into and ratified by Her Majesty's command was or could have been made in a spirit thus disingenuous, or for a purpose thus unworthy. You will honourably and scrupulously fulfil the conditions of the Treaty of Waitangi." – (Despatch to Sir Geo. Grey, June 13, 1845. Parl. Papers, May, 1846, p. 70. See also Parl. Papers, July 27, 1860, p. 44. Despatches from and to the Colonial Office, &c, passim.)

The second Article of the Treaty is as follows: –

"Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, as long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession. But the chiefs of the united tribes, and the individual chiefs, yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate, at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective proprietors and persons appointed by Her

Majesty to treat with them on that behalf." – (Parl. Papers, July, 1840, p. 10.)

ART. 3.

"In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand her Royal protection, and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British Subjects."

The following papers will show who were the persons employed by the British Government to explain to the Natives the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, to induce them to agree to its conditions, and to attach their signatures to the same: –

Extract from a Despatch from Lieutenant-Governor Hobson to Sir George Gipps. – (Parl. Papers, May 11, 1841, page 8.)

"Her Majesty's ship 'Herald,'
"Bay of Islands, February 5, 1840.

"The business of the meeting then commenced by my announcing to the chiefs the object of my mission, and the reasons that had induced Her Majesty to appoint me. I explained to them in the fullest manner the effect that might be hoped to result from the measure, and I assured them in the most fervent manner that they might rely implicitly on the good faith of Her Majesty's Government in the transaction. I then read the Treaty, a copy of which I have the honour to enclose. In doing so I dwelt on each Article, and offered a few remarks explanatory of such passages as they might be supposed not to understand. Mr. H. Williams, of the Church Missionary Society, did me the favour to interpret, and repeated, in the Native tongue, sentence by sentence, all I said."

Extract from a Despatch, from Lieutenant-Governor Hobson to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. – (Ib. pages 15 and 16.)

"Government House, Russell,
"Bay of Islands, 25th March, 1840.

"I commissioned Captain Symonds, of the British Army, and the following gentlemen of the Church Missionary Society, namely, the Rev. Mr. Henry Williams, Rev. Mr. Brown, Rev. Mr. Maunsell, and Rev. Mr. William Williams, to secure the adherence of the chiefs of their respective districts to the Treaty of Waitangi. For this purpose I furnished to each a signed copy of that treaty, with instructions, the copy of one of which I have the honour to transmit. The districts in which these gentlemen were requested to act comprise the whole of the Northern Island, with the exception of the northern extremity called Kaitaia, to which I despatched Mr. Shortland, the Acting Colonial Secretary, with a suite of two gentlemen of the Government, and the Rev. Mr. Taylor, of the Church Missionary Society, to secure the allegiance of the chiefs in that quarter, who are some of the

most powerful in the Island; and I am happy to report to your Lordship that Mr. Shortland succeeded to the fullest extent. . . . . . At various periods subsequent to the sailing of the 'Herald,' I received from Captain Symonds, Mr. Maunsell, and lastly from the Rev. Messrs. Williams, reports of the entire success of their respective missions."

Instructions of Lieutenant-Governor Hobson to the Rev. Henry Williams, Rev. A. N. Brown, Rev. E. Maunsell, Rev. W. Williams, and the Rev. E. Taylor. – (Ib. page 17.)

"Waimate, March 23, 1840.

"REVEREND SIR, –

"Availing myself of your kind offer, and fully authorized thereto by Her Majesty's instructions conveyed to me by her Principal Secretary of State, I hereby authorise you to treat with the principal Native chiefs in the southern parts of these Islands for their adherence to the Treaty which was executed at Waitangi on the 6th February, 1840. I have the honour to enclose a copy of the Treaty, which I have signed, and to request you will obtain the signatures thereto of such high chiefs as may be willing to accede to its conditions, first explaining to them its principle and object, which they must clearly understand before you permit them to sign.

"(Signed) W. HOBSON,
"Lieutenant-Governor.
"Rev. Henry Williams,
"Paihia."

Lieutenant-Governor Hobson to Major Bunbury. – (Ib. page 17.)

"Paihia, 25th April, 1840.

"Mr. Henry Williams, of the Church Missionary Society (formerly a Lieutenant in the Navy), kindly undertook to treat with the chiefs on the West Coast, and on both sides of Cook's Strait, for which purpose I furnished him with a vessel which I chartered.

"(Signed) W. Hobson,
"Lieutenant-Governor.
"Major Bunbury,
"30th Regiment."

Rev. H. Williams to the Lieutenant-Governor. – (Ib. page 105.)

"Paihia, 11th June, 1840.

"SIR, –

"I have much pleasure in forwarding to your Excellency the Treaty committed to my care for the signature of the chiefs in Cook's Strait.

"On my arrival at Port Nicholson I experienced some opposition from the influence of Europeans at that place, and it was not until after the expiration of ten days that the chiefs were

disposed to come forward, when they unanimously signed the Treaty.

"The chiefs of Queen Charlotte's Sound and Rangitoto, in the neighbourhood of Port Hardy, on the south side of the Strait, as also those chiefs on the north side of the Strait with whom I communicated as far as Whanganui, signed the Treaty with much satisfaction, and appeared much gratified that a check was put to the importunities of the Europeans to the purchase of their lands, and that protection was now afforded to them in common with Her Majesty's subjects.

"(Signed) Henry Williams.
"To. Capt. Hobson, R. N."

Major Bunbury to Lieutenant-Governor Hobson. – (Ib. page 109.)

"Her Majesty's ship 'Herald,'
"28th June, 1840.

"June 19. – We arrived off the island of Kapiti; several canoes were leaving the Island, and, on my preparing to go on shore, fortunately the first canoe we met had on board the chief Rauparaha I was so anxious to see. He returned on board with, me in the ship's boat, his own canoe, one of the most splendid I have yet seen, following. He told me that the Rev. Mr. Williams had been there, and had obtained his signature to the Treaty."

The "Manawatu-Rangitikei Block," the purchase of which we have been repeatedly told by Dr. Featherston is "un fait accompli" is an extensive country, containing some 250,000 acres of mostly fine land, lying between the Manawatu and Rangitikei rivers, in the Province of Wellington. The question to be decided is simply this – Has the block been fairly purchased, or has it not? If fairly purchased, well and good; if not, then the Treaty of Waitangi has been broken.

The plaintiffs in the matter are the Ngatiraukawa non-sellers, who hold possession of, and most of whom are living on, the block. The defendants are His Excellency Sir G. Grey, K. C. B.; the General Assembly, the Ministers, and the Land Purchase Commissioner. The New Zealand and the British public will, I trust, act as the jury.

The case for the defendants was closed when Dr. Featherston on the 14th April, 1866, announced to the Natives his acceptance of the block; – when, in December, 1866, in spite of the many protests from the non-sellers, together with their repeated requests to the Governor, the Assembly, and the Ministers, that their title to the land might be investigated in a court of justice before completing the purchase, he paid down to the Natives (the money having been supplied to him by the General Government) £25,000 as a discharge in full of all demands on the Government on account of the block; £2,000 to be reserved by the Natives

for the non-sellers, and the Government agreeing to set apart certain reserves, according to the usual custom in all large purchases; – and when he announced to his Council in his opening speech on the 26th April, 1867, – "It is satisfactory to me to be able to state that the deed of cession has been duly executed, nearly seventeen hundred claimants have signed it, and that the questions just adverted to have been finally and amicably settled."

Of Dr. Featherston, the Chief Land Commissioner, I may say that since the framing of the New Zealand Constitution Act he has acted in the capacity of Superintendent of the Province of Wellington; that in general politics he is a Provincialist, whilst in Provincial politics he is a Centralist; that he is a gentleman who wept over the Waitara, and who considered it his "chief duty to make the Maori's dying couch as easy and as comfortable as possible;" who stated at Taranaki, when speaking of the Natives, as I was informed by one of the officers of Her Majesty's 43rd Regiment, – "I have no sympathy whatever with the wretches, and I do not care how soon they are all exterminated;" and who, shortly afterwards, at Takapu, represented himself to the six tribes as "their friend – one who had ever advocated what he believed to be their true interests – one in whose justice and integrity they had implicit faith."

Of the Sub-Commissioner, Mr. Walter Buller, I may observe that he is simply a model official; one who is at all times ready and willing to say and do all and everything that he is bid; one who has repeatedly stated that, having undertaken the Manawatu purchase, he was "prepared to go any lengths to ensure its completion."

Of Sir G. Grey, K. C. B., the Assembly, and the Ministers, I may observe that, whilst they may have proved themselves capable of framing laws whereby to bring about and to accomplish the good government of the settlers' cattle and sheep, they have proved themselves wholly incompetent to the task of governing human beings, when those human beings are Maoris. Of each and every of them I fear it must be recorded – "Tekel." Mr. Cox, when moving the address in reply to His Excellency's speech on the 10th of June, said – "He for one was very glad that Native affairs would very shortly disappear from the catalogue of questions of policy brought before the House." Strange, should Mr. Cox's words, though not so intended, prove to have been prophetic!

Of the Native sellers I may say that many of them frankly admit that they took the money offered them and signed the deed of cession, though they had no title to the land, because requested to do so by the Commissioner; that the principal sellers, whilst they shrank away from the law, "insisted" upon the sale, avowing their determination to fight if the purchase were not at once carried out; whereas the non-sellers are a quiet and peaceable people, whose "grand desire is to see the Maori people rendered

amenable, in their dealings with the settlers, to British law;" and "that all the inhabitants of New Zealand should be subjected, in their mutual dealings, to the control of one common law."

The following appears in the memorandum by Ministers in reply to the Aborigines Protection Society, dated 5th May, 1864, and signed "William Fox:" –

"4. As regards the question of the confiscation of Maori lands, against which a protest is raised, Ministers beg to make the following observations: –

"In the first place, it is a custom which has been always recognized by the Maoris themselves. In their wars, a conquered tribe not only forfeited its lands, but the vanquished survivors were reduced to a tributary position, and large numbers to personal slavery. The Government of New Zealand have always recognized such a title as valid; and a very large proportion, if not an absolute majority, of the purchases of land from the Maoris have been made on the basis of a recognition of this right of conquest."

The following appears in the statement of the proceedings of the Compensation Court, at the sittings held at New Plymouth, "Present: Francis D. Fenton, Esq., Chief Judge; John Rogan, Esq., Judge; Home Monro, Esq., Judge: –

"Judgment in case of the non-resident claimants at Okura: – "We do not think that it can reasonably be maintained that the British Government came to this Colony to improve Maori titles, or to reinstate persons in possession of land from which they had been expelled before 1840, or which they had voluntarily abandoned previously to that time. Having found it absolutely necessary to fix some point of time at which the titles, so far as this Court is concerned, must be regarded as settled, we have decided that that point of time must be the establishment of the British Government in 1840; and all persons who are proved to have been the actual owners or possessors of land at that time must be regarded as the owners or possessors of that land now."

We may imagine Dr. Featherston exclaiming "Is that the law?" "Thyself shall see the Act." In Dr. Featherston's admirable speech, delivered in the House of Representatives, on the 7th of August, 1860, when speaking upon the subject of the Waitara purchase and the Waitara war, is the following: –

"Sir, – I apprehend that there are certain Native titles which are based upon well-known customs, and have certain incidents attached to them which admit of no question – of no possible dispute. First, however, let me remind the House that, by the Treaty of Waitangi, 'the Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties, which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their desire to retain the same in their possession.'

It follows that whatever rights, especially territorial, the Natives possessed at the time the Treaty was made, the Government is bound to respect and preserve inviolate. Now, there are two titles to land, which are so universally acknowledged that they admit of no dispute, viz., by inheritance and by conquest."

Six years after the delivery of the above excellent speech, Dr. Featherston purchases 250,000 acres of (according to the Wellington Independent) "the finest land in New Zealand," from the conquered. He then tells the conquerors that he is in a position "to make them an award in land to the extent of such claims as are admitted by the sellers." As Dr. Featherston was speaking impartially in August, 1860, but acting partially in 1866 and 1867, the public will agree with me that he must be held bound to the opinions he expressed in his excellent speech delivered in the House of Representatives on 7th August, 1860.

All, therefore, that is necessary to show that "the Government were bound to respect and preserve inviolate" the right of the Ngatiraukawa non-sellers to the "Manawatu and Rangitikei Block" is to prove that they held sole and undisputed possession of the block by right of conquest in 1840, at the time the Treaty of Waitangi was signed; and to show that the Treaty of Waitangi has been wholly disregarded and clearly broken by the Government in their dealings with the Natives for the purchase of the block, it is necessary to prove that the land has been purchased by the Government of, that the deed of cession has been signed by, and that the greater portion of the money has been paid to, men of other tribes, who had been conquered by the Ngatiraukawa and their allies so far back as 1830; who were living in subjection to their conquerors – many of them in actual slavery – in 1840, and who, at the time the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, dare not to have asserted their title to one foot of the block; also to men who laid no claim to the land; whereas the great majority of the real owners have not, up to the present time, signed the deed of cession, nor have they taken one sixpence of the purchase-money, though every effort has been tried to frighten them into submission. That Dr. Featherston, after the Government had expended three millions of Colonial treasure, with a vast amount of "British blood and treasure," inflicting at the same time a vast amount of misery on the Maori race: after the Natives had been expelled from the Waikato and other parts of the Northern Island, and their lands confiscated to the Crown, and all for the purpose of asserting in this land the supremacy of law, with several thousand British troops at the time in New Zealand, shortly after his return from the far-famed expedition through the bush during the West Coast campaign, where, shoulder to shoulder with the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's forces, he breathed forth unlimited threatenings and slaughter against all and everything that opposed itself – an expedition which struck so much terror into the bosom of the Maoris, causing them to be (as Parakaia hath it in his petition)

"ngingio noa iho," – "paralyzed with fear," – at a meeting of the Natives at Takapu, on the 14th April, 1866, acting for and on behalf of Her Majesty, ridiculed alike the idea of settling the various claims to the block by arbitration, by a division of the land, or by trial in the Native Land's Court. That Dr. Featherston, on the 14th April, after ignoring the claims of men who asked that their titles might be investigated according to law, "knowing the responsibility which his decisive answer would entail upon him, had not the slightest hesitation in giving it," and "felt no difficulty in announcing his acceptance of the block," at the hands of men who one and all shrank away alike from "arbitration or investigation in the Land Court," the principal chief of whom, Mr. Governor Hunia, actually boasted that "they (the Ngatiapas) had now plenty of arms and ammunition, and could easily drive off their opponents, and that they would now prefer an appeal to arms to any other course, and almost intimated that they had, during the West Coast campaign, reserved their ammunition for that purpose." 1 That Dr. Featherston, acting in his capacity of Land Purchase Commissioner, paid £25,000 to the Natives in full of all demands for the block (less a small sum set apart for the dissentients); that he has repeatedly told the Natives, through his agent, that "their land is all gone to the Queen," and has publicly announced to his Council the final completion of the purchase. That during the interval between the month of April, 1866, when Dr. Featherston publicly announced to the Natives his acceptance of the block, and the month of December, 1866, when the purchase money was paid, the Ngatiraukawa chiefs, who opposed the sale, paid repeated visits to Wellington, and prayed His Excellency the Governor, the Assembly, and the Ministers, to grant them a fair hearing of their claims in a court of justice, and that, beyond a few of their letters appearing in the Blue Book, their prayers were totally disregarded. On the other hand, a Bill was passed, authorizing the raising of a loan of £30,000 for the purchase of their lands.

I may further add, that it will be seen that the Ngatiraukawa chiefs spared the Ngatiapas when Te Rauparaha desired them to destroy them all; that they, in 1849, restored to Ngatiapa the whole of the country to the north of the Rangitikei River, and that the whole of the purchase money was paid by the Commissioner to the Ngatiapa, it being understood that the Ngatiapas were to abandon any claim they might have felt disposed to set up to the land south of the river, on the score of their having been driven off it; and that a similar arrangement was made with the Rangitane tribe when the land on the other side of the block was restored to them by the Ngatiraukawas in 1858, all the purchase money being paid to Hirawanu, chief of the Rangitanes. It will be seen that Dr. Featherston got the Manawatu exception clause inserted in the "Native Lands Act" in 1862, because Ihakara presented him with a carved club in 1864.

As it is both law and custom with the Anglo-Saxon to register all titles to land, I cannot do better than here produce the following documents, being the register of the Ngatiraukawa's title to the Rangitikei-Manawatu country. Parakaia thinks it quite as good a title as the Anglo-Saxons can show to many of their possessions; he instances "Poa Hakena" (Australia) and Van Diemen's Land: –

"This is a year of contention about land. 23rd October, 1866. I wish to explain what was the Maori custom of old.

"The Pakehas take the Maori's land by right of conquest, but trample down my right obtained through conquest, by which these tribes became possessed of this country. Attend, and I will relate the history of these tribes. Te Rauparaha was the first to conquer those people (the original owners). When Whanganui heard, they induced Rangihiwinui, chief of Muaupoko, to murder Raupahara (his people). They murdered at Ohau some of Ngatitoa, old and young. Ngatitoa then mustered to fight those tribes – Muaupoko and Rangitane – those tribes were vanquished.

"Whanganui then persisted; they all mustered and went to Kapiti to fight the Ngatitoa. Ngatitoa conquered those tribes – Waitotara, Whanganui, Ngatiapa, Rangitane, Muaupoko, Ngatikahununu – great numbers were killed, several hundreds perished in the sea, several hundreds were killed by the hand of man; up to the number of 1,000 (mano) perished in the year 1824. Ngatitoa then turned upon Ngatiapa, conquered them, and cut up Rangitikei and Manawatu, dividing to each man his portion. Those who escaped hid themselves in out-of-the-way places in the year 1824.

"When we of Ngatiraukawa at Maungatautari heard, we came here, Whatanui, Hukiki, and Nepia Taratoa, to see what the land was like, and visit Ngatitoa. We saw that it was good, and returned in 1827. When Ngatiraukawa heard it was a good land, that there were Pakehas, another party came down to see the land, and returned in the year 1829. When the second party returned, Rauparaha instructed them to tell Ngatiraukawa to come down and occupy Rangitikei and Manawatu. We left Maungatautari, Patetere, and Taupo, and came to Kapiti, to the place where there were Pakehas: that is why we migrated to this place, that we might obtain guns and powder. We left in the month of May; in July we arrived at Turakina; there we attacked and defeated the Ngatiapas. We came on to Rangitikei and Oroua; there we also defeated the Ngatiapas. We came on to Manawatu and defeated the Rangitane. We took possession then and there of the land in the year 1830. When we arrived at Otaki we divided the eel ponds; when we reached Waikanae the Ngatiawa were there – the Ngatitoa were at Kapiti; Ngatitoa all mustered at Waikanae to receive our party. Ngatitoa divided our party amongst them, each chief agreeing to act as host to a certain number. Rangihaeata received Aperahama Te Ruru and

our party as his guests. In the month of August, 1830, each chief set apart a portion of land to their several guests. The whole tribe of Ngatitoa agreed to this; they set apart each man a portion for his friend. After that, the chiefs of our party assembled at Rangatira, on the Island of Kapiti. The chiefs Rauparaha and Rangihaeata said Rangitane and Muaupoko must be destroyed, on account of those tribes having murdered Te Hira and Te Poa. Muaupoko murdered them. Paetahi, the father of Mete (chief of Whanganui), was the instigator, he having incited Rangihiwinui to murder Te Rauparaha (his people); this was the reason why we were told to destroy Rangitane and Muaupoko. Ngatitoa had given no cause for this; only one woman had been killed in a quarrel about a canoe.

"We went from Otaki to fight with those people. The pa Hotuiti was taken, in the Manawatu country. Rangitane fell. We divided their land amongst us, to each man a portion. Ngatiapa were not interfered with. We then returned to Otaki. The men of those tribes whom we had enslaved were allowed to call in those who had escaped on former occasions, and we permitted them to dwell in our midst with their several masters. Each pointed out to his master, of Ngatiraukawa, their lands, which were taken possession of accordingly, and our people on their part gave of their goods to the survivors, guns, powder, axes, and hatchets.

"We then attacked Whanganui, on account of a murder committed by Whanganui. Fifty chiefs and Ruamairo, of Ngatiraukawa, had been murdered. Whanganui were defeated in two battles – one pa was taken (Patikiwharanui). Ngatiapa were with us in that fight. Ngatiraukawa made peace with those tribes in 1831. Turoa put a stop to the fighting. Next came parties from Taranaki. Ngatiapa, Rangitane, and Muaupoko were living at that time in our midst, and joined with us in fighting against those tribes. Those tribes, Rangitane and Ngatiapa, though living in our midst, were living in subjection, without authority over the land. They cannot refute this. Ngatitoa then attacked and defeated Muaupoko, then dwelling in our midst. They took their pa (Papaitonga), and divided their land amongst themselves in the year 1831.

"Thus those tribes dwelt with us in the olden time. After that came the Gospel. Thus they were spared and became free. Fighting ceased in 1839. Mr. Hadfield was the minister at Otaki, Mr. Mason at Whanganui. In Governor Grey's time Ngatiapa commenced selling; they tried to sell this side, we held it; the Government were aware of that in 1848.

"In Governor Browne's time those tribes again tried to sell. Ngatirauka was still held this side of the Rangitikei. Governor Grey is aware of that land having been held back at that time in 1858. The Ahuoturanga and the Awahou were fairly sold to Governor Browne. Now we have Dr. Featherston: still the same piece of land. I now, therefore, say let this land be

settled by the law, that we may go into the question of old Maori custom and law. In these years that England has taken possession of New Zealand by right of conquest, let me also assert my right, obtained by conquest. We have shown our love for the Queen by having allowed the sale of Rangitikei, of Awahou, and of Ahuoturanga. We now cease this generous alienation of our lands to our Pakeha friends at this end, as there will not be any left for ourselves if we continue to alienate it all to the Queen.

"The Government say, 'Give.' Another Governor comes: 'Give, give, give up the land to the Queen.' Is giving all that I have to do? Have I not a right to withhold? Should I give it all up to others? May I not retain some for myself?

"(Signed) PARAKAIA TE POUEPA.
"23rd October, 1866. "
Correct translation – J. N. WILLIAMS.

To Thomas Williams.

DEAR FRIEND, –

Will you publish what I have to say respecting Rangitikei, for the information of the Pakehas. We, the Ngatiraukawa tribe, held it by our own strength till such times as the law came. Ngatiraukawa are still in possession of Rangitikei. Do you listen? It was Rauparaha who first conquered the inhabitants of this country; after that, Ngatiraukawa conquered them. It was Rauparaha's wish to have killed them all – not to let any escape. Ngatiraukawa saved them from death – made slaves and servants of them. They, the original owners, were very humble and submissive to Ngatiraukawa, viz., Muaupoko, Rangitane, and Ngatiapa, dwelling in subjection. Listen! Only when the Gospel came did the original owners begin to hold up their heads and exalt themselves, and so on till Governor Grey's time, in the year 1848, when Ngatiapa attempted to hand over to Governor Grey and Mr. M'Lean all the land from Rangitikei to Manawatu. When Ngatiraukawa heard that Rangitikei was being sold they assembled to stop the sale of this side. They agreed to allow the other side to be sold, on condition that Ngatiapa should abandon all claim to this side, to which Ngatiapa agreed. Ngatiraukawa did not receive any of the money payment for the land, though it was through them having given their consent that the land was sold, and Ngatiapa got the money. Next came Governor Browne. When Hirawanu, of Rangitane, tried to sell Ahuoturanga, he tried in vain; for Ngatiraukawa would not permit it to be sold, they alone having authority over all the land – Rangitikei, Oroua, Manawatu, Ahuoturanga, as far as Otaki. Afterwards Ngatiraukawa, out of love for Hirawanu, chief of Rangitane, returned that land, formerly his, to him. It was done quietly; at the same time they told him that he must give up all claim to this other side. To this Hirawanu agreed. When the land was sold no money was paid to Ngatiraukawa.

Thus those two blocks of land – Rangitikei and Ahuoturanga – were quietly and peaceably restored to the original owners by Ngatiraukawa. We did not fight about it, as other tribes have done: all that Ngatiraukawa cared for was to retain a portion of the land. It was so in the olden time before the law came, and we are doing the same now that we are living under the law: for you see that the greater portion of the land we have restored to Ngatiapa and Rangitane we made them a present of it. This is the smaller portion which we are retaining. These people have no gratitude (koha) to Ngatiraukawa in return for their kindness to them. As to this last sale by Ngatiapa and Rangitane, it will never be assented to; never! because the only people living upon the land are of the Ngatiraukawa tribe, and they alone have any authority over and title to the land.

(Signed) RAWIRI TE WANUI.
Otaki, 26th June, 1867.
Correct translation – J. N. WILLIAMS.

To Thomas Williams.

DEAR FRIEND, –

The Ngatiapas and Rangitanes had lost all authority over these lands as far as Wairarapa long before the Treaty of Waitangi came in 1840. At the tune the Treaty was signed they had no authority over the land.

The Ngatiraukawa quietly handed over the other side of Rangitikei to Ngatiapa for them to sell to Mr. M'Lean, which made that sale complete.

Ahuoturanga also was quietly handed over by Ngatiraukawa to Hirawanu, chief of Rangitane, which made that correct.

This side of Rangitikei was retained by Ngatiraukawa then, and they are still retaining it.

(Signed) MATENE TE WHIWHI. 2
Correct translation – J. N. WILLIAMS.

Here follows the Treaty of Waitangi, the Maori's Crown Grant.

In 1849 the Ngatiapa tribe sold a large extent of country to the north of the Rangitikei river to the Government. It appears from the published statement of the Natives that the Ngatiraukawa waved their claim to the block, stipulating at the same time that the Ngatiapa should abandon any claim they might be disposed to set up to the land south of the river on the ground of their having formerly been driven from it. Some of the Natives say that the Ngatiapa agreed to this; others, that the arrangement was made with Mr. M'Lean, the Land Purchase Commissioner. Mr. Buller, in a letter to the Minister for Native Affairs,

dated August 31, 1863, speaking of the question, says – "It appears that when the Ngatiapa, in 1849, surrendered to the Crown the land lying between the Whanganui and Rangitikei rivers, they compromised the conflicting Ngatiraukawa claims (of conquest) by conceding to the latter the right of disposal over the territory lying south of the Rangitikei, with the mutual understanding that as the Ngatiraukawa had received a share of the payments, the Ngatiapa should in like manner participate in the purchase money of this block, whenever the Ngatiraukawa should sell. With the lapse of years the Ngatiapa have come to regard their claim as one of absolute right, in every respect equal to that of the present holders; while the latter, always regarding the latter claim as one of sufferance, are now disposed to ignore it altogether." The following extracts from published documents will show that the whole of the purchase money was paid to the Ngatiapa, confirming the statements of the Ngatiraukawa Natives: –

"Wellington, August 26, 1851.

"SIR, –

"At a general meeting of the Natives, on the 29th May last, I handed over the third instalment of £500 to the Ngatiapa tribe for the Rangitikei purchase.

"I have, &c,
"(Signed) DONALD M'LEAN,
"The Hon. the Colonial Secretary."

"Wellington, 25th June, 1852.

"SIR, –

"In continuation of my letter of the 22nd ultimo, respecting the fourth and last instalment of £500 to the Ngatiapa tribe for payment of the Rangitikei district, &c

"I have, &c,
"(Signed) DONALD M'LEAN,
"Land Commissioner.
"The Civil Secretary, "

(In support of the above see letters Rev. S. Williams and others.)

In 1858 a large block of land on the other side of the Manawatu-Rangitikei block, called the Ahuoturanga, was sold by the Rangitane tribe to the Government. The whole of the purchase-money was paid to the Hirawanu, chief of Rangitane, who made presents of a portion of the money to certain of the Ngatiraukawa. The following extracts from public documents will confirm a portion of the Natives' statements: –

Mr. Commissioner Serancke to the Chief Commissioner.

Report of proceedings in connection with the purchase of the Upper Manawatu: –

"Manawatu, Sept. 27, 1858.

"A numerous meeting of Natives from the Ngatiraukawa,

Ngatiteihiihi, Ngatiwhakatere, Te Upokoiri, Ngatiapa, Ngatimotuahi, and Rangitane, took place, when the whole of the upper part of the Manawatu was formally returned to Te Hirawanu by the three first-named tribes, 3 they fully consenting to his selling the whole of it to the Government.

"(Signed) William N. SERANCKE."

Mr. Commissioner Serancke to the Chief Commissioner, in a letter dated Manawatu, Nov. 12, 1855, speaking of Hirawanu and his people, says – "Who, through accidental circumstances, have been again put in full possession of the lands of their forefathers.

"(Signed) W. N. SERANCKE."

Mr. Commissioner Serancke to the Chief Commissioner.

"Wellington, August 6, 1861.

"In September (27), 1858, I had the honour of reporting to you on the negotiations for the purchase of this block. I then succeeded in obtaining the consent of all the leading chiefs of the Ngatiraukawa tribe to the sale, and the waiving by them of their claims on it. Immediately their consent was gained, difficulties were thrown in the way of the completion of the purchase by a price per acre being insisted on, and the acreage ascertained. Whether these difficulties were made at the suggestion of the Ngatiraukawas, or by Te Hirawanu himself, in the pride of his heart in becoming the acknowledged and undisputed owner of so much land, I am not prepared to say.

"(Signed) W. N. SERANCKE."

In 1862 the General Assembly passed the "Native Lands Act." The Manawatu block was excepted from the Act. Dr. Featherston then stated that he was in treaty for the block, which was simply untrue. Dr. Featherston, in a report dated June 30, 1866, states, that when speaking to the Native chief Ihakara of what passed in 1864, he himself said – "Nor was he (Ihakara) perhaps aware that the 'Native Lands Act' expressly excepts from its operation all lands on which purchase deposits have been made by the Government. Now, although no deposit had yet been paid on the Rangitikei-Manawatu block, Ihakara could not deny that virtually it was already in the hands of the Commissioner. Ihakara would remember the meeting at Manawatu, when a formal offer of sale was made by himself and other representative chiefs, and accepted by the Commissioner on behalf of the Crown. He would remember on that occasion giving up to the Commissioner a carved club, in token of the absolute surrender of the land, subject to terms. It was only fair, therefore, to deal with the Rangitikei-Manawatu block as land under sale to the Government, although the final terms had not yet been arranged." The

real reason for excepting the block may be found in the following extract from a letter dated –

"Wellington, August 26, 1851.

"There is a fine rich district of land situated between the Rangitikei and the Manawatu, the acquisition of which, in the course of a few years, will be found very desirable."

"I have, &c,
"(Signed) DONALD M'LEAN,
"Land Commissioner."
"The Hon. the Colonial Secretary," &c, &c, &c,"

In the exception clause we find "Be it enacted that all right of selection by the said Act conferred ("The Land Orders and Scrip Act, 1858") shall be exercisable within the block of land called "The Manawatu Block," whenever the Native title to the said block shall have been ceded to Her Majesty, and not otherwise or elsewhere, &c." "Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties, which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession." It would appear that the General Assembly of New Zealand not only count but actually dispose of "their chickens before they are hatched," Her Majesty's "guarantee" to the contrary notwithstanding. All the documents published of late by the Government bearing upon the Manawatu question, and emanating from the Land Purchase Commissioner, are evidently intended to show that the "only-possible solution of the dispute was an absolute sale of the whole of the land in dispute to the Crown." One may, perhaps, be pardoned for suggesting that any other solution of the dispute might have militated against the requirements of "The Land Orders and Scrip Act, 1858;" if so, then all Dr. Featherston's statements which appear so repeatedly in his reports about the prevention of bloodshed must be taken for so much execrable cant, manufactured in the Native Office, and published by the Minister of the doctrines of that most beauteous establishment.

The following is the exception clause: –

X. EXTRAORDINARY PROVISIONS.

"LXXXII. And whereas by an Act of the General Assembly of New Zealand intituled 'The Land Orders and Scrip Act, 1858,' it was provided that in certain cases within the Province of Wellington holders of Land Orders issued by the New Zealand Company and purporting to grant certain rights of selection should be entitled to select land in respect of such Land. Orders within any blocks of land laid out by the New Zealand Company for selection at Manawatu or elsewhere within the said Province whenever the Native title to such blocks should be extinguished

and by the same Act it was further provided that if the Superintendent of the said Province should set apart or reserve out of any of the said blocks lands for a township or otherwise as in the said Act mentioned then and in that case the holders of such Land Orders should be entitled to select land in respect thereof out of any land laid out as rural land within any district the Native title whereto should at the time or within two years afterwards be extinguished. And whereas by reason of the indefinite extent over which the rights of selection so conferred as aforesaid may be held to run disputes may hereafter arise as to how far such rights would interfere with the operation of this Act and for the purpose of preventing such disputes it is expedient to define and limit the exercise of such rights in manner hereinafter mentioned.

"Be it enacted that all rights of selection by the said Act conferred upon the holders of Land Orders of the New Zealand Company within the Province of Wellington shall be exercisable within the block of land called 'Manawatu Block'

"Bounded by a line commencing at the mouth of the Ohau River and passing with a bearing 99 deg. to the Tararua and Ruahine Ranges to the source of the Oroua River thence by a line bearing 282 deg. to the Rangitikei River thence by the Rangitikei River to the sea coast thence by the sea coast to the commencing point.

"Whenever the Native title to the said block shall have been ceded to Her Majesty and not otherwise or elsewhere and the said block shall accordingly be and be deemed to have been excepted from the operation of this Act."

In 1863, a dispute arose between the Ngatiapa and the Ngatiraukawa. It would appear that the Ngatiapa, – not satisfied with having been spared by the Ngatiraukawa when urged by Te Rauparaha to slay them all, 4 and with having had all their land to the north of the Rangitikei River restored to them by their conquerors, any reserves when the land was sold having been made for the exclusive benefit of, and all the purchase money paid to and spent by, the Ngatiapas, the Ngatiraukawas allowing this to be done on the understanding that such was a discharge in full of all Ngatiapa claims, – attempted in 1863 to assert their claim to the block south of the river. Had the Government not interfered at that time, the Ngatiraukawa could at least have held their own; but they agreed to refer the matter to arbitration, stipulating that the evidence should be taken of His Honor, Donald M'Lean, and the Rev. Samuel Williams. The Government instead of simply ascertaining who were in

possession of the block at the time the Treaty was signed, and compelling the Natives to submit to the conditions of the Treaty of Waitangi, sent as mediator the gentleman who had induced the Assembly to introduce the Manawatu exception clause into "The Native Lands Act;" the gentleman of whom Parakaia says in his petition: "All Dr. Featherston did in his capacity of judge was to try and buy the land for himself, and to give his support to Ngatiapa, followed by his false statement that he saved these tribes from death;" and of whom I may say, in his own words, that he "endeavoured to foment tribal strife and frustrate (facilitate) the purchase;" then represents himself as trotting about among the "six tribes" like a kind and good old Aaron, staying the war-plague through the happy medium of his censer of five-and-twenty thousand golden horse power.

The fact of the names of certain men of the Ngatiapa tribe appearing in some of the leases of portions of the block is made a great handle of by the Government. Mr. Fox in his memorandum dated Rangitikei, August 19, 1863, states: – "It is believed that most, if not all, of the leases were originally arranged with Nepia Taratoa, the principal chief of the Ngatiraukawas, though members of other tribes are also parties to them, or some of them." The non-sellers state that the leases were drawn out at a time when the country was in a very disturbed state; that Nepia Taratoa, who was living on the side of the block nearest the Ngatiapa settlements, being anxious to conciliate them, wished them to have a portion of the rents; the majority of the chiefs, whilst disapproving of the arrangement, knowing the leases to be irregular and illegal, allowed the matter to pass, with the understanding that it did not interfere with the title to the land. Mr. Buller states, in his report dated December 31, 1862, which he repeats in his report dated 31st August, 1863: – "With the lapse of years the Ngatiapa have come to regard their claim as one of absolute right, in every respect equal to that of the present holders; while the latter, always regarding the Ngatiapa claim as one of sufferance, are disposed to ignore it altogether." The Ngatiraukawa chiefs give as the reason for their having been so kind to the Ngatiapas of late, that their Missionaries were always telling them that under the Christian law they were "all one flesh," victors and vanquished alike, and "urged them to act a generous part towards those who had been so harshly treated in past years." 5 Ngatiapa now say that Ngatiraukawa should go back to Maungatautari for their land. The Judges of the Native Lands Court ridicule Ngatiraukawa's claim to Maungatautari. Ngatiraukawa had better abide by the law of the Land Court, or between the two laws they are likely to go to the wall! They may now in their turn tell their Missionaries, to go and preach their "one flesh" doctrines to Dr. Featherston and the General Assembly. The following appears in the journal of James Grindell,

interpreter, dated July 31, 1858, published among the reports of the Native Land Purchase Department: – "When the Ngatiraukawa first established themselves in the country, each division of the tribe claimed and took formal possession of certain tracts, as their share of the conquest, of which they forthwith became the sole proprietors, and of which they ever afterwards retained possession." This applies to the whole of the Manawatu-Rangitikei block, and taken with the third clause of the Treaty as interpreted by Dr. Featherston in 1860, and the Judges of the Native Lands Court at a later period, would appear to give the Ngatiraukawa a clear title from the Crown to the whole of the block. It is almost a wonder that Dr. Featherston. could not see it in that light, leaving the Ngatiapa to sue for any moneys they might consider due to them on account of the irregular and illegal leases in which Nepia Taratoa had allowed some of them to join.

Extract from a Despatch from Sir G. Grey, K. C. B., to His Grace the Duke of Newcastle.

"Government House, 17th December, 1863,

"MY LORD DUKE –

"4th. I ought to mention to your Grace that I believe I was the first to recommend the forfeiture of lands by those Natives who took up arms against us, and. I did so for the following reasons: – Because such a proceeding is in conformity with their own customs. It will affect lands of those who have forced us into war, and leaves secure to the Native owners who have remained at peace, their large landed possessions in other parts of the Island. They will thus, from contrast, see the advantages secured by being protected by British rule, and the punishment which follows wanton attacks upon the European race and their properties. At the same time, from enactments recently made, the well-disposed Natives who retain their lands can deal as they please with them.

"I have, &c, «
"(Signed) G. GREY."

Extract from a copy of a reply from Governor Sir G. Grey, K. C. B., to the letter of the Aborigines Protection Society.

"Government House, Auckland, April 7, 1864.

"SIR –

"... The object of the local Government, therefore, has been to secure to that numerous part of the Native population who have taken no active share in the present war, the whole of their landed possessions; and, also by laws framed expressly for this object, to give to the lands held by such Natives a value greater than they have previously had for their owners, by, in all respects, giving

them equal rights in their landed possessions with those enjoyed by their European fellow-subjects: the intention in this respect being to show that the rights of peaceable citizens, of whatever race, are carefully respected, and to give the Natives so valuable a stake in the country that they are not likely hereafter to hazard it lightly.

"I have, &c,
"(Signed) G. GREY."

It is a pity Sir G. Grey, K. C. B., did not, at the same time, inform "My Lord Duke," and the Aborigines Protection Society, that, at the time he wrote, from 400,000 to 500,000 acres of fine land, chiefly the property of the loyal and peaceable Ngatiraukawa, were excepted from the operation of "The Native Lands Act:" – almost as good as confiscated – the owners fairly bailed up, their rents impounded, in order and to the very good end that those lands might fall an easy prey to the Superintendent and Provincial Government of Wellington. Verily, hath it not been written, "Man in his best estate is altogether vanity."

In 1865 the Natives sent a petition to the Assembly, praying that the exception clause might be abolished from "The Native Lands Act." The fact of their petition having been rejected is generally attributed to log-rolling. One honorable member, who has figured largely in the Ministries of the Colony, if not to his own credit at least to the infinite damage of the colonists' pockets, having promised to support the petition, afterwards gave as his reason for not doing so, that "He saw how the matter was going, that he could do no good, therefore walked out of the House." Another honorable member frankly admitted, "The fact is, we were obliged to log-roll!" Long may these two gentlemen live alike an ornament and a comfort to their adopted country. Long may they live, occasionally to represent the Provincial Government of Auckland in the General Assembly of New Zealand. The following is the petition: –

"To the Great Council of New Zealand, at Wellington assembled.

"Tawhirihoe, Rangitikei, April 24, 1865.

"To – MANTELL, –

"Friend – Salutations to you, and to the members of the Council of the Government. This is an inquiry by us, the residents of the district lying between Ohau and Rangitikei, what is the reason that Rangitikei and Manawatu are excluded from the permissive law of the Government of New Zealand ("Native Lands Act, 1862")? Rangitikei, Manawatu, and on to Ohau, are in your prison-house. Great is the grief that has come upon us on account of your having enacted two courses of law for New Zealand – one a law for opening (permissive); the other a law for closing (prohibitory). Rather let them all (both) be open. If you persist in closing up our small piece between Ohau and Rangitikei, great will be our grief at our imprisonment by you.

It would be better to make the permission general, that there may be but one law for our Island; lest some live in gladness of heart, and others in darkness of heart: that is to say, they who enjoy the permissive law, have gladness; while to us, who are bound in your prison-house, there is darkness of heart. Therefore, we, the chiefs of the district, thus restricted by you, request of you, the members of the Government, that you will remove this ill-working restriction from our territory, and permit us to go on our way in lightness, joy, and gladness of heart."

(159 Signatures.)

"May 5th, 1865.
"These men are of Horowhenua, and to be included in the matter of removing the restriction from everything, that they may all live in joy and gladness of heart."

(21 Signatures.)

These all advocate the removal of the restriction – that is, the removal of the prohibition on land leasing; even down to the smaller matters. Some have not been subscribed because they are absent about their business.

"Ohau, May 9th, 1865.

"To IHAKARA, –

"Friend, we have heard your proposal through Te Peina. It is well that you should attend to the alteration of evil regulations. That also is what we are for thrusting aside, that the mana of the Governor may not rest upon our lands, even as also your desire is. Rather let his mana light upon Manawatu, and the lands of (sold by) Hirawanu, the lands which have properly become his; that would be right: but this work of the Governor is wrong. Be strong in your condemnation of your evil-working regulations. The end."

(17 Signatures.)

In April, 1866, the Superintendent purchased the Manawatu Block, said to contain 250,000 acres, from five tribes to whom the land did not belong, the sixth tribe, the Ngatiraukawa, with very few exceptions, refusing to sell (see Appendix, Dr. Featherston's report). Dr. Featherston states, "It was tacitly admitted by Aperahama te Ruru and Nepia (both Ngatiraukawas) that although they were now opposing the sale, they could not suggest any other way of settling their quarrel with the Ngatiapa." How could they? Their rents were impounded. Dr. Featherston tells them that to attempt to settle the matter by arbitration, by a division of the land, or by investigation in a court of justice, would be a mere farce. Parakaia in his petition exclaims, "Alas! for the treaty of Waitangi;" might not these men have exclaimed, "Alas! for the grand desire of the British colonists, whatever can have become of it." Those two men have since signed the deed of cession.

The following appears in a memorandum drawn by the Ministers in 1860: – "The grand desire of the British colonists in respect of the Natives, is to see the Maori people rendered amenable, in their dealings with the settlers to British law.... that all the inhabitants of New Zealand should be subjected to the control of one equal law."

The following is in Mr. Weld's memorandum, drawn in 1860, in reply to Sir William Martin: – "The practical issue now, is whether the natives are peaceably to appeal to the justice of the British Government for the recognition of their rights, or whether, if they think those rights are infringed, they are to resort to force of arms." In Mr. Richmond's memorandum: – "One practical issue now being tried, is, whether the Natives are in future to trust to the justice of the British Government for the recognition of their rights, or to force of arms."

In a despatch from Mr. Cardwell to Sir George Grey is the following: –

"Downing Street, 26th April, 1864.

"I conclude by expressing an earnest hope that the operations in which General Cameron has been engaged may have already terminated the war, and shall rejoice when I am able to congratulate you on having succeeded, by the wisdom of your measures and those of your Government, by the skill of that distinguished commander, and by the valour of the Queen's troops and seamen, in restoring the blessings of order and good government to the country intrusted to your care.

"I have, &c,
"EDWARD CARDWELL."

On the 14th April, 1866, the Land Purchase Commissioner, Her Majesty's agent, after ridiculing alike the idea of attempting to settle the dispute between the tribes by arbitration, by a division of the land, or by having the claims of the various tribes investigated in the Native Lands Court, says, "He now gathered that the six tribes assembled before him were all but unanimous in scouting every one of these proposals, and were more than ever convinced that the only possible solution of the dispute was, to use their own words, an absolute sale of the whole of the land in dispute to the Crown, and after having for many days patiently heard all they had to say, he had no hesitation in expressing his entire concurrence in that conviction." He concludes by telling the Natives "he had no difficulty in publicly announcing his public acceptance of the block." (See Appendix.)

It must be very satisfactory to the British tax-payers to be told by Dr. Featherston, the New Zealand Land Purchase Commissioner, that, after ten regiments of British soldiers have been sent to New Zealand at their expense, after the expenditure of a vast amount of "British blood and treasure," after His Excellency Sir George Grey's government had succeeded in desolating the

homes of the Maori, decimating their tribes, confiscating their lands to the Crown, inflicting a vast amount of misery upon the Maori race, compelling them (as the Whanganui Chronicle hath it) "naked and famine-stricken to submit to the force of circumstances," inflicting upon a large section of Her Majesty's subjects of the high spirited Maori race, that dull depression, that gloom, that taedium vitae which slays with the hand of death, – after having trampled under foot the work of British Societies in this country, driving the Natives to Hau-hauism, to debauchery and to crime – all for the avowed purpose of asserting in this land the supremacy of law, "the grand desire of the British colonists in respect of the Natives," is now as far as ever from being realized. It must be very satisfactory to that modern colonial representative of British heroism, by name called Charles Heaphy, to learn that he has fought and that he has bled (query did he bleed) in vain, that the V. C. that has been bestowed upon him by his Sovereign, and which he wears with so much pride, so far from being an honour, is, all things considered, a disgrace alike to the Colony, to his fellow colonists, and to himself. Yea and verily is not the Native chief Ihakara now, as ever, justified in saying, "you Pakehas are a set of humbugs."

The following will show a marked contrast between the sellers and non-sellers. Dr. Featherston reports thus (see Appendix) of what passed at a meeting held on 28th March: – "Governor Hunia mode a still more violent speech against the other tribes, openly boasted that they (the Ngatiapas) had now plenty of arms and ammunition, and could easily drive off their opponents, and that they would now prefer an appeal to arms to any other course. He almost hinted that they had, during the West Coast campaign, reserved their ammunition for that purpose." On the 14th April, "Ihakara and the leading selling chiefs were more earnest than before in pressing the sale of the block, while Hunia to Hakeke openly declared that if the meeting should break up without the sale having been effected, he would return at once to pa building, and would decide the question of title by a trial of strength with the Ngatiraukawa."

"Parakaia (a non-seller) again brought forward his scheme for a settlement of the question (by a reference to the Land Court) which was scouted by the Ngatiapa."

The following letter, written by a Ngatiraukawa chief, was published in the Wellington Advertiser: –

"To the Colonists of New Zealand.
"Manawatu, 7th February, 1867.

"OUR ELDER BROTHERS, – We wish to ask you why you thus treat us, who are dwelling in peace and quietness? For now seven-and-twenty years we have lived peaceably under the protection of the Queen and under the law. We have been guilty of no wrong, and have always upheld the right. For what reason is justice now withheld? Your constant cry has been –

'Let the law investigate.' That investigation you have now denied to us. You cast the law – the protector – on one side, and you 'jump upon the land.'

"Is it right that an innocent man should be condemned unheard? Docs not the same law apply to the land? Or is it just to treat as naught what is generally admitted to be right according to the common custom of mankind? – to send a man guiltless to prison, there to dwell in darkness? Is it just that a man who has been guilty of no fault, should be driven to dwell in sadness – denied the right of inquiry?

"We know that you claim Waikato and all the land that you have conquered; you claim it by right of conquest; that conquest is but of recent date. It was thus that we got possession, many years since, of Rangitikei and of the country down this coast. Now you say that it is not right that Maori usages should become law.

"Our elder brothers, there is no injustice with the law; the law is impartial; man is insolent and unjust. Witness your springing, regardless alike of law and justice, upon Rangitikei. The saying is your's – 'Let the law decide.'

"Te Waharoa came to you, he asked you to give him back Waikato. You replied, 'That cannot be, it would not be just.' Now why do you take Rangitikei out of our hands, and give it back to Ngatiapa? Here is a Maori proverb, 'Well done, thou parent with the double tongue!'

"Here is another of your precepts which we are carefully laying to heart. You have always assured us that the land of those who dwell in peace shall be protected to them by the law. Permit us to ask you where are those laws; are they asleep; whatever can have become of them?

"Our elder brothers, we wish you to explain to us what you mean by living quietly – by dwelling in peace. You have told us to live peaceably: we have done so, we are now found fault with. What sort of living in peace is it that you require of us? It is but just that they who disturb the peace should perish by the sword, and that their land should be forfeited. In our case, to those who have been guilty of no fault – who are dwelling peaceably under the law, you have denied the protection of law. Why are love and mercy withheld from those who are peaceably inclined, and who are always ready to submit to the law?

"Look you in our opinion. On the first occasion, at Wairau, the enlightened guide was the first to fall, after him the blind. Likewise at the Waitara, the enlightened guide first fell, the blind followed. On the third occasion, at the Waikato, for the first time, they both fell together into the deep. Our elder brothers, is this burden to be constantly borne? It is well sometimes to reflect: reflect then on your own conduct; be not too hard upon that of your younger brother; he is but a poor ignorant fellow.

"As the matter now stands, you have hidden away the law lest by it your treatment of innocent men, who are constant in their respect for that which is right, should be brought to light; and you have lowered the name of the Queen by using it as a menace to a loyal and unoffending people, who are striving to obey the law, and keep the peace.

"Our elder brothers, it rests with you to set this matter right. Permit the eye of the law to look into these wrongs of innocent and peaceable men. Cease from withholding the law.

"From your younger brothers,
"From NGATIRAUKAWA."

After Dr. Featherston's formal acceptance of the block, in 1866, the Ngatiraukawas paid repeated visits to Wellington, for the purpose of protesting against the proceedings of the Land Purchase Commissioner; they also petitioned the Governor, the Assembly, and the Ministers, to have the title to the land investigated in a court of justice. Their prayers were wholly disregarded. These Natives have now petitioned the Queen of England for justice and protection – besides Parakaia's petition, there are some five others from men of different hapus. The petitioners represent some two hundred and fifty men, who with their wives and children will number at least seven hundred Natives. It has been repeatedly stated by the Wellington Independent, the organ of the Provincial Government, that Parakaia and a few Natives at Otaki are the only opponents to the sale of the block. Parakaia and some thirty men with him own 11,800 acres which they have surveyed. A largo portion of their land consists of sand-hills, the other hapus own much larger blocks, consisting mostly of excellent land. The greater number of these men are living upon the block. There are many of the Natives who have a far larger interest at stake than Parakaia, and though every effort has been made to bribe and intimidate him, he has fought manfully and well for his people's rights. Parakaia, unlike the New Zealand Land Purchase Commissioners, is a noble-minded man.

So far from these petitions being attended to, the General Assembly passed a bill authorizing the raising of a loan of £30,000 for the purchase of the Manawatu Block. The debentures not having been disposed of in time, His Excellency's Ministers supplied the money which was paid down by Dr. Featherston in December, 1866. These unfortunate Natives were then told that "their land was all gone to the Queen; that it was all 'fighting ground;' that the six tribes had all met together and sold the whole block to Dr. Featherston; that there would be no further investigation as to title; that they had better sign the deed of cession and take what money was offered them; that whether they did so or not the land was gone." The above is well-known and can be proved in any court of justice – I have heard the story from many of the Natives. The following is an

extract from a letter to myself from Akapita Te Tewe, a Ngatiraukawa native: – "Mr. Buller offered me money and asked me to sign the deed of cession of Rangitikei. I replied 'I will not take any of your money, none whatever.' Mr. Buller replied, 'You will not like being passed over in the distribution of the money, for the land is in Dr. Featherston's hands; you had better take some money at once lest it be all gone, and you be missed.' I replied, 'What do I care about your money being all spent, my land will be left.' Mr. Buller replied with a laugh. That Pakeha said, 'have you not heard that Rangitikei has been publicly handed over to Dr. Featherston and the Government; that there will be no further investigation?'" The following is an extract from a letter sent to me by Henere Te Herekau: – "These are the threatening words used to me by Mr. Buller on the 4th April, 1866. Mr. Buller said to me, 'I saw Ngatiapa armed with guns and cartouche boxes; they were coming to set fire to your houses on this side of Rangitikei. Ngatiapa said to me, "Buller, keep Ngatiraukawa away from Rangitikei or we shall fire upon them." Buller said to me, 'You must give your consent and sell this land to me, lest you be killed by Ngatiapa.' On April 14th we asked to have the title investigated. Mr. Buller replied, 'The title to this land cannot be investigated in the Supreme Court. Your opponents will not agree to investigation, nor will Dr. Featherston and I allow it; better sell the block, and when we have got it we will mark off reserves for you.' On 6th March, at Puketotara, Mr. Buller said, 'It is all nonsense your opposing my work; this land is in our hands; the land belongs to the Queen; you had better take the money; whether you take it or no the land is gone to the Queen.'"

These Natives, who are among the most loyal and peaceable men in New Zealand, petitioned the Assembly and the Ministers. (See Appendix.) They might as well have petitioned the east wind. What care the General Assembly for the character or the "grand desire" of the New Zealand colonists? What care they for the Christianity or for the welfare of Her Majesty's subjects of the Maori race? What care they for Great Britain's Treaty? What care they for the honour of Great Britain's Crown? Perish the character of the New Zealand colonists, perish their "grand desire," perish the Christianity of the Maori, perish the Maori race, perish Great Britain's Treaty, perish the honour of Great Britain's Crown.

These Natives went to Wellington to see the Governor; they also wrote several letters to His Excellency protesting against the proceedings of the Land Purchase Commissioners. (See Appendix.) A few days before the purchase money was paid down by Dr. Featherston, Sir G. Grey sent a special messenger to Otaki to fetch Parakaia and Rawiri, two of the principal non-sellers. The notes of what passed at their interview, as written by the two Natives a day or two after the interview took place, are here subjoined. I am told that Mr. Puckey, who was pre-

sent, questions the correctness of some of their statements. Parakaia and Rawiri are well known – they both bear high character. Sir G. Grey sent for them, knowing them to be thoroughly trustworthy. So satisfied was he with the assurance they gave him that there would not be any fighting, that he next day left on a tour of visits to the settlements in the Middle Island. Parakaia published their account of the meeting in the Wellington Advertiser. I believe if the Europeans and Natives who were present could all be examined upon oath, there would not be very much difference in their statements. Two young men who are Maori scholars say what Parakaia published is word for word what the Natives repeated to them a few hours after the interview closed. Doubtless Sir G. Grey was right in allowing these people's land to be excepted from the Native Lands Act, and their rents to be impounded. Doubtless he was right in denying to these men the protection of law, in telling Parakaia to "Consent to the sale of Rangitikei – give it up to Dr. Featherston; if you persist in retaining it you will quarrel amongst yourselves about it," seeing that Dr. Featherston is prepared "to make them an award in land to the extent of such claims as are admitted by the sellers." Doubtless he was right, having satisfied himself that these men would not fight, in leaving them, with the Treaty of Waitangi, to their fate. Sir G. Grey is no ordinary man; he is Governor Sir G. Grey, K. C. B., England's model Governor and famous dispatch writer – who came all the way from the Cape Colony to New Zealand to restore peace to this distracted land. Doubtless he was right. Doubtless it is right that there should be certain islands, by name called the Chathams, to which are sent New Zealand's political offenders and defaulters.

"Otaki, May 11, 1867.
"To Thomas Williams, –

"DEAR FRIEND, – Will you publish the enclosed, being a report of what was said by Governor Grey and myself. I wish it to be read by both the Pakehas and Maoris. I was foolish enough to suppose that when he sent for me it was to tell me something good – that he would instruct Dr. Featherston to keep back his money; but when I saw him he only told me to give up the land; that if I persisted, in holding the land the Maoris and the Government would fight. I assured him there would not be any fighting. No sooner did he satisfy himself upon this point than he forgot all about our being brought to grief by this dishonest land purchasing of the Government of Wellington. This is all from your friend,

"PARAKAIA TE POUEPA."

"Wellington, Government House,
"November 26th, 1866.

"This is what was said about Rangitikei.

"Governor Grey – Parakaia, the reason why I have sent

for you is that I am alarmed. Trouble is near; this is what I fear, and why I wished to learn what you think about Rangitikei. I am much alarmed. Hostilities are now likely to take place at our end of this island. What I now desire is that you should consent to the sale of Rangitikei – give it up to Dr. Featherston. If you persist in retaining it you will quarrel among yourselves about it.

"Parakaia – You do well to be alarmed at the probability of hostilities, but go and talk to Featherston. What has been said about fighting does not proceed from me; that threat of fighting came from Featherston's friends.

"Governor – Those tribes, Whanganui, Ngatiapa, and Ngatikahununu, are angry because you refused to sell Rangitikei. I am grieved, very much grieved, about this, Parakaia.

"Parakaia – I was not aware that those tribes intended to fight. It must be Dr. Featherston having offered them money caused them to be elated, and to act in that way. What right would men have to go from this to Taranaki to fight? Should we think of going to fight about the land belonging to the men of Ahuriri, as you say Ngatikahununu are coming over here to the country of these tribes without any cause, for the purpose of stirring up strife; besides, it is not my business to lecture those tribes, it is your duty to admonish them.

"Governor – Don't be headstrong, Parakaia; if you are obstinate you will only be drawing other people into trouble. You resemble a man hauling on to the rope of a canoe, until suddenly it is smashed on a rock. You are also drawing the Government into a war there.

"Parakaia – I am not responsible for that war (which you imagine will come); that talk about fighting comes from Featherston's friends.

"Governor – If you will yield to what I advise, just sign your name to the deed of cession, and say to the people – 'I have assented to sell this land to the Government. Featherston will take care that my piece of land shall be excluded from the block which is alienated, as well as the lands of those who are opposing the sale.' And say to Featherston, 'Have their lands excluded from the alienated portions.' This is a prudent course to adopt. Sign your names to the deed, that your own pieces of land maybe secure; these will not then be touched. 6

"Parakaia – Why have you not hitherto advised me during these months that have elapsed? Had you spoken then I could have communicated what you said to the tribe for their careful consideration, which possibly by this time might have been

agreed to; but the day of trouble about Rangitikei is near at hand – it is too late now to deliberate with my tribe. Besides, had I been dealing with McLean (who understands these questions) instead of Featherston, I might be induced to think there was some feasible plan in what you two propose. For Featherston made me a similar offer; I declined it. He pressed me to consent to the sale of Rangitikei, and promised me money. I declined it, and said, I am not a servant working for hire; no master said to me retain your land, I retain it of my own accord.

"Governor – Parakaia, you possess land in many parts of this Island – you have lands at Maungatautari and elsewhere. Give up this particular piece of land to the Government, in order that the Government may treat you with consideration, in reference to your claims to those other lands.

"Parakaia – Stay! one thing at a time. You are now confusing the matter in hand with irrelevant allusions to other land claims.

"Governor – What I meant was that the course for the Government might be clear; in my opinion that is right.

"Parakaia – I said to you some months ago, speak out your mind; do not remain silent, lest your silence be taken advantage of by Dr. Featherston as a consenting to his evil doings. Had you spoken then, what you now aim at might have been accomplished; but now I am taken aback, I am not clear what to do. I said earnestly on a previous occasion, Governor, speak out your mind.

"Governor – My son, I did speak before; nevertheless I now speak again distinctly. I am right in what I now propose; you are to blame in refusing to attend to it.

"Parakaia – What can I do? Can I break a tough tree? The tribe has come to a determination not to sell. I have no power to alter their resolution. I might now, perhaps, influenced by fear of you, give a hasty and useless assent to sell; but what then?

"Governor – If you fear me, give your assent. I am a wrathful Governor; assent.

"Parakaia – If it were Maori anger I should be afraid; but it is a Governor who is angry. I trust he will soon see he is angry without a just cause.

"Governor – My words are good: you are a madman; you ought to be sent to the lunatic asylum at Karore.

"Parakaia – You ought to send Featherston to the madhouse at Karore. I am no madman. The land on one side of this block has long since been ceded to you; you heard then that there was a determination to retain this portion. Subsequently Governor Browne and McLean endeavoured to purchase it, but we refused to sell. Those other tribes did not take it from us at that time. You have obtained both the Lower and Upper Manawatu blocks; this is comparatively a small portion which

we are retaining. Let Nepia, Takana, Hoeta, Wiriharai, and all the other owners of the various portions first give their assent to the sale; my assent will then follow and be of use; but for me to venture and take the lead, and give a futile assent to the sale, is beyond my power. There is a fixed determination not to sell Rangitikei. I can now do nothing in the matter. With reference to what you say about fighting, we have nothing to do with that; it is for the Governor to put that down. Two men with conflicting interest will continue to quarrel. Now you are connected with England, Featherston with New Zealand. Owing to the troubles arising from land purchases conducted in this same faulty way, you came here to restore peace. It is Dr. Featherston's duty to maintain the peace. It is for Parakaia's chief – for you are my chief – to mediate and judge. Attend now to what I say. My own piece of land is distinct; it has been surveyed; it is, comparatively with the block, a small piece (meaning his and his immediate friends). Nepia's is small, Rawiri's is small, Takana's is small, so is Whiriharai's, Hoeta's, so is each man's on to the end. They will none of them consent to part with their lands.

"The Governor turned to Puckey (the interpreter) to inquire about Nepia's name. Some conversation took place. The Governor then told Puckey to ask Rawiri to speak, that he might hear whether he thought the Governor or Parakaia had taken the more satisfactory view of the question.

"Rawiri te Wanui said – Their discussion has made nothing clear to my mind. But this is what I have to say. The old men of the tribe are dead; their resolution to retain this land for the use of the tribe still holds good, and the Governor was plainly informed of their determination at the time. This talk about holding Rangitikei is nothing new – questions about other places in this Island are of later date. Rangitikei still goes on. We who are alive shall not depart from the determination of those who are dead. But with regard to this talk about fighting, it never came from those who are dead, nor shall that evil word originate from us, their children, who survive.

"Governor – You two did well to come to me. I am satisfied. It is well. Parakaia, our talk is ended.

"Present – Hon. J. C. Richmond, Mr. Puckey, Mr. Halse, Parakaia Tokoroa, and Rawiri Te Wanui."

"[TRANSLATION.]

"(To the Editor of the Advertiser.)
"Otaki, August 1, 1867.

"SIR, – Please to publish my letter in your paper. I hear that Mr. Puckey questions the accuracy of the account given in your paper of Parakaia's interview with the Governor. Attend. I was Parakaia's companion, and heard all that was said by the Governor and him. I confirm all Parakaia's statement contained

in the account in your paper. This is an accurate account of what passed between them at the Governor's house. When we returned to our house in the Maori village, Parakaia immediately began to write down what had been paid. It was not finished there, but on our return to Otaki it was carefully finished.,

"RAWIRI TE WANUI."

In the New Zealand Herald, Auckland, Monday, July 1867, received last evening, is the following: –

RUSSELL.
"NATIVE FIGHT NEAR WAIMATE – 7 NATIVES KILLED – MANY WOUNDED – FURTHER HOSTILITIES PENDING.
"(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

"July 12.

"The 'Sea Breeze' is just off, and I have only just time to write a few lines. News has just come in that the Natives I told you of in my last as likely to come to blows, near the Waimate, and through the exertions of the R. M. for the district, had separated and gone to their kaingas, had re-assembled and had a skirmish, killing seven – three on Wi Katene's side, and four on Piripi Korongohi's – besides several wounded. Amongst the killed are Renata Kawana, from Oramahoe; Piripi, Maioha, Te Maura; and the wounded, Pene Wharo Oneone, and Rautara, a son-in-law of old Kawiti.

"As they have made such a beginning there is no knowing where it will end, as all the relations of the dead men will, I suppose, go in for 'utu' for their friends.

"The piece of land in dispute is only about 411 acres, though, I believe, valuable."

It may be a matter of wonder to some that the Natives at the Bay of Islands, who have remained loyal throughout the whole of the late disturbances, should fight amongst themselves about the ownership of a small piece of land. The answer is a simple one. During the war with Heke and Kawiti, a small tribe of Natives living at a place called the Kawakawa, with others, Tamati Walker's people, &c, assisted the military against their countrymen; they placed their pas, their canoes, their arms, their lives, their all, unreservedly at the disposal of the Government. Some few years afterwards, when the country was quiet, some of Kawiti's people (old Kawiti was then dead) accused a chief living at the Kawakawa with having bewitched (Makutu) one of their people, causing his (or her) death. An armed party without any further ceremony proceeded to their chief's house and shot him dead in his bed at the dawn of day. These Natives, thinking that one good turn deserves another, with Tamati Walker at their head, applied to the Government for assistance in having these

men taken up. The great majority of the Natives would have assisted the Government. They were told in reply that "it was a native affair, and that they must settle it amongst themselves." Well and nobly done through your Representative and agents, Great Britain! Britain, thou art great, thou art mighty, thou art wealthy, thou art honoured amongst the nations of the earth. Go on and prosper – perish my poor brown-skinned countrymen of the Maori race, committed by the Almighty to thy care. What carest thou?

I have often heard a church missionary (a brave and good old man, whose grey hairs, after having expended the whole energies of his life in the service of others, are now being brought with sorrow to the grave, seeing the fruits of his own labour and of his brave colleagues' scattered to the winds, mainly through the instrumentality of the New Zealand Land Purchase Commissioners), tell the following story: – "Shortly after our arrival, I made a bargain with a party of Natives and their chief for a supply of rushes, &c, for building a cottage for my family; they were to be paid in tobacco, so many sticks for so many bundles of rushes. They brought the rushes a day or two afterwards and piled them in heaps, when the chief demanded some four or five times as much tobacco as had been agreed upon, which I refused to give. The fellow commenced to dance about, flourished his tomahawk over my head, and vowed, if the tobacco were not forthcoming, he would kill and eat us all. My interpreters, who knew but little Maori, became frightened, and pressed me to comply with the chiefs demand. Not a word was spoken by the crowd. I could not speak a word of Maori. I could only reply by look. At last the chief became exhausted and sat down. After a short time spent in silence, he said, 'give us what was agreed upon.' I placed the requisite number of sticks upon each pile of bundles, and when I came to the old chief I broke off a piece of tobacco an inch long and throw it to him. The result was a burst of uproarious laughter from the crowd, in which the old chief himself joined." This occurred in 1823.

The following story is told by a Judge of the Native Lands Court, of what occurred in his Court at Waimate, Bay of Islands, some two years since: – "The court was full of natives, a young chief came up to give his evidence, when I held out the Bible for him to kiss. He said, 'What shall I do with it, shall I bite it,' and forthwith opened his mouth and bit the book. I did not do it myself, it was my instincts – my arm stretched forth, Bible in hand, and I struck the fellow with all my might on the side of the head, which sent him spinning head over heels to the other end of the court. Not a word was spoken. I, of course, expected to be killed, when, to my astonishment, the man picked himself up, walked up to me, kissed the book reverently, and gave his evidence like a Christian." Why did the Natives in the two cases I have instanced submit? Because they knew that they were in

the wrong and the Pakeha in the right. Why did they fight at Waitara? Because they knew that Pakeha was in the wrong.

When will the rulers in this country learn to treat the Natives, not as so many cattle, but as human beings? It will, I have no doubt, be found that all that the Government have done in the Bay of Islands case is to send a magistrate to the Natives with instructions to preach to them the time-worn "one flesh" doctrines of the old Manawatu Church Missionaries. Why, may I ask, does not the Native Minister go to the Bay of Islands and tell the Natives concerned that inasmuch as they have dared to take up arms and to shed human blood – this being the first offence since the establishment of the supremacy of law in this land – that their only punishment so far will be, that their block of land in dispute, consisting of 411 acres, will be confiscated to the Crown; but that if they dare to fight any more, Charles Heaphy, Esq., V. C., with the Parnell Volunteers, will be sent to the North with instructions to blaze into both sides; that their lands will, to a great extent, be confiscated, and that they will be denied the benefits arising from the Native Lands Act with respect to the remainder. If this were done, there is not a Maori in the land (poor brave fellows that they are – the British soldier says they are brave, and nothing has raised the British soldier more in the writer's estimation than the unwillingness they have displayed throughout to slay the Maori. When did the British soldier – the Irish, the English, and the Scotch soldier – ever yet meet a foeman worthy of their steel, but they made him trot) but would come forward and bare his head, and, if bare, would render it still barer in order that he might do infinite reverence and obedience to Her Majesty. They would point to their desolated homes, their decimated tribes, their confiscated lands, to their rebellion, their down-trodden Christianity, their Hauhauism, their crime, their disease, with the chances of their speedy extinction, to their tomahawks – some of them still reeking with the blood of England's best and bravest – and they would say, this is your doing: why did you not send that Majesty here before? Why did you not govern us upon those principles from the first? If that is the way and those are the principles upon which you mean to govern us for the future, we will lay down our arms, we will take the oath of allegiance, we will let the dead past bury its dead, and we will pledge ourselves henceforth and for evermore hereafter to become loyal subjects of Her Majesty, henceforth and for evermore hereafter to honour, to respect, and to obey the Governor and the Government of New Zealand.

In December, 1866, Dr. Featherston paid down the purchase money, £25,000, to the natives. I quote from the Wellington Independent of 20th December, 1866: – "Thursday, December 13th. The proceedings were short and business-like; Governor Hunia, on behalf of his people, stated that Dr. Featherston's proposal as to the tribal division of the purchase money, had now

been acceded to by all the tribes concerned. He called on his Honor to send at once for the money, and to hand the shares over to the chiefs appointed by their respective tribes to receive them. He had been elected, in conjunction with Aperahama Tipae, to receive the Ngatiapa Rangitane share of £15,000, and he pledged himself to see a fair and equitable division of the money among the several associated tribes. He called on Ihakara and Aperahama Te Huruhuru, who had been appointed in like manner by their tribes, to be equally careful of the interests of all claimants. The Ngatiraukawa replied in friendly and conciliatory terms, and assured Dr. Featherston that they would make ample provision for the few dissentients of their tribe who had refused to sign the deed, and would, if necessary, hand their allotted shares over to his Honor for safe custody." "Governor Hunia apologized publicly for having torn down the Queen's flag, assuring his Honor that it was not done out of any spirit of disloyalty to the Queen, but because of the 'gloom of his tribe,' and in the hope that it would precipitate the breaking up of the meeting. Dr. Featherston (through Mr. Buller) replied in an appropriate speech." "After which, Governor Hunia, as the representative of the Ngatiapa tribe and their allies, and Ihakara as the representative of the Ngatiraukawa, headed a procession to the flagstaff, holding between them the tin case containing the Manawatu deed of cession, which they placed on a table at the foot of the staff. Mr. Buller then opened the large roll of parchment, and read aloud to the assembled tribes the deed of final surrender. Dr. Featherston, as Land Purchase Commissioner, then came forward and signed the deed in due form, the signature being attested by the following witnesses: – Howard Kennard, gentleman, London; C. Wentworth Dilke, B. A., Barrister at Law, London; C. Hillingsworth, B. A., London; and Walter Buller, Resident Magistrate, Whanganui. The tribes then chanted a song of farewell to the land, with its forests and lakes, its cultivations and its fisheries, and parted for ever with it (according to their own expression) 'under the shining sun of the day.' "Saturday, December 15th. – Dr. Featherston addressed the people, through Mr. Buller, R. M., to the following effect: – He said – "That before handing over the at £25,000 in final completion of the Manawatu purchase, he had a pleasing duty to perform towards a chief who had taken an active part in the long, difficult, and tedious negotiations now successfully concluded. He was anxious to give Governor Hunia, in the presence of the assembled tribes, some token of his approbation. He had decided in his own mind that the signet ring which he was about to present to him was the most appropriate token, because of its symbolic associations. It was hardly necessary for him to explain that in the holy institution of matrimony the ring is the pledge or token of the solemn vows that are made at the altar; and that in like manner, he desired to symbolize the

establishment of a firm and lasting friendship between the Ngatiapa and Ngatiraukawa tribes.

"His Honor then placed the ring on Governor Hunia's finger, with the words – 'Let this ring be a token that there is no longer enmity between the tribes, and that henceforward they will live together on terms of mutual good will, in friendship with the Pakeha, and in loyalty to our Gracious Queen! And, Governor Hunia, long may you live to wear it!'

"The formal handing over of the money then took place, after which the tribes assembled under the Queen's flag, to hear Governor Hunia's speech in reply."

"The £15,000 for the Ngatiapa and Rangitane, and their allies, was paid over to Governor Hunia and Aperahama Tipae: and the £10,000 for Ngatiraukawa and Ngatitoa was paid over to Ihakara Tukumaru and Aperahama Te Huruhuru, these chiefs thereupon signing receipts on the back of the deed, 'on behalf of and in the presence of the assembled tribes,' for the respective amounts."

"The following gentlemen then affixed their names as witnesses to the signatures and payments, viz.: – H. J. Kennard, gentleman, London; C. Wentworth Dilke, Barrister, London; J. E. Illingsworth, B. A.; A. Follet Halcombe, sheep-farmer, Rangitikei; Maillard Noake, J. P., Rangitikei; M. W. Anderson, contractor, Wellington; and Walter Buller, Resident Magistrate, Whanganui."

Thus the Manawatu purchase was completed. Thus £15,000 was paid to the conquered tribes not in possession of the land, and to strangers having no claim, whilst £10,000 was paid to the conquerors in full possession, only a few of whom were present and partook of the money; also to men who laid no claim to the land. I was informed by a Ngatikahununu chief that Governor Hunia assigned to him as his reason for enforcing the sale "that they might be revenged upon the Ngatiraukawa, their old conquerors." However that might be, a day or two after his having been invested with the signet ring, Governor Hunia trotted away with £4,400 of the £5,000 entrusted to his care for the Rangitane. Whether his attempted revenge may prove a success remains to be seen.

Shortly before the money was paid, 24 Ngatiraukawa chiefs went to Wellington and had an interview with the Hon. J. C. Richmond, the Native Minister. The following is their account of what passed: they are not quite clear as to the month: – "We went to Wellington in the month of (September?), 1866; our reason for going was to protest against the sale of our land, and to request that the title to Rangitikei might be investigated. Mr. Richmond heard what we had to say about holding our land, and our protest against our lands being sold by other tribes. He then rose to reply. He said, 'What you say about holding your land is right, but the difficulty is, there is but one bone and there are three dogs biting at that one bone; that is why your holding back

the land is not clear. The great majority of the tribes have agreed to sell Rangitikei; only a small minority are holding it back – this is what bothers the Assembly and the Government.'

"I rose to reply to Mr. Richmond, the Minister. I said, 'Listen, what you say is not quite clear, I am the chief of those dogs. The first bone was the other side of Rangitikei. I handed that over to Ngatiapa. That dog was made quiet, and Ngatiapa agreed to abandon all claim to this other side of Rangitikei. After that the Ngatiraukawa dog began to growl. I allowed him to sell the Awahou. That dog's anger ceased. Afterwards another of the dogs began to be quarrelsome. I allowed him to sell the Ahuoturanga. That dog was satisfied. As for these tribes who are now selling Rangitikei, they have no right, nor will I allow other tribes to sell my land. Would you like your sheep, cattle, horses, or land to be sold by me? You would not like it. You would prefer selling them yourself. That is the way with Rangitikei. I do not agree to allow other tribes to sell my land. If you have not the courage (kaha) to investigate the title to Rangitikei, we will swim across the seas in search of the residence of that Great Lady the Queen.

"This is what was said on the occasion of our third visit; 24 men were present and heard what was said.

"(Signed)
"AKAPITA TE TEWE.
"PARANIHI TE TAU."

The following extract from Dr. Featherston's speech will show that His Excellency's Ministers were consenting parties to the transaction: – "The thanks of the Province are due to his Excellency's Ministers for the readiness with which, in compliance with my request, they advanced (in anticipation of the sale of the land purchase loan) the funds required to enable me to meet my engagements with the Natives."

The following will show how Dr. Featherston proposes to deal with any perverse non-sellers: – "There is, however, still a small number of Ngatiraukawa dissentients to whom, in the event of their persisting in their refusal to accept the sum set apart for them, it may be necessary to make an award in land to the extent of such claims as are admitted by the sellers." Dr. Featherston further says: – "I feel that I am entitled to say that in no previous land purchase has so liberal a price been paid, or such ample justice done to all the Natives concerned in the transaction; and I venture again to express a hope that the Council will, knowing how much the successful issue of these long-pending negotiations is due to Mr. Walter Buller, bestow upon him a substantial recognition of his valuable services." 7

Dr. Featherston paid a visit to Rangitikei and Manawatu a few weeks since, when he told the natives that he should send 500 armed Natives to survey the boundaries of the block. I was.

informed of this by several of the Natives, and have their written statements. The chief Ihakara was one of my informants. Herekau concludes his letter upon the subject thus: – "If you can give us any good advice respecting this evil work, do so, because Ngatiraukawa will not flinch from the snare which is being laid for them by Dr. Featherston." After giving them this piece of information he sent the following memorandum to some of the non-sellers: –

"I agree to refer the claims of non-sellers in the Rangitikei-Manawatu block to arbitration, subject to the following conditions: –

"1. Two arbitrators, either Pakeha or Maori, to be appointed – one by the non-sellers, the other by the Land Purchase Commissioner; such arbitrators being persons entirely disconnected with the land or with the disputants, and wholly disinterested in the question at issue. The arbitrators to appoint an umpire, or the arbitrators and umpire to be appointed by His Excellency the Governor.

"2. The arbitrators to be appointed within one month from the present date, and the arbitration to take place at Rangitikei.

"3. All non-sellers, of whatever rank, to prove their individual claims to the satisfaction of the arbitrators, having previously signed a paper assenting to the proposed arbitration, and pledging themselves to accept, as final, the decision of the arbitrators as to the nature and extent of their claims.

"(Signed) I. E. FEATHERSTON."

The following letter, published in the Wellington Advertiser, contains the natives reply: –

"THE MANAWATU QUESTION.

"Taita, Wellington, July 13, 1867.

"Sir, – In your paper of yesterday's issue you published Dr. Featherston's 'conciliatory memorandum,' in which he 'agrees to refer the claims of non-sellers in the Rangitikei-Manawatu block to arbitration, subject to the following conditions.' You state 'it is impossible to say now in what temper the Natives who have throughout adhered implicitly to the non-selling principle will receive this proffer of conciliation.' The following appears at the foot of a long statement sent to me by the Ngatikauwhata of what passed before Dr. Featherston paid his late visit to Rangitikei: – Dr. Featherston replied, 'I agree to the investigation.' Some of us went to Whanganui to fix a day for the investigation to take place, when Mr. Buller said, 'My friends, you must all agree that this land is in Dr. Featherston's hands. After that we will have an inquiry, and let the judges decide whether there is any land belonging to you in his hands.' We did not agree to that absurd proposal of Mr. Buller's, because we are not aware that our land is in his hands, but what we consent to is that the judges should

try and discover where Dr. Featherston's land is. Dr. Featherston would not agree to our proposal.'

"The following is a statement handed to me by Parakaia: – 'On the 21st and 22nd June Dr. Featherston sent for me to his office. He wanted me to agree to settle Rangitikei by arbitration. He proposed that we should choose two Maoris – one each – and one Pakeha, and that the investigation should take place at Rangitikei. I replied, 'I do not agree that you and I should have a little insignificant investigation, but let the investigation take place at Wellington, that there may be a great number of Pakeha gentlemen to judge between us. You have published in a great many newspapers; I have also done the same; the whole island has been made aware of our dispute. I do not agree to what you propose. I said to him plainly, let there be a great many Pakeha gentlemen present to condemn me, that one and another may say to me – 'Parakaia you are in the wrong; that I may hear them say that you are in the right; perhaps you are afraid of public investigation.' To this he made no reply. I agreed to what he proposed with respect to Paretao; he was to have arranged the matter on the 2nd July, but as he never came he must let that pass.

"PARAKAIA TE POUEPA."

"The following was sent to me by the Natives, being the reply from Ngatikauwhata, the hapu of Ngatiraukawa, to whom Dr. Featherston made the offer of arbitration: – 'I agree that the title to the whole block lying between Rangitikei and Manawatu should be investigated, that it may be found out how far the sellers are in the right, and how far the non-sellers are in the right; that the basis of this investigation be that each hapu have their separate claims investigated to their portions of the block; that the judges shall inquire what land in the block belongs to the sellers – what land belongs to the non-sellers. What we wish is that each hapu should prove their claim as a whole – not that each individual should be called upon to prove his separate claim; that we will not sign our names to Dr. Featherston's paper.'

"From what the natives said to me themselves, I gather that they want to have the whole matter settled according to law. They are standing out for those 'rights' which Dr. Featherston told the House, on August 7th, 1860, 'the Government were bound to respect and preserve inviolate.' They want to see a practical illustration, in 1867, of what has hitherto only appeared in a memorandum drawn in 1860. 'The grand desire of the British colonists in respect of the Natives is to see the Maori people rendered amenable in their dealings with the settlers to British law;' or, as it is expressed further on in the memorandum, 'that all the inhabitants of New Zealand should be subjected in their mutual dealings to the control of one equal law.' – I am, &c,

"THOMAS C. WILLIAMS,
"A Native of New Zealand."

Dr. Featherston buys these men's land from five tribes who have no title whatever to the land, tells them their land is "all gone to the Queen," that there will be "no further investigation as to title, &c," and now, at this late period, offers them arbitration, and calls upon them "to prove their individual claims to the satisfaction of the arbitrators." Dr. Featherston's doing so is simply impertinent, seeing that "Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession." And, as Dr. Featherston told the House, on August 7, 1800, – "It follows that whatever rights, especially territorial, the Natives possessed at the time the treaty was made, the Government is bound to respect and preserve inviolate." With respect to arbitration, Parakaia and his people would have as good a right to purchase any land, for which Dr. Featherston holds a Crown grant, from the original Native owners, and then offer to refer the matter to arbitration, one of the arbitrators to be chosen by the Maoris. Dr. Featherston should now be content to consider the case as closed, so far as he is himself concerned – high time it should be so – and allow others to interfere. The Natives have petitioned Her Majesty to "send persons to investigate carefully this wrong." God grant she may so do.

[TRANSLATION.]

(To our Mother the Queen of England.)

This is my petition, the petition of Parakaia te Pouepa, a Maori, of the Ngatiraukawa tribe, living at Otaki, New Zealand.

In the year 1860 we wrote to your Majesty, making known to you our grief caused by the proceedings of Governor Browne at Waitara, and praying you to send a Governor to investigate that act of injustice of the Government.

Our cry at that time went forth from our love to another people, the Ngatiawa, at Taranaki, and their lands.

I now cry unto your Majesty on behalf of my people and our own land, which land is being taken from us by Dr. Featherston.

We have always borne in mind that your great name alighted justly and peacefully upon New Zealand in the year 1840, through the treaty of Waitangi, that the chiefs of New Zealand then ceded to your Majesty the sovereignty of this island, and we feel assured that your Majesty the Great Queen of England will now on your part protect us, your children, and our lands.

I now write to you respecting the land of my people, lying between the Manawatu and Rangitikei Rivers, in the Province of Wellington.

My tribe, the Ngatiraukawa, gained possession of that country by conquest, in the year 1830, before your Majesty's Sovereignty alighted upon this island, and we have always held possession up to the present time.

I wish to make known to you the regard we showed to former Governors of yours, who came from your presence. In the year 1847, Rangitikei was sold to Governor Grey; in the year 1858, Manawatu was sold to Governor Browne; in the year 1858, also, the Ahuoturanga was sold to Governor Browne. These are large blocks of land that were ceded to your Governors. The desire to sell of those people, Ngatiapa, Rangitane, and a portion of my own tribe, was thus gratified; this portion which I and my people are retaining is comparatively small.

I wish to make known to you our kindness and liberality to those tribes whom we had conquered, and who were spared by us when To Rauparaha urged us to destroy them all. Rangitikei, a large extent of country, we restored to Ngatiapa; Ahuoturanga, also a large extent of country, we restored to Rangitane. Now those tribes and the Government have joined to take forcibly from us this our reserve. These are our houses and our plantations that are being taken – the means of support of my people.

In the year 1862, the Governor and the Assembly established a court for investigating Maori lands.

I wish to make known to you that it was only the land of my people, of Ngatiraukawa, that was excluded from that court.

In the year 1863, Ngatiapa came to disturb my people. They came with guns in their hands – my people also rose up with guns in their hands. I wrote to Governor Grey and Mr. Fox, the Minister, requesting them to send Mr. McLean to investigate (whakawa) Rangitikei. I received a letter from Mr. McLean, wherein he expresses his willingness to do so. But Dr. Featherston came instead, in the year 1864. We he came we had ceased from contention, and were patiently awaiting the arrival of Mr. McLean, the man whom we preferred as judge between us. All Dr. Featherston did in his capacity of judge was to try and buy the land for himself, and to give his support to Ngatiapa, followed by his false statement that he saved these tribes from death.

In the year 1865, my people petitioned the General Assembly to abolish the law excluding our lands, that our titles might be investigated in a court of justice, but the Assembly would not listen to them.

In the year 1866, Dr. Featherston came again, and made a determined effort to purchase our land. We did not give our consent. He then used the following threatening words to me and my people: – "This land is in my hands; 800 of Whanganui, 200 of Ngatiapa, 100 of Rangitane and Muaupoko have consented. All these tribes went with me to fight against the tribes who are contending with the soldiers of the Queen. They have all agreed that this land shall be sold to me; they are the great majority,

you are but a few. You shall not hold back this land." When my people heard his threatening and taunting words they were overwhelmed (paralyzed) with shame and fear. I replied, "Friend, what title have the hundreds of those tribes that you have enumerated to this land; only after investigation in a court can this land be justly sold to you." He replied, "Parakaia, the jurisdiction of that court will never be extended to this land."

After hearing these words of Dr. Featherston, a number of us went to Wellington to the Governor, to the Assembly, to the Ministers also, and entreated them to allow our titles to be investigated according to law. On the first occasion thirty-five of us went, on the second occasion fourteen, on the third occasion twenty-four. When the others became weary, I still persevered by myself alone. But they would not grant our prayer. Then I said to myself, "Alas! for the treaty of Waitangi, whatever can have become of it?"

In the month of December, 1866, Dr. Featherston paid money to some of my own tribe, the great majority of whom had no title to our land; he also paid money to tribes from a distance who had no title whatever to our land; he then told my people, "All your land has now become the property of the Queen."

Therefore, I, your humble servant, pray your Majesty to send persons to investigate carefully this wrong, to protect me and my people, and to raise up the treaty of Waitangi which has been trampled under foot by the Government of New Zealand.

PARAKAIA TE POUEPA.
Otaki, New Zealand, July 4, 1867.

1 See Appendix, Dr. Featherston's Report.

2 In support of the above statements, I would refer the reader to letters from the Ven. Archdeacon Hadfield and the Rev. S. Williams, which appear in the Appendix.

3 All of Ngatiraukawa.

4 Only a few days since Tamihana, son of Te Rauparaha, told the writer that the Ngatiraukawa had brought the whole of their present troubles upon themselves. He says they should have followed his father's advice and killed all the Ngatiapas. Not only, he says, did they spare them, but they restored to their former slaves (taurekareka) all the land north of the Rangitikei River.

5 See Appendix, letter from Rev. S. Williams.

6 The Native Lands Act, which was passed by the General Assembly in the session just closed, and assented to by Governor Sir G. Grey on behalf of Her Majesty, 10th October, 1867, provides in clause 38, one of two clauses bearing upon the Manawatu Block, "That no claim by, and no question relating to the title or interest of, any native who shall have signed the said deed of sale, shall be so referred (to the Native Lands Court)." See postscript.

7 See Dr. Featherston's speech – Appendix.

APPENDIX.

APPENDIX.

"Taita, Wellington, June 22, 1867.

"DEAR SAMUEL, – As you were many years resident in the district, I shall feel obliged if you will furnish me with any information relative to the respective claims of the Ngatiraukawa and Ngatiapa tribes, to the lands lying between the Manawatu and Rangitikei rivers.

"Your affectionate brother,
"THOMAS C. WILLIAMS.
"Rev. S. Williams, Te Aute.

"Te Aute, Hawke's Bay.

"DEAR THOMAS, – In answer to your inquiries about the Manawatu claims I may briefly state that, when the Rangitikei block of land was offered for sale by Ngatiapa in 1848 and 1849, D. McLean, Esq., Land Purchase Commissioner, called upon me at Otaki, where I was residing, and asked me to help him in obtaining the consent of Ngatiraukawa, together with Rauparaha and Rangihaeata to the sale, without which he said he could not effect the purchase. I promised him my assistance, and for that purpose entered fully into the subject with the Natives. Rauparaha and Rangihaeata were furious at the idea of Ngatiapa, whom they styled the remnant of their meal, attempting to deal with the land, and blamed Ngatiraukawa in unmeasured terms for having stopped them in their work of extermination, saying that had they been allowed to do as they wished the difficulties of that time would never have arisen. I was surprised on observing the great coolness which was manifested upon the subject by Ngatitoa, excepting only those who were living with Ngatiraukawa, as were Rauparaha and Rangihaeata and on asking the reason they told me that whatever claim they had to the land in question had been given over to Ngatiraukawa. Several members of the conquered tribes told me that they owed their lives to Ngatiraukawa – that Te Rauparaha would have killed them all had not Te Whatanui, one of the principal chiefs of Ngatiraukawa, befriended them. They always spoke of him as a father, and admitted that the Ngatiraukawa were the kai kotikoti whenua (the dividers of the land). The subject has caused considerable excitement amongst the Ngatiraukawa, but I urged them to act a generous part towards those who had been so harshly treated in past years, and after repeated discussions amongst themselves, they at length agreed to allow Ngatiapa to sell their land on the north side of the Rangitikei river, and keep all the purchase money, on condition that they were not to deal with any of the land to the south of the river. I do not, however, consider 8 that either party understood that Ngatiapa were, by this arrangement, entirely debarred from occupying portions of the south bank of the river if they wished to do so, or from receiving a portion of the proceeds in the event of Ngatiraukawa disposing of it. The Commissioner expressed his gratification at the generous manner in which Ngatiraukawa acted, more particularly in not accepting any of the purchase money, of which Ngatiapa had previously expected them to take a large share.

"Your affectionate brother,
"SAMUEL WILLIAMS."

"MY DEAR THOMAS, – In acceding to your request that I should furnish you with some information concerning the rights of the tribes connected with the Rangitikei-Manawatu district, I will endeavour to condense as much as possible what I say on the subject. I came into the district in 1839, before the Queen's Sovereignty was established in the country, that is, before it was proclaimed a British Colony. I do not think there are many other Englishmen alive who knew the Natives of the district at that time. Ngatiraukawa were then in undisputed possession of the district. They also asserted claims to land on the north side of Rangitikei, but as they were at war with another tribe to the southward, and had their attention occupied with this, I do not recollect seeing them located on that side. The previous owners, Ngatiapa, had been conquered by them, and were held in a state of subjection; some being actually in slavery at Otaki and Kapiti, others resided on the land as serfs, employed in pig-hunting and such like occupation. They had ceased to be a tribe. They had no organisation, no rights. Even that portion of the tribe which lived between Rangitikei and Whanganui was in a state of degradation. It was without 'mana.' It would take me too long to detail the proofs of this, and it is unnecessary. There would have been then no room for questioning the title of Ngatiraukawa. There was no one to question it; it was a self-evident fact that they were in undisturbed occupation. They have never ceased to occupy and hold possession. There is then clear evidence to prove their conquest from Ngatiapa, and their possession in 1840. Well, then, as English law, on a transfer of sovereignty, recognizes all previously existing municipal rights, the title of Ngatiraukawa must remain unchanged until the present time, unless it can be shown that they have alienated their land by some formal act of their own. That there never has been any such formal act of alienation on their part is notorious. It is not, I believe, alleged that there has been any act of the kind, on the contrary, when, at the time the north side of Rangitikei was sold, Ngatiapa attempted to lay claim to the south side by building a hut there, this was forthwith destroyed by Te Rangihaeata, and the attempt was thus crushed in the bud. But further, when Ngatiraukawa, in 1849, consented to forego all claim to the north side of Rangitikei, they distinctly and emphatically, in the presence of the Land Purchase Commissioner and others, reasserted their title to the south side, and their determination to retain it. I do not think the investigation of any title could have given less trouble to the Native Lands Court than this, had it been brought before it. There was nothing complicated to unravel. After what I have said, you may think it strange that recent difficulties should have arisen. If you do think so you can have had little acquaintance with the doings of Land Purchase Commissioners. The difficulties were all purposely made by Government officers. I must try to explain what I mean. Notwithstanding the strength of the Ngatiraukawa title, there was one vulnerable point in its exterior, small indeed, almost infinitesimal. But what can escape the scent of that most omnivorous of all land sharks – a Superintendent created Land Purchase Commissioner? Let me see, then, whether I can make this point intelligible. I am now alluding to the fact that some Ngatiapa men had been allowed to return to, and live in, the immediate vicinity of the late chief Nepia Taratoa, and were permitted by him to receive some part of the money paid as rent for lands illegally leased by Englishmen. I will show how this came about. When Ngatiraukawa accepted the Christian religion, they, unlike the American slave-holders of the Southern States, deemed it inconsistent with their profession of religion to retain their fellow men in slavery. They let their slaves go free. Several of those men continued to reside among their former masters. There were some inter-marriages; they were thenceforth treated as equals, but without any thought of their being again reinstated in their former possessions. There were one or two attempts made about the year 1855 to regain a footing there, but these were instantly stopped. Subsequently it was agreed to erect a mill at Makohai, on the Rangitikei River, for the joint use of Ngatiapa and Ngatiraukawa. In consequence of this there was a joint endeavour to raise funds for the purpose agreed upon. This gave rise to the first leases to squatters, in which both parties combined, but this was only a temporary

arrangement agreed upon for a specific purpose, with a view of arriving at an object concerning which there was no difference of opinion.

"Some time afterwards, during the Taranaki war, when the whole of the tribes on this coast had their attention more or less pre-occupied with matters of general interest, Nepia Taratoa, being alarmed, wished to have his old slaves again around him, they being for the most part avowed Kingites. He invited some of them to come to his neighbourhood. In order to secure their services, he promised to let some of his lands, and pay them with money derived from the rents; what was done was to promise them some temporary participation in the proceeds from the leased lands. This act of his, which was done without the sanction of the tribe, could not possibly be construed into a formal transfer of the land.

"It has never, I believe, been alleged that there was at this time, or at any other, any division of the land with Ngatiapa, but the joint participation by two different tribes in the ownership of land is a kind of tenure absolutely unknown to Maori custom, and utterly repugnant to the whole system. I defy any one to produce a single instance of any such joint tenure. When two tribes have lived intermingled, either one was the acknowledged superior and the other the inferior, or there were well defined boundaries to their respective possessions. In my opinion Ngatiapa had no kind of right to the Rangitikei-Manawatu block of land.

"Shortly after Nepia Taratoa's death, Ngatiapa began to assert a claim based on his liberality, which, together with rumours that their claim might be acknowledged by the Government, so alarmed Ngatiraukawa, that they early in 1863 sent a large party both to remove some cattle and sheep which were supposed to be there on the authority of Ngatiapa, and also to occupy and cultivate land close to the Rangitikei river.

"Ngatiapa made some little show of resistance, but there can be no doubt, nothing further would have been heard of Ngatiapa's claims had it not been for the unfortunate fact that, when the Government, after many months delay, thought it advisable to appoint some person to investigate the respective claims of the two tribes, they selected Dr. Featherston, the Superintendent of the Province, who had previously secured the appointment of Land Purchase Commissioner. Anything more absurd and unfortunate than this appointment it would be difficult to imagine.

"Nevertheless, Ngatiraukawa, knowing that if there was to be an open investigation their claims must be recognized as good, signed a bond, to abide by the decision of the arbitrator. Ngatiapa, on the contrary, knowing full well that their claim under such circumstances would not hold good, but must prove untenable, positively declined the investigation. They, however, handed over all their supposed rights to Dr. Featherston, in which of his capacities – whether as Superintendent or Land Purchase Commissioner, or arbitrator appointed by the Government to act impartially – does not appear. Dr. Featherston thus became a party to the dispute. He took his side with Ngatiapa. From that time forward any solution of the difficulty was hopeless. Dr. Featherston was determined to obtain the land. Ngatiraukawa were equally determined that, so long as the Ngatiapa claim was acknowledged, they would not sell.

"As the Land Purchase Ordinance was still unrepealed. Dr. Featherston impounded the rents, that is he cautioned the squatters not to pay their rents. This was the second blunder he committed. It at once confirmed the suspicion raised in the minds of Ngatiraukawa by his acceptance of the Ngatiapa claims, that he was trying to coerce them into acquiescence with his wishes.

"The result was a dogged determination to hold their land to the last. From that time the purchase of the district by Dr. Featherston was simply an impossibility.

"I was nearly forgetting to allude to what has been repeatedly asserted, that there was danger of an inter-tribal war. Such an assertion is really ridiculous. I ought to know something of the feelings of the natives of this

district, but I do not hesitate to say there never was the least chance of it. To suppose it possible for the miserable remnant of Ngatiapa to have ever seriously contemplated war with their old conquerors is an opinion that could only have been entertained by those wholly unacquainted with the relative numbers and antecedents of the two parties. I cannot, however, conceal my opinion that the frequent allusion by Dr. Featherston to the probability of war had a tendency to create in the minds of the natives an impression that the Government would not be sorry to see hostilities take place, in order that it might then either co-operate with Ngatiapa or make such a war a pretext for confiscation.

"But Ngatiraukawa, resting on their clear and undisputed possession ever since the treaty of Waitangi, have carefully avoided giving any excuse to the Government for charging them with acting illegally. As Parakaia rightly remarked to the Governor – 'It is the duty of the Government to keep the peace of the country, and protect loyal men in their rights.' He and others, who have remained staunch in their support of the Government all through the war, feel amazed when they find Kingites, like Kawana Hunia, who only recently hoisted their King's flags, and strutted about with their guns on their shoulders and their two cartridge boxes on their backs, in defiance of the Government, now allowed at public meetings, at which the Superintendent presides, to utter unrebuked threats of war.

"I have, perhaps, said as much as you care to learn from me. That Ngatiraukawa were the acknowledged owners and possessors of the land in 1840 there can be no question. That they have never subsequently alienated it is equally clear. The attempt of the Superintendent to set up a claim for Ngatiapa on the ground that many years ago they owned the land, and his subsequently impounding the rents to force Ngatiraukawa to sell, are points which I hope I have made clear. I will now conclude with a few extracts from Carlyle's life of Frederick the Great, in order to show that, though Dr. Featherston is supposed to have gained some credit for cleverness by these moves, there is nothing novel or original in them.

"This Duchy of Cleve, all this fine agglomerate of Duchies, Duke Wilhelm settled were to be inherited in a piece by his eldest son . . . . This settlement, by express privilege of Kaiser Carl V., nay of Kaiser Maximilian before him, and the laws of the Reich, Duke Wilhelm doubted not he was entitled to make; and this settlement he made. The painful exactitude of Duke Wilhelm and his lawyers has profited little, and there are claimants on claimants rising for that valuable Cleve country. " Vol. l. p. 303-5.

"What greatly complicated the affair was the interest the Kaiser took in it . . . . Evidently what would best suit the Kaiser and Spaniards was this, that no strong power whatever got footing in Cleve to grow stronger by possession of such a country; better than best it would suit, if he, the Kaiser, could himself get it smuggled into his hands, and then hold it fast. Which privately was the course resolved upon at head quarters." P. 307-8.

"A letter is yet extant from the Aulic Council to their Vice-Chancellor, who had been sent to negotiate this matter with the parties; letter to the effect that he must devise all manner of quirks, and achieve it. And accordingly quirks did not prove undevisable on behalf of the Kaiser. Since you cannot agree (says the Kaiser), and there are so many of you who claim (we have privately stirred up many of you to the feat), there will be nothing for it but that the Kaiser must put the country under sequestration, and take possession of it with his troops till a decision be arrived at, which, probably, will not be soon, and the Kaiser forthwith did as he had said." P. 312.

"It was not until forty-two years after, in 1666, that an effectual partition could be practically brought about. In fact, there never was in the German Chanceries, or out of them, such a lawsuit, armed or wigged, as this of the Cleve Duchies, first and last. And the sentence was not practically given till the Congress of Vienna, 1815, in our own day, gave it; and the thing Johann Sigismund had claimed legally in 1609, was actually handed over to Johann

Sigismund's descendants in the seventh generation, after two hundred and six years. P. 323."

"(Signed) OCTAVIUS HADFIELD.
"July 15, 1867."

The following written statement was handed to me by Mr. James Hamlin, who was Mr. Buller's interpreter in 1863; –

"The offer of arbitration was accepted by the Ngatiraukawa and Rangitanes; the Ngatiapa only partially did so.

"In 1863, Mr. Buller received instructions to draw out an arbitration bond, which I translated, and then received orders from Mr. Buller to take them up to Rangitikei, and get the three tribes to sign them. The Ngatiraukawa and Rangitane readily did so, but the Ngatiapa did not. Mr. Buller, finding the Ngatiapa would not sign the bond, suspended their salaries for being constables and assessors."

The following extracts from a speech delivered by Dr. Featherston to the electors of Wellington on Wednesday evening, the 21st February, 1866, will show that the Superintendent of Wellington had made up his mind to purchase the 'Manawatu block of land' at least two months before he 'accepted' it as the only possible means of preventing an inter-tribal war – will show how that the 'good old Aaron' could, when it suited his purpose, become transformed into a 'roaring lion;' will show that the gentleman engaged by the General Government of New Zealand as Land Purchase Commissioner, &c, entertained very peculiar views with respect to a native policy: –

"Dr. Featherston, who was received with loud applause, said – "The course I pursued then was the same as that which had for its object the promoting of what I believe to be the true interest of this Province, as in getting rid of the difficulties which lay in the way of purchasing the Manawatu block of land, and more especially in rendering my assistance, however humble it may have been, in subduing the rebel natives on the West Coast, and bringing them to submission. (Hear, hear.)" . . . "Is the British army degenerated? Was it not, composed of men having the same metal and courage as those who have fought and conquered in every country and under every clime? I consider the Imperial troops to be the finest in the world; I say that the British army stands far higher in every respect than that of any other country. Look at what has been done by any of the regiments now in New Zealand, and then tell me that those regiments are unable to cope with the Maori, and are unequal to New Zealand warfare. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I ask you, who long remember your gallant friends of the 65th, and many another regiment, whether you believe that they were not the same men in this country as they have ever proved themselves in other countries? Will one of you in this room say that men who have fought and lost their lives at Rangiriri, at the Gate Pa, at the Orakau, were unequal to cope with the Maori and unfit for New Zealand warfare? But if you dare to make such an assertion, what will you say to the signal success of General Chute between Whanganui and Taranaki, with a flying column of some four or five hundred men? That gives the lie at once and for ever to any aspersions on the English troops; that settles at once and for ever that Imperial troops, if properly handled, are equal to any emergency, and instead of being unequal to the natives, those natives are terrified at them, and dare not make a stand against them. (Hear, hear.)" . . . "Sir, I confess I never held any faith in the elaborate native policies which have been at various times propounded by statesmen in this colony. I have always adhered to the principles I enunciated twenty years ago, that as it is utterly impossible to preserve the native race from ultimate extinction, from annihilation through their connection with a civilized people, our chief duty consisted not in attempting elaborate theoretical policies, but in rendering the dying couch of the race as easy and comfortable to them as possible. (Hear, hear.) Sir, the same course which was a good policy twenty years ago, is, it appears to me, only gaining daily more strength. Twenty years ago these natives amounted to from eighty to a hundred thousand, whilst now how many are they? Not more than forty thousand at the outside, and in twenty years to come there will be but a mere

handful left. What then is the use of hatching native policies for a race which you cannot possibly preserve?"

The following are extracts from Dr. Featherston's reports presented to both Houses of the General Assembly, by command of his Excellency: –

ENCLOSURE 1, in No. 6.

"Notes of an interview between his Honor Dr. Featherston (Land Purchase Commissioner) and Ihakara te Hokowhitukuri, at Scott's Accommodation House, on Wednesday, 22nd November, 1866.

"After mutual greetings, and some desultory conversation on other subjects, his Honor referred to the Rangitikei question, expressing his regret that, since their last meeting, attempts had been made to create discontent among the natives, and to disturb the existing arrangements for the sale of the block to the Crown.

"Dr. Featherston said – 'But apart from all this, he felt sure that Ihakara would agree with him that to attempt to get the ownership to this particular block investigated and settled in any Land Court would be a mere farce. Every effort had been made to induce the disputants to agree to a settlement of their claims by arbitration, but to no effect. Neither tribe would admit itself in the wrong, or submit to an adverse decision of the Court. It was only after these efforts had failed that the natives talked of selling the block, and the leading Ngatiraukawa chiefs had repeatedly acknowledged, both to him and Mr. Buller, that a sale of the whole of the land in dispute was the only possible solution of this long-standing difficulty. With regard to the caricature, which seemed to have produced so much irritation and heart-burning, he would ask how it was possible that the Superintendent and Mr. Buller could, with truth, be represented as driving the natives into a sale of the land, when the offer of sale had come from the natives themselves.' Ihakara acknowledged that he could see no escape from the difficulty but by a mutual sale of their disputed claims to the Queen.

"(Signed)
"I. E. FEATHERSTON.
"Superintendent's Office,
"Wellington, 30th June, 1866. "

"Notes of a meeting at Maramaihoea, Rangitikei, on Monday, the 4th December, 1865. Present – About sixty natives (chiefly Ngatiraukawa), Dr. Featherston, and Mr. Buller.

"His Honor replied at some length. He requested them distinctly to bear in mind that the proposal for the sale of the block came, in the first instance, from the natives, and not from the Commissioner; that on separate occasions the land was offered to him by the several tribes claiming it, as their only means of settling the quarrel; and that he ultimately, in the name of the Queen, accepted that offer, subject to future terms, to be mutually agreed upon. He came up originally not to treat for the land, but to propose an arbitration of title, and to prevent the effusion of blood between the contending tribes. . . . He made no attempt to induce the natives to surrender their disputed claims to the Crown; he said not one word to them about the sale of the land. He simply endeavoured to adjust an angry dispute which threatened to embroil the district in an inter-tribal war, and he suggested to them a plan, the object of which was not to alienate, but to secure to each tribe its fair share of the land. 9 His plan was rejected by the Ngatiapa, who of their own accord offered the land in absolute sale to the Crown. As this offer virtually amounted to a pledge that the tribe would not assert their rights by force of arms, or continue any longer to threaten the peace of the district, he felt bound to accept it. But in so doing he was careful to explain to them that he did not accept the land, but such right or interest as they might hereafter be proved to have in the land. 'By so doing he disarmed the Ngatiapa and put an end to the threatened collision. He did not, however, take advantage of this arrangement to force either party to terms. He simply explained to the Ngatiraukawa and Rangitane, at Ihakara's pa, what he had done, warned them against disturbing the peace of the district, and pro-

posed the withholding of all rents till some amicable arrangement had been mutually come to. '

"(Signed) I. E. FEATHERSTON.
"Superintendent's Office,
"Wellington, 30th June, 1866. "

"On the 27th March, Dr. Featherston had a long interview with Ihakara. This chief stated emphatically his determination to sell the disputed block, mentioned £21,000 as the price he was prepared to propose, and warned Dr. Featherston that there would, at the commencement of the meeting, be strong opposition from a section of his tribe.

"On the 28th March, Dr. Featherston, accompanied by Mr. Buller, R. M., proceeded to Turakina. On the following day his Honor held a meeting at the Ben Nevis Hotel, with about fifty of the principal Ngatiapa claimants. Dr. Featherston pointed out to them that unless the tribes would now consent to co-operate in a final effort to settle this long-standing difficulty, there seemed very little prospect of anything being accomplished at Te Takapu.

"Aperahama Tipae, in reply, spoke with much bitterness of the Ngatiraukawa and their chiefs. He declared that the Ngatiapa would never consent to unite with the other tribes in the proposed sale, and that nothing, therefore, could be gained by their attending the meeting at Manawatu. He said that while the Ngatiapa were still in favor of selling, they would not consent to divide the purchase money with the Ngatiraukawa, or with the Rangitane, and that unless Dr. Featherston was prepared to close with the Ngatiapa, irrespective of the other claimants, he would consider the negotiations at an end, and would encourage his tribe to take up arms again in defence of their rights.

"Governor Hunia made a still more violent speech against the other tribes, openly boasted that they (the Ngatiapas) had now plenty of arms and ammunition, and could easily drive off their opponents, and that they would now prefer an appeal to arms to any other course. He almost intimated that they had, during the West Coast campaign, reserved their ammunition for that purpose. This extreme violence was however distasteful to the meeting.

"Dr. Featherston rebuked Hunia, Aperahama, Tipae and others for the statements they had uttered, said they knew full well that their threats were of no avail with him; that he regarded them as mere Maori bounce; emphatically warned them against taking the law in their own hands, and, while acknowledging the services they had rendered, expressed a hope that the result of the recent campaign had been to establish a conviction in the minds of all the Maoris, that the Queen's Government was both determined and able to enforce law and order. . . .

"Although the discussion lasted for several hours longer, nothing definite was arrived at, the whole of the natives present declaring that they would not take a penny less than £40,000, and that the other tribes should not share the payment with them; that their great desire was to fight, and take the land by right of conquest. . . . .

"On the morning of the 5th April there were about seven hundred natives present. . . . Ihakara said, . . . "His offer to sell the land to Mr. McLean had not been listened to by the tribe, and he had on that account resolved to retain Rangitikei. He would have continued to oppose the sale of the land had he been able to discover any other way out of the difficulty. There were only two ways open to him – one was to fight the Ngatiapa, and take forcible possession of the soil; the other was to sell the land to the Queen, and to let the Ngatiapa sell also. . . . Had the title to the block been clear he would probably have asked a million pounds for it! but as it was fighting ground he would ask Dr. Featherston for a very small price, only £21,000. Horomona had proposed that the price to be paid to Ngatiraukawa should be £20,000. He would add another thousand to this, and ask for this payment on behalf of all the tribes concerned. This would show that he was selling, not for the sake of the money, but to prevent fighting. If his share should only be

sixpence he would be satisfied. It was the price of peace. He thought more of the blood of his young men than of the Queen's gold and silver. After describing the boundaries of the block, Ihakara concluded by calling on Dr. Featherston to accept his offer, and pay the money.

"Speeches were then delivered by the following, viz: – Wiriharai, Tohutohu, Takana, Te Kooro, Reupena Te One, Horopapera Te Tara, Hare Hemi Taharape, Heremaia, Te Tihi, Paranihi Te Tau, Henare Hops, Te Rewiti, Henare Te Herekau, Rawiri Te Wanui, Parakaia Te Pouepa, Te Kepa Kerikeri, and Rota Tawhiri. All these speakers declared themselves more or less opposed to the sale.

"Henare te Herekau urged that a further attempt should be made to get the exception clause in the Native Lands Act repealed, and to have the question of title in this case investigated and adjudicated on by the Native Lands Court. In this proposal he was supported by Parakaia te Pouepa, from Otaki . . . .

"April 7. . . . Many who at the outset had declared against the sale, were now avowedly favourable to it, and it was evident that the spirit of opposition had been in a great measure crushed by the resolute determination of Ihakara and the other leading chiefs to effect a sale of the block.

Ihakara made a final speech to the following effect. . . . "Dr. Featherston, the land is yours. Give me the payment. Here are the people, let them consent. Refuse not, lest there be fighting. . . . Listen not to the words of my relatives (meaning the opposition). Pay the money and all the opposition will disappear. It was so when the Awahou block was sold. Rangitikei is in your hands, hold it fast for ever and ever! The people are now waiting for your reply."

It was here determined to send a deputation of ten chiefs to fetch the Ngatiapa. Governor Hunia first gave an angry refusal, and afterwards consented to attend the meeting. "The Ngatiapa were received at Te Takapu with every demonstration of good feeling."

April 14. – The utmost anxiety was manifested for a final and decisive reply, and at the appointed time the natives had assembled, and were waiting eagerly for Dr. Featherston's arrival. . . . .

"Ihakara called upon Dr. Featherston to reply to the speeches that had been made. The latter invited any of the chiefs present who might wish to address the meeting before he closed the proceedings to do so. The discussion was thereupon resumed. Ihakara and the leading selling chiefs were more earnest than before in pressing the sale of the block, while Hunia Te Hakeke openly declared that if the meeting should break up without the sale having been effected, he would return at once to pa-building, and would decide the title by a trial of strength with the Ngatiraukawa.

"Parakaia again brought forward his scheme for a settlement of the question (by a reference to the Land Court), but the proposal was scouted by the Ngatiapa. It was tacitly admitted by Aperahama Te Huruhuru and Nepia that, although they were now opposing the sale, they could not suggest any other way of settling their quarrel with the Ngatiapa.

"About 3 p. m. Dr. Featherston rose and made the following speech, which was interpreted to the meeting by Mr. Buller, R. M.: – . . . "Ihakara and other speakers bad given a truthful history of the dispute, and he had little or nothing to add to it, but as there were many present whom he had not met at previous meetings, he was anxious that it should be made clear to all how it was that he first came to act as mediator between them – how it was that he came to be dragged into this long-standing quarrel. Not one of them dared to assert that he had ever asked them to hand over either the quarrel or the land into his hands. Not one of them dared deny that the three tribes had themselves forced upon him, whether he liked it or not, both the quarrel and the land in dispute. On the contrary, Ihakara and others have declared that he had appeared amongst them only after all other mediators had failed in persuading them to desist from appealing to arms for the settlement of the dispute. But he had not come up of his own accord or uninvited. He came up at the request

both of the tribes and of the Government Why had they invited him? was it not because during a long period they had ever regarded him as their friend – as one in whose justice and integrity they had implicit faith? Why had the Government urged him to undertake such a difficult mission? Simply because they know that the tribes had confidence in him, and would be more likely to be guided by his advice than by that of any other person. He would call upon them to say whether by the steps he had taken to stave off the inter-tribal war, and to bring the quarrel to an amicable termination, he had done anything to forfeit their confidence. When he arrived amongst them, in January, 1864, he found both parties in a state of angry irritation – hostile pas erected – the red flag flying – nay, the very day for the commencement of the strife almost fixed, both parties proclaiming that, rather than surrender their claims, rather than admit the slightest claim on the part of their opponents, they would fight and die on the land. . . . What did he do? For many days he went backwards and forwards between the litigants, proposing various terms, urging them to come to some compromise. . . .

"What he now wished clearly to ascertain was whether any one of the proposals he made in 1864 to the tribes can be carried out.

"It was then proposed to settle the question by arbitration. Arbitration means that each tribe should appoint a certain number of arbitrators; that if the arbitrators cannot agree, they appoint a third party to decide between them. This was a custom constantly adopted by pakehas, and the decision of the arbitrators or umpire is accepted as a final settlement of the matters referred to them. Now suppose that they had gone, or will to-day agree to go to arbitration, and that the award of the arbitrators had been or will be that the land in dispute belongs to the Ngatiraukawas and Rangitanes, would the Ngatiapas have acquiesced, or will they now acquiesce in that decision; or if the arbitrators decided that the Ngatiapas were the sole owners of the land will the other tribes assent to give up their claim? (Universal dissent.) Unless the three tribes are prepared to pledge themselves to abide by the award of the arbitrators, arbitration is useless, and will only embitter the dispute, and lead to a recourse to arms.

"Another proposal was, that the three tribes should divide the land – but they objected to this, that they never could agree in what proportions the land should be divided – whether each tribe should take a third, or one tribe a half, and two tribes the other moiety; but even if this difficulty could be got over, who was to decide what portion of the land was to belong to this tribe, what portion to the other – who was to decide whether one tribe should not be confined to the sand hills, another tribe to the good land – whether one tribe should not have all the land for which, according to one proposal, he had been called upon to pay two shillings an acre, another tribe all the five shilling land, the third all the land they were asking one pound an acre for. Can these difficulties, which were pointed out in January, 1864, be now overcome? Is a division of the land now practicable? (Kahore, kahore.)

"Another proposal had been made during the discussion by Parakaia and others, that they should take the land into the Native Lands Court, and have the title of the three tribes claiming an interest in it investigated by that Court. But Parakaia had omitted to tell them many things connected with that Court. He had not told them that all the tribes must consent to take the land into the Court – that each tribe must employ surveyors to mark out the boundaries of the land it claimed – that the tribe must be prepared to accept the decision of the Court. Were they all prepared to comply with any one of these conditions? Would they all consent to go into the Court! (No, no.) Would any one of them dare to send surveyors upon the land, every inch of which they had declared to be in dispute, to be 'fighting ground?' 10 Would they agree to abide by the decision of the Court? (Enough, enough.)

"He had gone through the proposals for the purpose of ascertaining whether one of them was practicable. Let the tribes say with an united voice, that they agree to any one of them, that they will go to arbitration; let them say that they will divide the land; let them say that they will submit their claims to the decision of Judge Parakaia, and he would declare his concurrence in it.

"He now gathered that the six tribes assembled before him were all but unanimous in scouting every one of these proposals, and were more than ever convinced that the only possible solution of the dispute was, to use their own words, an absolute sale of the whole of the land in dispute to the Crown, and after having for many days patiently heard all they had to say, he had no hesitation in expressing his entire concurrence in that conviction.

"During the whole time the discussions had lasted he had refused to take any part in them, or to answer a single question, or to give the slightest inkling of his intention. They had declared that they had said all that they had to say, and now formally called upon him to declare, whether or not, as the only means of preventing bloodshed, he was prepared to accept the block and complete its purchase. He knew the responsibility which his decisive answer would entail upon him, but he had not the slightest hesitation in giving it. . . . He, Dr. Featherston, repeated what he had then and often since said, that he would purchase no land without the consent of the people. But what did he mean by the consent of the people or tribe? He did not mean that the opposition of one man (not a principal chief) should prevent a whole tribe selling their land. Neither did he mean that a small section of one tribe should be allowed to forbid some six or seven tribes disposing of a block which they were anxious to sell. However much he might insist upon having the consent of the tribe, of all the real and principal claimants, he would be no party to such a manifest injustice as would be implied by one or two men, probably possessing little or no interest in the land, forbidding the tribe selling it, or in a small section of one tribe opposing the wishes of some half dozen tribes, especially when the carrying out of the decision of the majority was the only meant of avoiding an inter-tribal mar.

"The question then that arose in his mind was whether there was such a consent of the tribes assembled before him to the sale as would justify him in at once declaring his acceptance of their offer. . . . . He would, therefore, call upon every one of the tribes to declare publicly before this meeting by their chiefs whether or not the tribes consented to the sale.

"He would call upon the several tribes to give their answer by the chiefs. He called upon the Whanganui tribes to say whether or not they were agreed to the sale. Tamati Puna at once said, 'We are unanimous; all have consented.' Dr. Featherston then called upon the Ngatiapa to declare what their decision was. Governor Hunia on the part of their tribe, said, 'You know our decision; we all insist upon the sale.' What say the Muaupoko tribe? Hoani Te Puihi replied on behalf of the tribe, 'We are all unanimous in favour of the sale.' What is the answer of the Ngatitoa to this question? And he called upon Matene Te Whiwhi, Tamihana Te Rauparaha, and Hohepa, distinctly and severally to reply on behalf of the tribe they represented. The three chiefs, one after the other, declared that the tribe were unanimous. What said the Rangitane? Peeti Te Aweawe replied, 'We, also, are unanimous; all have consented.' Lastly, he would call upon the Ngatiraukawa, who he knew were divided in their opinions. Ihakara expressed his regret that they were not like all the other tribes unanimous in favour of the sale, but the large majority of them were so determined to sell, especially all the principal claimants, that he insisted upon the purchase being completed. Knowing that those who were at present holding out would soon become consenting parties, he never would listen

to any other mode of adjusting the dispute. Dr. Featherston then said that his course was clear. Five of the six tribes were unanimous in their determination to sell, and of the Ngatiraukawa only a small section opposed the sale. Of that section the two principal chiefs, Nepia Taratoa and Aperahama Te Huru, had some time since given their consent, and had repeatedly protested against the delay that had occurred in bringing the transaction to a close. Great chiefs like them were not in the habit of repudiating engagements entered into in the face of the whole tribe. He was certain, therefore, that the present opposition would not be persisted in. Of the other opponents many had already told him that they would abide by the decision of the majority, and would sign the deed of purchase. He felt, therefore, so confident that the deed would ultimately be executed by all the real claimants, that he had no difficulty in publicly announcing his acceptance of the block, and in congratulating them upon this long-standing feud being thus amicably settled and finally adjusted.

"[This announcement was received with great applause, not a few of the opponents exclaiming, 'Rangitikei is fairly sold, is for ever gone from us!']

"Dr. Featherston then reminded them that there were other questions to settle, viz. – the price, in what proportion the purchase money was to be divided, and what chiefs were to distribute the money. The two latter might be left till the deed was signed, but the price must be fixed before the meeting broke up. Several amounts had been mentioned, some exorbitant, others not unreasonable. Let the tribes leave this matter in the hands of their chiefs, and they would find him prepared to meet them in a liberal spirit. This was ultimately fixed at £25,000. . . . .

"The deed of purchase has been prepared with due care, and is now being executed in the district by the several tribes claiming the land. The deed will be signed by over a thousand natives, and on its completion the purchase money will be handed over to certain chiefs, as in the case of the Upper Manawatu and other purchases, to be nominated by a general meeting of the tribes at Parewanui (Rangitikei), of which sufficient notice will be given. The chiefs will divide and distribute the money in such manner as may be agreed on among the tribes sharing it, and it is not anticipated that any difficulty will arise.

"(Signed)
"I. E. FEATHERSTON.
"Superintendent's Office,
"Wellington, 30th June, 1866."

The following appears in the speech of his Honor the Superintendent on opening the third session of the fourth Provincial Council of the Province of Wellington, April 26, 1867: –

"MR. SPEAKER AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PROVINCIAL COUNCIL, –

. . . . . . .

"When I last met you, I announced that I had entered into an agreement with the various tribes claiming a title to the Manawatu Rangitikei block, by which I hoped to set at rest the formidable land dispute which had for several years threatened the peace of the Province. After intimating that at the great native gathering at Takapu, on the banks of the Manawatu, I had formally accepted the cession of the disputed block to the Crown as the only means of finally and for ever removing the cause of strife, I informed; you that the final deed of surrender had yet to be executed, and that it would require to be signed by between one and two thousand claimants, and that several important questions had yet to be settled – namely, as to what tribes the purchase money was to be paid, what proportion each of the tribes should receive, and what chiefs should be appointed to receive and distribute the money. It is satisfactory to me to be able to state that the deed of cession has been duly executed, nearly seventeen hundred claimants having signed it, and that the questions just adverted to have been finally and amicably settled.

"From the detailed minutes of the proceedings, which will be laid before

you, you will observe that at the Parawanui meeting in December last, probably the largest gathering of natives ever held in this Province, the six tribes claiming to be more or less interested in the land, after long and angry discussions, failed to come to any arrangement as to the division of the money, and then appealed to me for my opinion on the subject, distinctly guarding themselves from being bound to adopt it. While anxious to evade the responsibility of deciding a question which, by the terms of our agreement, rested with the settlers – a responsibility which I had from the first declined to undertake – I, nevertheless felt that the alternative was one of peace or war, that if the meeting should break up without the completion of the purchase, the rival tribes would at once assert their conflicting claims by force of arms, and that the whole of the West Coast district would be speedily plunged into a general Native disturbance. To prevent, therefore, any further complication of the question, and to aid those chiefs who were really anxious, at almost any sacrifice, to preserve the peace, I at length submitted a proposal to the meeting, which though at first violently denounced by the Ngatiapas, was ultimately unanimously accepted by all the tribes concerned as perfectly fair and equitable. Chiefs were then appointed by the sellers to receive the respective shares, and the distribution of the money was left entirely to the Natives. I stipulated, however, with the Ngatiraukawa chiefs that a liberal sum out of their share should be set apart for the outstanding claimants of that tribe, and this was accordingly done. Since the payment of the purchase money, upwards of one hundred and fifty of these (mostly remote) claimants have given their consent to the sale and signed the deed. There is, however, still a small number of Ngatiraukawa dissentients to whom, in the event of their persisting in their refusal to accept the sum set apart for them, it may be necessary to make an award in land to the extent of such claims as are admitted by the sellers.

"The question of reserves is now in course of settlement. The Ngatiapa and Rangitane have accepted the portions allotted to them, and the Ngatiraukawa reserves will be defined as soon as the claims of dissentients have been satisfactorily adjusted. The back rents, amounting now to between two and three thousand pounds, which were impounded by me in order to prevent hostilities in 1863, are still unpaid, as I have been anxious to get all the minor details of the purchase arranged before re-opening a question not altogether free from difficulties, though not of a very formidable nature. And I here must bear testimony to the great patience and forbearance shown by both the Ngatiapa and the Ngatiraukawa chiefs with respect to this matter.

"After nearly four years of constant anxiety on this subject, it affords me no small gratification to repeat my assurance to you of the final and peaceful adjustment of this our only native difficulty; for, in spite of all that has been said and written, I do not hesitate to assert that the Manawatu-Rangitikei purchase, while from its very nature, and the magnitude of the interests involved, probably the most laborious one ever undertaken in this country, is as complete and satisfactory a purchase as could have been effected from the Natives under the peculiar circumstances of the case. My chief difficulty has been caused by a few designing Europeans, who, from selfish motives have, by intrigues with the Natives, and misrepresentations in the newspapers of the Colony, endeavoured to foment tribal strife and frustrate the purchase – attempts which, had they been successful, must have entailed upon the Province, and upon the natives themselves, the most calamitous results. . . .

"I feel that I am entitled to say that in no previous land purchase has so liberal a price been paid, or such ample justice done to all the natives concerned in the transaction.

"The thanks of the province are due to His Excellency's Ministers for the readiness with which, in compliance with my request, they advanced (in anticipation of the sale of the land purchase loan) the funds required to enable me to meet my engagements with the natives. And I venture again

to express a hope that the Council will, knowing how much the successful issue of these long pending negotiations is due to Mr. Walter Buller, bestow upon him a substantial recognition of his valuable services.

"The Small Farm Association will naturally be disappointed at the slowness of these dealings with the natives."

The following letter appeared in the Wellington Advertiser: –

"Otaki, May 22, 1867.
"THE HON. J. C. RICHMOND, –

"SIR, – I have read Dr. Featherston's speech to the Council at Wellington, delivered on the 28th April, 1867, in which he says that Mr. Buller had finally and completely settled the reserve for Rangitane. This statement all have seen published in the Government Gazette of date May 2, 1867.

"This is my reply to those false statements of Dr. Featherston, which appear in the Gazette – I say to myself surely Dr. Featherston must be in the dark, has he not been informed, is he not aware of the fact of Rangitane's reserve having been suppressed. Sir, you will see the statements of Parakaia and Hoani Meihana published in the newspaper (Advertiser) of the month of March. On the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th of that month we interrupted the survey, we finally stopped it on the 9th, by carrying away all the poles, the bottles and pegs that were stuck in the ground; the bill-hooks we took from the hands of Mr. Buller and his Maori friends, and carried them to the village. Was not that a prohibiting of that work; is it necessary to slay a man with an axe, to kill him outright in order to stop a survey? Is not taking all their implements away sufficient? for not only did we take them away, but we carried them all with us to our homes. Ninety men were present, and contended about those bill-hooks that were taken. Parakaia returned the four bill-hooks, retaining the poles, and two bottles, in all sixteen, here the matter ended. The pakehas took down their tents and retired, the Maoris retired, Rangitane retired. Hirawanu and his people retired; those only remained who had opposed the survey. Buller and I left. This letter which I now send you is to contradict that statement which appears in Dr. Featherston's Gazette, that the survey was finally and completely settled. Look here. Buller knows in his heart that these statements of mine are correct, notwithstanding the falsehood and deceit, Buller, that you and your friend are publishing and practising.

"Sir, please to publish this in the Government Gazette,

"PARAKAIA TE POUEPA."

The following letters and protests from the Ngatiraukawa non-sellers are extracted from papers presented to both Houses of the Assembly: –

Copy of a letter from Parakaia to Pouepa and others to the Assembly: –

"Manawatu, 14th April, 1866.
"To the Assembly, –

"That is the word expressing our intention to hold fast to the land which was publicly spoken to Dr. Featherston. First, – This side of Rangitikei I kept back from the hand of Governor Grey and Mr. McLean, that is to say from Ngatiapa, and I surrendered the other side to that Governor. After that Governor Browne urged (upon us to sell) Rangitikei and Manawatu. I agreed to sell Te Awahou and Te Ahuoturanga; the desires of these tribes were accomplished (in respect of the sale of those lands) to this Governor and that Governor, the desire to sell land to the Queen has ceased. This is my heart's core that you are striving to obtain. 'We do not like to give up this small piece to you.' That was the constant word of Ngatiraukawa to Dr. Featherston on the 5th April. The third word was to the effect that the Land Court alone could solve the difficulty attending this land. This is what we are waiting for.

"On the 14th April Dr. Featherston made answer to us. His words were clear to the four tribes. His attaching blame to us was a new word. There

are eight hundred of Whanganui, there are two hundred of Ngatiapa, Rangitane, and Muaupoko are one hundred; but you, O Ngatiraukawa, are a half – a small portion. Another word of Dr. Featherston's was, 'We went together with these tribes to fight against the rebel tribes upon the authority of the Queen; they have consented to the sale. I have agreed to their (proposal). This land is in my hand.' Now we objected to his word. 'Your doing is simply taking our land by force. The eight hundred of Whanganui are not present at this meeting. You utter your mysterious words (kapu tauranga) to intimidate us.' He replied, 'That is all. It is done. I will give the money to the sellers.' We answered, 'It is wrong. I will hold on to my own land for ever. I will not take your money.' This was always the word of all the people."

(Here follow the signatures.)

"Statement by Henere Te Herekau and Hare Hemi Taharape.

"Manawatu, 16th April, 1866.

"This is what was publicly said to Dr. Featherston on the 5th April. These are the words of Ngatiraukawa against the sale of Rangitikei: –

"Dr. Featherston, listen attentively. Act justly towards those within your Province. Ngatiapa were desirous of selling this land on a former occasion. Ngatiraukawa refused to let it be sold, and it was not sold. They permitted the opposite side of the River Rangitikei to be sold. It was sold to Governor Grey. Ngatiapa were satisfied. The River Rangitikei constituted the boundary. Subsequently Ihakara wished to sell Manawatu, Ngatiraukawa assented to his wish, and Manawatu was sold to Governor Browne. The boundary began at Kaiwi thence to Omarupupaka, and continued to Pukingahau, where it ended. This was the permanent boundary. Afterwards Te Hirawanu sold the upper part of Manawatu. Ngatiraukawa assented, and that was sold to Governor Grey during his second government of New Zealand; Te Hirawanu was satisfied, and the boundary was fixed at Mangawharawhara Te Kotopiko, and Paripuwha, above Oroua, where it ended. This was a permanent boundary. This land which you are wishing to purchase we will never allow you to purchase – this must be kept for our support. It must be carefully subdivided. We will pay the surveyor and assist him.

"Dr. Featherston made no reply whatever to these statements of ours.

"On the 12th of April we, Ngatiraukawa, stood in the presence of Dr. Featherston and expressed our opinions strongly. Dr. Featherston, do not purchase our land without our assent, lest you do wrong. If there be any dispute about our land, let it remain as it is. Let a law court act that it may be finally settled, because a court has been established for Maori lands. Do not pull a man down by the back part of his head lest he have a bad fall and death follow. For our land will not be given up to you to purchase, never. No work has ever been completed in wrong-doing. When it is agreed upon by those dwelling in the land, then a sale may be completed.

"Dr. Featherston replied, 'There are 800 men of Whanganui, 200 of Ngatiapa, 100 of Rangitane and Muaupoko tribes, which went with me to fight against the bad tribes. They have agreed to sell; this land has become mine: I will give them the money.'

"Ngatiraukawa replied: 'We shall retain our own land, we shall not receive your money.'

"On the 16th of April we again stated our views to Dr. Featherston. 'Listen, Dr. Featherston: Do not give your money to those who are selling the land, but survey the land, that you may see the land belonging to those men who are selling; then you will be acting rightly, but you give your money first to those who are selling the land, and then when you go with your chain to survey our lands, your chain will not touch the land – it will be interrupted. You, the pakeha will be angry without a cause, inasmuch as you are seizing our land illegally.

"Withhold your money, lest it be the occasion of stirring up strife, and the people of this place be brought into trouble by you.

"HENERE TE HEREKAU.
"HARE HEMI TAHARAPE"

"Hare Hemi Taharape to the Hon. the Native Minister.

"Manawatu, 18th April, 1866.

"To Colonel Russell, –

"This is my protest against the proceedings of the sellers of Rangitikei, who have settled on my piece of land without authority. This is it. I will explain my boundary.

"It commences at Paranui, &c (here follows a statement of the boundaries.)

"I will not take Dr. Featherston's money if offered by him of his own accord for my land. Sufficient.

"From HARE HEMI."

Copy of a letter from Nepia Taratoa and others to His Excellency the Governor: –

"Matahiwi, Rangitikei, April 24, 1866.
"To Governor Grey, –

"Friend – Salutations. This is a statement of ours for your information. Rangitikei is our residence. The piece of land belonging to my father, withheld from your hand, did not produce a murmur from the tribes. After that Governor Browne (arrived.) Ngatiapa wanted to sell, but my father and all the tribes arranged for another place; Manawatu (was offered) to that Governor of ours. Governor Browne did not say any bad words to us in those years; that he would kick us with his feet, or would seize our lands close to Manawatu, even to all its branches. No, it was rather our Superintendent who seized the reserves excluded from that purchase of the Governor's at Manawatu. Te Paretao was one, Te Rewarewa was another seized by him. Now this is Rangitikei which is being seized. If trouble should come upon us this year it will be through Dr. Featherston. This land selling is not by the residents of Rangitikei.

"Ihakara belongs to Manawatu, others belong to Whanganui, and others belong to Porirua. These are the voices (people) approved of by your friend Dr. Featherston. The reason why this land is seized is that these voices (people) intimidate others.

"This kind of selling is very wrong. Enough. This is another word to you. This land purchase is by your second Provincial Government. (Should read: – 'This land purchase is a foul wrong that is being perpetrated during your second term of Government.' T. C. W.) Enough then. It is for you to prevent this land being now seized by Dr. Featherston. The people have written to the Assembly enough."

(Here follow the signatures.)

Copy of a letter from Nepia Taratoa and others to the Honourable Native Minister: –

"House of Matene,
"Otaki, 30th April, 1866.
"To Captain Russell (Native Minister).

"What we have said is true. Neither Ngatiapa, Rangitane, nor Muaupoko have anything to do with it (the land).

"This is the truth. On our arrival they were all killed or beaten by Te Rauparaha. The authority of the land had also departed, and they remained slaves.

"Again Te Rauparaha was continually slaying the people who had murdered his children. On account of our long residence among them, at last Te Rauparaha ceased slaying them, and then they lived.

"The word of Te Rauparaha went forth: Let all the land remain for Ngatiraukawa as far as Rangitikei, and as far as Otaki.

"By this we obtained authority over these lands, and by this our withholding the land is just. Again we have been living on it for many years.

"The people of Ngatiraukawa who have joined in the sale of the land, and Ngatiapa, these people are jealous on account of the small pieces of land belonging to them; another reason is that they have no influence amongst the people who have large pieces of land at Rangitikei.

"Now these are the people who possess the authority and the greater portion of the land."

(Here follow the signatures.)

"We have lived on the land thirty-one years.

"The fire of Ngatiapa has not been kindled up to the present day. 11

"This is why our speech has been put forth – first, to Governor Grey; second, Governor Browne; third. Governor Grey again.

"Our determination to hold fast to the land is fixed, and we will never cease."

Copy of a letter from Kooro to One and others to His Excellency Governor Grey: –

"Puketotara, 13th June, 1866.

"O Friend Governor Grey, –

"Salutations to you. This is a writing to you from us, so that you may know our thoughts respecting the land which is being sold by Hoani Meihana and Tape te Whata. It is situated between Rangitikei and Oroua. We, the chiefs and all the people, are averse to the sale of that land. This is to be a lasting possession for us. The boundary commences at Whitirea, in the region of Manawatu, thence towards the sea by way of Te Atatuhi to Otupere; the boundary turns off there and goes to Kaikokopu, thence to Kakukuera, Omanuka, Puketotara, Te Kawau, Totarataepa, Kopuapokoro Te Puta, Whakamoetakapu, Pareoa, Papauku; there it strikes off and goes to Umutoi on the Oroua, Te Awahuri, thence following the course of the Oroua to Puketotara meeting the formed boundary at Whitirea. We are the proprietors of this tract, that is to say, of that portion of the block towards Oroua and Manawatu. There are also some persons dwelling on the side towards Rangitikei who are holding on to it. Perhaps they have been to you to explain their views, and to let you know who they are; so therefore, when you have seen our thoughts do you send them on to the Runanga, so that they may also see.

"This is all we have to say to you from the men of the following hapus": –

(Here follow the signatures.)

"Enclosed is a sketch map of the piece of land in question for you to look at."

Copy of a letter from Kooro and others to his Excellency the Governor: –

"Puketotara, 13th July, 1866.

"O Father the Governor, –

"Salutations to you. Mr. Buller has come to Puketotara here, and has desired us to sign our names to the document disposing of Rangitikei and Oroua, but we did not consent to do so for we are not willing to sell our land. Our letter and chart also were sent to you on the 13th June, 1866. That is our fixed determination for ever. Do you then take care of the letter and the chart also.

"This is all from us."

(Here follow the signatures.)

Copy of a letter from Rawiri Te Wanui and others to the Hon. the Native Minister: –

"Otaki, July 19, 1866.

"To Colonel Russell, –

"Salutations to you, O Friend! We have heard that Dr. Featherston is coming to bring the money for Rangitikei. O Friend, give heed, as regards our land at Rangitikei, we are not willing that other tribes and other men leap on to it, and sell it. Is it right that a party, not interested take upon himself to sell land or a house belonging to some one else? No, that person would not agree to it, for another man to sell it in that way. Is such doing in accordance with the law, that which Dr. Featherston and his colleagues are doing? Is that which Dr. Featherston is doing correct in your estimation? To our mind it is wrong; it is not according to law, it is wrong; do you also condemn it? Let not Dr. Featherston come here and go on disturbing the (relations which exist) between you and us. But rather carry it out in accordance with the law. Let the Court decide between Dr. Featherston and his friends the sellers of our land on the one part, and us on the other part. That is all."

(Here follow the signatures.)

"Wellington, 9th May, 1866.

Notes of an interview between the Hon. Colonel Haultain, acting for the Native Minister, and thirty-five natives of the Ngatiraukawa tribe, on the subject of the sale of the Manawatu block.

"After some preliminary conversation, Henere Herekau, in the name of all present stated the object of the interview. He said that those present represented the Ngatiraukawa tribe who were opposed to the purchase of their land by Dr. Featherston. In the first instance only eight of their tribe agreed to the sale; subsequently, however, in consequence of the representations of Dr. Featherston and Mr. Buller, seven more agreed, and ultimately seventeen. Those present, however, were unanimously opposed to the sale, and not one of them had signed the agreement.

"Parakaia Pouepa then spoke, and said that he came to protest against Dr. Featherston's statement that 1,100 natives consented to the sale. He had not seen that number, and those who consented belonged to strange places; they came, he believed, from various parts of Whanganui.

"Colonel Haultain then informed them that Dr. Featherston had not sent in any report to the Government of what had taken place in respect to the purchase of the Manawatu block, but when Mr. Buller came down a full report would be made to the Government. In the meantime they were not in a position to state what they would do, not having sufficient information to enable them to judge of the case.

"He wished them to leave a document, signed by all of them, stating their objection to the sale to Dr. Featherston. Parakaia then read a document (enclosed) which was to be accepted as expressing the opinion of all present.

"In reference to this document, Parakaia said that they had applied first to Mr. Fitzgerald, secondly to the Bishop, and thirdly to the Government, and expressed in general terms strong disapproval of the course taken by Dr. Featherston in respect to their land.

"Colonel Haultain then told them that he would take the letter, and it should be considered by the Government when they had received Dr. Featherston's report. In the meantime they might rest satisfied that no sale would be allowed unless the owners of the land agreed to it." 12

Extract from a copy of a letter from Hunia Te Hakeke and others to the Honourable the Premier: –

"Turakina, March 23, 1866.

"Friend Mr. Stafford, and your colleagues, – You know (because) you have distinctly seen that the land of the Ngatiraukawas is at Maungatautari. They have sent in their claims. Let the Europeans clearly understand that

(Maungatautari) is their land."

. . . . . . . .

(Here follow the signatures.)

Copy of a letter from Hunia Te Hakeke and others to his Honour I. E. Featherston: –

"Turakina, August 1, 1866.

"Friend, –

"Salutations to you. We have received your letter of the 26th of last month. O sire, good are you! Great is our joy for the words of your letter to us. We have seen your words, showing us the works of the two men of Ngatiraukawa. We have not seen his work, cutting boundaries; he does it clandestinely in the bush. It is not right for him to cut boundaries at Oamarupapako; his work is wrong; he has no land here. The boundaries of his forefathers are at Maungatautari, where he can do such work of his. Our land we don't like him to take the smallest portion of; our selling of the land to you has been proclaimed to all these tribes. Parakaia's work is that of a thief; we have not seen his boundaries. We do not wish that the smallest piece be left in his hands; we have completed the consent of the large boundaries.

"Friend, Dr. Featherston, mine and Mr. Buller's work is at an end – the writing the names of the people.

"Friend, the thought is with you to draw near the day for the meeting at Parewanui, in the weeks of this month. What do we care about that man Parakaia causing trouble; if he is able to cause trouble among the Native tribes his body will see death, 13 as it has been settled by all the tribes, the consent of my work to you.

"From your friend,
"Hunia Te Hakeke,
"And eight others."

Copy of a letter from a Ngatiraukawa chief (non-settler) which was published in the Advertiser: –

(To the Editor of the Advertiser.)
"Otaki, April 23, 1867.

"This is an answer on the part of the Ngatiraukawa for our elder brothers, the pakehas, and the Government of New Zealand, to Ihakara Tukumaru's letter. He states in his letter that we have no claim on Rangitikei. Do you listen? He, on the contrary, has no standing place on the Rangitikei block, not even the smallest spot. It was only when he joined us in asserting our claims against the Ngatiapa, in 1863, that his foot rested at Tawirihoe. It is true that Ngatiapa had a claim formerly, but it has been ours by conquest since the year 1831, and the date of our taking possession of this land.

"We don't deny the claim of Rei and Tapa, and their people each to his small piece.

"Is it right, we should like to ask, for strangers to dispose of another man's property? We say that a man ought to have the disposal of his own property either to sell or to withhold, it is for himself to determine, especially when he has been many years in possession of his property. We have been thirty-six years in possession of the land at Rangitikei, and have held it, and yet all these tribes, whose names have been written, are said to have sold Rangitikei to Dr. Featherston.

"Say, then, our elder brothers, on what ground do these tribes rest their claims to Rangitikei. In our opinion they have no claim. This is the reason why they have no claim, because it has become ours by conquest, in the

same way that you pakehas obtain land. We are right in keeping possession; we do so under the protection of the law, and in obedience to law.

"And now, our elder brothers, cease from hiding the law. Let it come and ascertain the right of Ihakara's title, and that of the tribes who are acting with him. Ihakara has not a leg to stand upon – he has no claim to Rangitikei – his claim rests upon lies. By these means he got hold of his Pakeha accomplices and his lies have been taken up by his Pakeha friends, and they all lie together. Let us have done with that. What we still ask of you, elder brothers, who, together with us, are bothered about this matter, is to cease from withholding the law. Let us have the law, that the matter may soon be settled. It is for this reason that we repeat, let the law come.

"(Signed)
"NGATIRAUKAWA.

"Sir, please print this in your paper."

The following appears in the New Zealand Advertiser's Summary of June, 1867, published in Wellington: – "Again we are able to report that no disturbances have taken place with the Natives since we last wrote. The English troops are gradually going, and Colonial troops are idle. At Tauranga, the last place where the disaffection manifested itself, the Arawa contingent has been disbanded, and the Hau-haus have quietly dispersed, or come in and taken the oath of allegiance, being thoroughly beaten and disheartened, and absolutely starved into submission. We believe that the prospect of a sojourn at the Chatham Islands, under an armed guard, and with compulsory work to do, has had more effect in bringing this about than the presence of all the Imperial troops that could be mustered in the island. There seems to be a strange misapprehension in the minds of some of the authorities at home with regard to the retention of a regiment in this Colony. They conceive that if a regiment is left we are going to pay for it. We are going to do nothing of the sort. The Governor may recommend its retention, but the Ministers elected by the country will take no responsibility in the matter. Let the regiments stay by all means, but let them be solely at the Imperial charge, for we cannot afford to keep up the expensive game of the past six years. We are well enough able to take care of ourselves, including our Maori brothers, without further Imperial interference, and we certainly shall not pay to have that interference."

8 Supposition is not fact, most worthy Samuel Williams. – (T. C. W.)

9 Why was the land excepted from the operation of the Native Lands Act, 1862? – T. C. W.

10 Extract from copy of a letter from Major Edwards, R. M, to the Hon. the Native Minister: –
"Resident Magistrate's Office, Otaki, 21st July, 1866.
"Sir, –
"I have the honor to inform you that Mr. Hughes passed through this place, en route for Wellington, on Wednesday last, having completed the survey of Parakaia's land in the Rangitikei-Manawatu block. . . .
"(Signed)
" J. T. EDWARDS, R. M.
"The Hon. the Native Minister, Wellington."

11 Meaning that Ngatiapa has not occupied the land.

12 The Assembly voted £30,000 – the purchase has been completed. The owners have not yet agreed to the sale. So much for Ministers promises when Maoris are concerned. T. C. W.

13 Hunia is the wearer of the ring; the principal seller of the Manawatu block; the gentleman who lately made his appearance in the "Illustrated London News." – T. C. W.

POSTSCRIPT.

POSTSCRIPT.

The General Assembly closed its Session on the 10th October.

In the meantime an amended Native Lands Act was passed. I quote from the Wellington Independent: –

"THE MANAWATU BLOCK. – The Whanganui Times, in announcing that a sittings of the Native Lands Court will shortly be held at Rangitikei, reprints clauses 38 and 39 of the Native Lands Act, passed in the Session just closed, by which the Governor is empowered to refer claims of non-sellers to the Native Lands Court, but claims must be established individually, and not by hapu, the sellers being, of course, excluded from all interference in the matter. The clauses were introduced into the Act at the suggestion of Dr. Featherston, and run thus: – (38) The Governor may at his discretion refer to the said Court the claim of any such person in land within the boundaries described in the second schedule hereto, being the boundaries described in a certain deed of sale to the Crown bearing date the thirteenth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and expressed to be a conveyance by Natives entitled to land within the district excepted from the operation of the said Act by section eighty-two thereof. Provided that no claim by and no question relating to the title or interest of any Native who shall have signed the said deed of sale shall be so referred, and the Native Lands Court shall in the manner prescribed by the said Act investigate and adjudicate upon such claim and the interest in and title to any land so claimed. (39) From and after such date as may be appointed by the Governor in Council the eighty-second section of the said Act shall be repealed except so far as relates to the land included in the said deed of sale the boundaries of which land are set forth in the second schedule hereto. Provided that every holder of a land order originally selected within the block of sections laid out by the New Zealand Company at Manawatu shall be entitled to retain the particular section selected whenever the Native title may be hereafter extinguished and every certificate issued by the Native Lands Court in respect of the land comprised in the said block or any part thereof shall be and be on the face thereof described to be subject to such of the rights hereby reserved to claimants to the land comprised within such certificate."

I again quote from the Wellington Independent: –

"Among the papers laid before the Assembly, by command of

His Excellency, we find a very interesting memorandum by the Hon. J. C. Richmond on the Rangitikei-Manawatu land dispute, attached to the petition of Parakaia and others which was recently forwarded to the Queen. The gist of the memorandum is contained in the following paragraph: – 'It must be understood that the exact definition of a Maori land claim is rarely, perhaps never, possible. It would be impracticable to make any award to the non-contents in this case which would not be challenged by the sellers, who, though they have parted with their own interest in the land, might view its occupation by the other natives with great bitterness. The case is one, in short, of compromising an insoluble quarrel between half-civilized men, whose titles all rest on violence of a comparatively recent date, and who are only half weaned from regarding violence, even now, as the ultimate appeal. One side alleges conquest as its ground, the other the power to reconquer. Both appeal to Christianity, one to clench the status quo at the time of its introduction, the other to claim the restoration of territory then newly taken from them.' 14 We always peruse with interest anything coming from Mr. Richmond's pen, and he is certainly entitled to speak with authority on this Manawatu question, having held the post of Native Minister during the progress of the long and tedious negotiations for its final settlement. Mr. Richmond considers the Manawatu purchase the settlement of the 'insoluble quarrel' between the tribes, but adds: – 'A share of the purchase money is reserved for the non-contents, and large allotments of land will in any case be set aside for them. It has, however, been thought advisable to allow considerable delay in winding up the transaction, that as many as possible of the non-contents may come in. 15 It is doubtful whether the quarrel might not be renewed, if an extensive part of the block proportioned to their numbers were at present laid off for them.' He also informs the Home Government that the petitioners have been repeatedly assured of full justice, and that no surveys have as yet been made in the purchased block, except to define reserves for the sellers.

"There is much truth in Mr. Richmond's remarks, and we consider that the Government, in the interests of peace, would have been perfectly justified in hanging the question up till all danger of the kind indicated had passed away. It seems to us, however, that the present position of the purchase alters the whole case, and the settlement of dissentient's claims has become now a very simple matter. The tribal dispute has been got rid of by purchase. Of the six tribes originally claiming to be interested, in the block, five have unanimously agreed to the sale and taken their share of the purchase money – in other words, they have been bought out of the concern, and have nothing more to do with it. Their reserves have been defined, 16 and their claims are finally silenced. Of the other tribe (Ngatiraukawa) the great majority, including nearly all the principal resident claimants, have agreed

to the sale, some four hundred of them having signed the deed and taken their share of the purchase money. In all, about 1700 Natives have signed the deed of sale. The small party of non-contents who allege claims within the block and refuse to part with them, have taken up this position – they will not themselves define their claims, nor will they accept the Commissioner's definition of them, or agree to his award. The fact is that so long as a man like Parakaia, whose individual claims are very insignificant, can assert a general claim to the whole block, and obstruct the purchase, he is a great man among his fellows. The moment he is reduced to proving his actual claims and confining himself to them, he will, of course, fall back to his proper rank; and Parakaia is too shrewd a man not to know this himself. What we therefore require is, some means of compelling these outstanding claimants to come in and prove, before an impartial tribunal, what portions of the block they are fairly entitled to. Arbitration was proposed, and was agreed to by a section of the claimants, but this proposal fell through, owing to the difficulty of finding competent arbitrators. We have now, however, the remedy in the Native Lands Act of last session. By a clause in that Act – inserted, we understand, at Dr. Featherston's suggestion – the Government is empowered to fix a special sitting of the Native Lands Court at Rangitikei, to hear and adjudicate on all these claims. The Government, will, accordingly, refer to this Court all claims that have been sent in by the protesting party, and will accept its decision as final. When this has been done his Excellency will, we understand, be advised to proclaim the Native title extinguished over the rest of the block, and the vexed question of the Manawatu will then be a thing of the past."

I quote from the New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, second session of the fourth Parliament: –

"Wednesday, September 18th. Native Lands Courts at Turanganui. Mr. Carleton, in moving that the correspondence between the Government and the Judges of the Native Lands Court on the sitting of the Court at Turanganui, laid on the table of this House, be considered, presumed the whole case was shown in the correspondence which he held in his hand. . . . He could hardly conceive anything more irritating to the Natives than the conduct of the Government throughout the whole of the matter. It was calculated to destroy all their confidence in British institutions. He did not say that it destroyed all confidence in the Government, because they had not entertained any confidence in the Government for several years past. The Natives had confidence in the Queen, where they believe they could obtain the ear of the Queen, or where they could obtain access to the Crown. They did not believe in Governors, they did not believe in Governments, for the proceedings of Governments had been such as to destroy what little of confidence might at any time have been supposed to exist in the Native mind. In regard to Native matters, he (Mr. Carleton) had no confidence in Governments.

He did not believe they would purposely do injustice, but they did not understand the question. The sooner the whole of that power of meddling and muddling was taken out of their hands, the better it would be for the peace of the country and the finances of the Colony. At last the Court proceeded to sit at Turanganui. What was the result? Another adjournment was applied for. Extreme dissatisfaction was manifested amongst those who had been brought away from their homes again and again, at their own cost, and the same amount of dissatisfaction was felt by those who had to receive them according to the law of Maori hospitality, a law which was never violated. They thought they were being made fools of. Nothing remained but for the Judge, although he himself could not help being exceedingly dissatisfied, to attempt to bring back the Natives to confidence in British institutions. Judge Monro could have adopted no better, no more judicious, course than he did on that occasion to preserve the peace of the country, and restore confidence in British institutions. He (Mr. Carleton) would reiterate the words 'British institutions,' for he could not expect the Natives to have confidence in anything else, although he did see some rising gleam of confidence in that house – in what they call the 'white runanga.' Judge Monro proved to them that there was an institution in the country on which they could depend; an institution in which there was no vacillation, no question of mere expediency involved; an institution which was regulated by considerations of law and equity alone; an institution which was powerful in itself, and beyond the influence of Government. That was the first thing the Judge endeavoured to show to the Natives. He showed them the perfect independence of the Court of that Government which they justly distrusted. So long as the Government could override that Court, the Natives would not believe in that Court. That Court was the true guarantee for peace at the present moment; and in the same proportion as the Court was tampered with or interfered with, in the same proportion were the chances of another outbreak. He (Mr. Carleton) did not think the Judge could have given a more judicious proof of the independence of the Court – that it was staunch to the Natives; an institution in which they could place their entire confidence – than he did by the course he had adopted. Did anybody deny that? The Government denied it practically, but they should recollect that that House had decreed the independence of the Court, and caused it to be appointed, not durante bene placito, but quamdiu se bene gesserint – not during pleasure, but during good behaviour. Was the House of opinion, when doing that, that they were decreeing a sham, or that their action would ever become a sham? The intention of the House ought to be carried out. He (Mr. Carleton) did not doubt the House would affirm, whenever called upon to do so, that the Judges of the Court were justified in asserting that independence which was made a special condition of their appointment.... It mattered very little

to the Judge what confidence the Government might have in him, so long as he retained the confidence of that House; but in the last paragraph the Government attempted to make him believe that at one time they were inferior to the Court, and at another time so superior as to be able to give directions. They supposed themselves superior to everything at once; they brought to his mind a phrase of Cicero's: – 'Tres personas unus sustineo; meam, adversarii, judicis?' 'I am playing three parts – I am plaintiff, defendant and judge.' That appeared to him to be the position which the Government were attempting to arrogate to themselves. He had avoided details as much as possible. He had risen for the maintenance of a principle, and it was seldom he did rise except for such a purpose. He cared very little for details, but he had a very clear appreciation of principles, especially those in which they had been brought up in the mother country; and whenever he saw a principle infringed, whether by a friendly Government, or one to whom he was in opposition, most assuredly would he rise for the maintenance of that principle. The special principle which he had then risen to maintain was that no interference could be tolerated as to the Courts of law. It was not only on that occasion, not only in reference to the Native Lands Court, that interference had taken place, but it had also taken place with regard to the supreme Court in a manner that was highly objectionable. He did not specially refer to the present Administration, for he looked upon the General Government as one and continuous. He had seen correspondence with the Judges laid on the table of which he was ashamed; and on all occasions whatever upon which he perceived the slightest inclination to any interference with the judicial Courts, so long should he rise to protest against it in the strongest terms. He could not tolerate an attempt to browbeat a Court of law. He hoped that the House would think fit to maintain the perfect independence of a Court which had been constituted by itself." . . .

"Mr. Stafford said. . . He entirely agreed in the terms his hon. colleague had made use of in reference to the conduct of Mr. Monro. He could only say it was very fortunate for that gentleman that he had not had to deal with him instead of his hon. colleague. He (Mr. Stafford) should not have let him off so easily, but would have gone a great deal further, and have stopped his salary, and then he would have allowed him to rush to that House, as he appeared to have done.

"Mr. Carleton: The hon. Member is entirely under a misapprehension. I have had no communication, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Monro.

"Mr. Stafford believed, if there was one thing more calculated than another to provoke a breach of the peace, it was the action of Mr. Monro on that occasion. They were told that the Judges of the Native Lands Court were to be higher than the Legislature and the Government of the country. They were told at the same time that no Governor had the confidence of the natives, and that

they only believed in the Queen. When had the Natives ever communicated with or approached the Queen, except through the Governor? And yet the House was told by its oldest member, by one who specially attributed to himself a knowledge of Native character, that the Natives did not believe in the General Government or the Governor, but only in the Queen, who practically never interfered with them, and never would. It would be teaching them to lean upon the very rottenest reed if they were advised not to listen to either the Governor or the Government. This was what the Natives had been advised in 1860, and with the most dire effect, as they were deluded enough to act upon it. The man who gave such advice, either through want of sagacity or otherwise, was no true friend to the race. He would bring the question to an issue in consequence of the language used by the hon. gentleman; and he would let the House determine, so that there could be no mistake about the matter. He would tell the hon. gentleman that, so long as he had the honor to be one of the advisers of the Crown, he would take such action as circumstances might require, even if it should be to suspend the operation of the Judges of the Native Lands Court, whenever such a course was for the public interests – aye, even if the Judges were swept away altogether. He and his colleagues would take that responsibility upon themselves, when they thought public interests demanded it. If, therefore, the hon. member thought that was an improper position, or one which would not be upheld by the Legislature, he had now a fair opportunity of taking issue upon the subject. He would leave to his hon. colleague, who was familiar with the details, to advert more particularly to some observations of the hon. member for the Bay of Islands, but he wished it to be distinctly understood that he should never scruple to suspend the action of a Court of so tentative a character, and one which was altogether an experiment, as that which it was proposed to hold under the East Coast Titles Act. It had been a question of policy to create these Courts, and it was every day becoming a question whether it was advisable that they should be continued. He, for one, should never hesitate, so long as he had the responsibility of administering public affairs, to arrest any action, whatever, which he thought to be injurious to public interests, even though it might be taken under the name of a Court."

They will be brave Judges who, after reading the above speech which fell from the sapient lips of that great man the Prime Minister – not of Europe, not of Britain, but of New Zealand – who, thinking that injustice may have been done to the Natives, and being desirous of amending that injustice, would undertake to adjudicate upon the claims of Ngatiraukawa non-sellers. I trust the Judges will be advised, and before they enter upon their very delicate mission to the Manawatu, will do themselves the honor of waiting upon the Hon. E. W. Stafford, and of ascertaining from him how the "advisers of the Crown" would wish them to give their decisions, otherwise they will be "swept away." Their

position and their income will not be worth one solitary week's purchase; far better for them that they should be found toying with millstones among the waters of the Manawatu, than that they should offend against the peculiar views respecting the public interests entertained by New Zealand's Prime Minister!

The Hon. J. C. Richmond, who has "held the post of Native Minister during the progress of the long and tedious negociations for the final settlement of the Manawatu question," must be either woefully ignorant of the facts of the case, or he must have been wilfully misstating the case to Her Majesty's Government, when he says – "It is doubtful whether the quarrel might not be renewed if an extensive part of the block proportioned to their. numbers were laid off for them." Such a statement, to say the least, comes with a very bad grace from the Native Minister of a Government that has but lately expended three millions of colonial treasure with a vast amount of "British blood and treasure," inflicting at the same time a vast amount of misery upon the Maori race, for the avowed purpose of asserting in this land the supremacy of law! Such a statement is worse, it is entirely untrue. The Ngatiraukawa, and they alone have held possession of the block for now nearly forty years. All that Ngatiapa wanted with the block was to sell it to a land-sharking Government. The New Zealand Magistrates, and among them there are many very worthy men, have repeatedly stated that were there no receivers of stolen property there would be fewer thieves. The Hon. W. C. Richmond, in 1860, writing to Her Majesty's Government in defence of his Waitara purchase and Waitara war, stated, – "The grand desire of the British colonists, in respect of the Natives, is to see the Maori people rendered amenable, in their dealings with the settlers, to British law, and that all the inhabitants of New Zealand should be subjected in their mutual dealings to the control of one common law." The Hon. J. C. Richmond, writing, in 1867, in defence of the Manawatu purchase, in a case where 250,000 acres have been purchased from five tribes having no title to the land, speaking of the sixth tribe, the real owners, says: – "It is doubtful whether the quarrel might not be renewed if an extensive part of the block proportioned to their numbers were at present laid off for them." In either case a kind and paternal Government must have the land. Had the British Government condescended, in 1860, to investigate the Waitara purchase, they might have preserved the unfortunate Maori race from much subsequent rebellion, crime, and misery; they might have saved a vast expenditure of "British blood and treasure;" they might have saved this unfortunate Colony from the burdens which are now so great a hindrance to its advancement and prosperity. If the British Government will now cause the Manawatu purchase to be thoroughly investigated, they will soon see how much reliance is to be placed upon statements emanating from New Zealand statesmen respecting matters wherein the Maories are concerned.

The Hon. J. C. Richmond tells Her Majesty's Government, speaking of the unfortunate non-sellers, "It is doubtful whether the quarrel might not be renewed if an extensive part of the block proportioned to their numbers were at present laid off for them."

The Hon. E. W. Stafford tells the Judges of the Native Lands Court if they act in opposition to the public interests he will "sweep them all away." It is easy to foretel the result. Unless Her Majesty's Government interfere there has been attempted, and ere long there will have been accomplished in the Manawatu acts of bare-faced impudent injustice and of cruel oppression.

The General Assembly have now enacted that "The Governor may at his discretion refer to the said Court (the Native Lands Court) the claim of any person affecting the title to, or interest of any such person in land within (the Manawatu block)." What about the "six tribes?" Who are to decide what title five of the six tribes had to the land, and how far the General Government were justified in using those five tribes, numbers of them armed at the expense of the colonists, as a lever whereby to "crush the opposition" of the real owners "to the sale?" What about the "seventeen hundred signatures?" Who are to decide how many of the seventeen hundred men represented by those signatures had no title whatever to the block? What is to be done in the case of men who may have signed the deed of sale upon certain conditions, which conditions have not since been fulfilled by the Government? What again in the case of men who signed the deed when in a state of intoxication? What in the case of men who signed the deed, being weary of the whole question, living, as they were, under a Government which never interfered in Maori quarrels saving only when something was to be gained? Who are to decide whether the sale and the purchase first and last have or have not been a most impudent swindle? Who are to decide whether or not the deed of cession ought to be burned, and the Land Purchase Commissioners, with others, sent away to the Chatham Islands? 17

Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain "confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, as long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession." The General Assembly of New Zealand purchased 250,000 acres of fine land, the rents of which had been kindly and judiciously impounded – from five tribes having no title to the land – then enacts that "any person" of the sixth tribe may, "at the Governor's discretion," have his claim heard in the Native Lands Court before Judges whom the Prime Minister is prepared to "sweep away" if they act in any way in opposition to the "public interests." The

Assembly, with an impudence that is alike remarkable and inimitable, have, by the 39th clause of the Native Lands Act, fixed certain land orders issued by the New Zealand Company as so many mortgages upon land which is purely Maori property – land to which the Government have no shadow of a title. In fact the whole of the legislation, first and last, with respect to the Manawatu country, would appear to be so many little attempts at amendments upon the Treaty of Waitangi. Question. – Which should win – Great Britain's Treaty, or New Zealand's Bills?

Some few years ago the writer, himself a tall and stout man, was riding upon a tall and stout horse, some eleven miles from the city of Auckland, where he met with a very little man on foot, with whom he had some very high words. The discussion not proving satisfactory, the writer told the little man to "go to Jericho," and endeavoured to show him how his horse could trot. The little man, nothing daunted, drew himself up to his full height, which was not much poor little fellow, he then shouted after the writer with loud voice, and in tone alike indignant and defiant – "I a'int afraid of you, big as you are!"

When one reflects (the Maoris say "it is well sometimes to reflect") that New Zealand is a country each and every of whose cities might be blown down about the ears of the owners and the proprietors thereof by one solitary British frigate, when one reads the speeches of hon. members wherein it is calmly proposed that the House should go in for a declaration of its independence, the members it is to be imagined each and every of them standing upon their heads; when one reads the speeches of the honorable the Ministers, with the various, ominous, and formidable memoranda transmitted across the seas, from time to time, from the Ministers of New Zealand to the Ministers of Britain, one feels disposed to pat them each and severally upon the back, and with hearty and heartfelt admiration to exclaim, "Well done, little one!"

Great Britain should not forget that when Christian missionaries first landed in New Zealand, bearing in obedience to the commands of their Maker the blessings of salvation to the heathen, the Maoris were a race of wild and savage cannibals. Great Britain should not forget that when in 1840 she obtained peaceable possession of the Islands of New Zealand by treaty through the instrumentality of Christian missionaries, the Maoris were at least professedly a Christian people – cannibalism had entirely ceased – war and bloodshed had almost ceased – the Sabbath was respected – in every pa and in every village throughout the land was heard the tinkle of the bell, sometimes of its substitute in the shape of a suspended musket-barrel, summoning the Maoris to morning and to evening prayer. Their law then, poor brave fellow's, at the time when the Anglo-Saxons were weak and unarmed in this land was love (aroha) to the Pakeha. Wherefore this estrangement? How this sad change? Why has it become necessary that after twenty years of almost peaceful occupation

fifteen thousand Anglo-Saxons should have been engaged, armed with fifteen thousand British bayonets, acting in the service and in the name of the Queen of Britain in decimating the tribes of the Maori, desolating their homes, confiscating their lands to the Crown, inflicting a vast amount of misery upon the Maori race, compelling them "naked and famine-stricken, to submit to the force of circumstances," trampling under foot the work of British Societies in this country, driving the Maoris to Hau-hauism, to debauchery, and to crime.

Britain should not forget, that though she is great, she is great only by comparison. This world is a great world, revolving through space, but far less than many other worlds, inhabited, doubtless, by peoples far more mighty, far more wealthy than the British. Britain should not forget, that though she herself is great, the God of the Christian churches is greater than she.

In conclusion, let me ask every candid minded man to urge upon the British Government that they should "send persons to investigate carefully this wrong" in order and to the good end that they may "trot out" the real delinquents and at the same time clear the Christian churches of Britain, and their agents who for half a century have laboured in this land, many of whom have already departed this life, others again are now standing upon the brink of the grave, with the Bishop of New Zealand, his colleagues and their ministry from the charge of having "been more than any man supposes the cause of that long and protracted war the burdens of which now hang about our necks to the hindrance of public and private prosperity."

THOMAS C. WILLIAMS,
A Native of New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand, November 25, 1867.

The following letters were published in the Daily Southern Cross, Auckland, Saturday, November 16, 1867: –

"(To the Editor of the Daily Southern Cross.)

"SIR, –

"A letter appeared a few days back in your newspaper relative to mercy being extended to the Maori prisoners. This induces me to send you a letter that I received from William Thompson while he was on a visit to the Governor at Wellington. William Thompson correctly thought that the native character was not properly known by the Europeans, and he wrote me several letters relating to his own life and that of his ancestors, to show that they (the Maoris), when even cannibals, could be merciful.

"William Thompson tells, in the enclosed letter, how that he tried to prevent crime and prevent war, that he made peace at Taranaki, and that he endeavoured to establish schools, &c

"War, unjust war, has brought ruin to many Natives and Europeans, and left a debt on the Colony that our grand-children will scarcely live to see paid. It is seven years, on the 20th of this month, since the Taranaki war was begun. My friend's letter

may be interesting to some who, like myself, were always opposed to war, and to strangers it will show that the Maori is not the savage some represent. If you can afford space, I would like the Maori as well as the English translation to be printed.

"Yours, &c,
"GEORGE GRAHAM.
"Cliff, Hobson-street,
"Auckland, November 14, 1867."

[TRANSLATION.]

"Wellington, August 13, 1866.
"To Mr. George Graham.

"Friend, – Good and bad men are not of to-day; such existed formerly, at the time of my ancestors, at the time of my parents, and now in my time. They gave instructions to their children, as my father also gave instructions to me, to be kind to the people of low degree; this was his teaching to me, as it was also his father's to him, when his uncle Herea was killed by Ngatiraukawa, who was killed as an offering to propitiate (the gods) upon this occasion of the building of their house – Tutuakarewarewa; therefore did he assume the name of Taingakawa. 18 After the death of Herea Tukutetaiheke came to Horotiu, regardless of the consequences, Taingakawa te Waharoa being absent at the time. When Ngatihaua saw him, they raised a shout. "It is Tukutetaiheke." It was heard from one end of Ngatimaniapoto to the other; some went to carry wood, some to carry covers, some to carry stones, there with to cook Tuku. When the news reached Taingakawa te Waharoa he went there and found the fire was alight; he went straight to Tuku and gave him his nose (rubbed noses). So Tuku was saved. Then again a war party was sent to Rotorua; Puhirua was attacked, and fell, by Ngatihaua, Ngapuhi, Ngatipaoa. Haerewharara fled. Now that man belonged to Ngatiraukawa; he was overtaken by the army. When Taingakawa te Waharoa saw it he took him and let him go to his own people (saved his life). Then, again, when Ngapuhi and Ngatiwhatua were at war, and they fled before Hongi Hika, and those which escaped came to Patetere – when Te Waharoa heard of it he took them to Maungakawa, the 140 of Ngatiwhatua, and treated them kindly there; the chiefs were Te Roro o te Rangi, Tamahiki, Pateoro, and Te Tinana. When he sent them back to Kaipara, he said to them – 'Go; do not come back in one year, or in two years, but come when you are supplied with guns, powder, and balls (meaning, do not hastily commence war); then come and seek revenge for your dead,' that is for Te Tinana, who had been murdered by the grandfather of Rewi, by Tukorehu.

"At the commencement of the war with Ngatipaoa, he having seen how disposed to evil the chief of his two hapus, Ngatihaua and Ngatikoroki, were (these chiefs were disposed to evil on

account of Ngatipaoa having killed their men, and taken away their lands Horotiu and Maungakawa), then he went to Takurua, chief of Ngatipaoa, and recited his song. This was the song: – "Hie-hie, go go, return; lead back your children to your own land; come not here to disturb our tranquillity." He then went thence to Tauranga; after which his people killed Takurua. He returned not to his people, being vexed at their having murdered Takurua, and he suffered his own people to be killed in payment for Takurua. He remained at Tauranga two years. During the second year his sister was killed by Ngatipaoa; then was his heart pained; then he came back to seek redress for the death of his sister. Then fell Ngatipaoa, Ngatimaru, Tamatera, Whanaunga, Te Tawera, and Te Patuwai, and they were caused, to go back to their own place, to Hauraki. After this, our man Te Hunga was murdered at Rotorua. Maketu fell in consequence. The women, Tumaia, Tamahuka, Rama, and Peti, were captured. Te Waharoa looked upon them, and sent them back to Rotorua. After this the daughter of Hikairo, Pinenga-a-Riri, married my elder brother. Then the peace was firmly established. After they had lived together for two months, the war party of Taraia rushed upon Waiharakeke, and Pinenga-a-Riri was taken a captive. Ngatihaua stood up to seek payment, but Te Waharoa would not let them. He died in the year 1832, and I grew up: but I did not carry out completely the intentions of my father. After his death Ngatihaua wished to plunder the property of Mr. Brown, minister; my people plundered the whole of his property. I then asked them, and they were all given back. Then I arranged for the robbery (made restoration), four pigs and a piece of land – that was in payment for the large matters stolen. Then, for the wine drunk by my younger brothers, one pig, four baskets of taro, and six nets of potatoes. This was discontinued at that time. I embraced religion. A missionary was now stationed at Tauranga, I urged on the people to cease fighting amongst themselves, but they would not hear. I kept on year by year to urge upon them; at last they all embraced religion. I then turned my attention to establishing schools to examine in class those who were candidates for baptism, and then I used to pass them on to the minister to be baptized. As religion grew, I entertained the idea of having a large church built to be a gathering place for those who up to that time had been antagonistic to each other, so that their animosity might cease. When that house was built it was named Babel, in length it was 24 yards, in breadth 10 yards. Then the Arawa, Waikato, and Ngatipaoa were called; those were the tribes who assembled in that house at that meeting, for the purpose of causing animosity to cease. There were consumed 2,000 baskets of potatoes and kumeras, 3,000 pigs, 20,000 eels, 8 casks of tobacco; one cask of tobacco was contributed by the Government, that is to say by Edward Shortland. Having thus put a stop to old feuds existing between Rotorua and Hauraki, I wished to turn my attention

to Waikato, Mokau, Kawhia, and Rangiaohia, that they might all work in unison. I made the attempt, and succeeded. I made the attempt to become possessed of laws for the suppression of crime, for a partial runanga, and magistrates, but the war at Taranaki intervened. I went there and made peace. I again made the attempt, but I had become weary of those things, and I forsook them in the Waikato war. I forsook law, and forsook religion, neither have I yet become desirous for those two things. (Thompson meant that with war he neglected religion, and he could not think our laws just. We refused to enquire into the cause of the war, and broke faith with him after the fall of Rangiriri by not making peace at Ngaruawahia, where the Governor promised to talk with the Maoris.) Here let my thoughts end. From your friend,

"W. TAMIHANA TE WAHAROA."

14 Trash. – T. C. W.

15 When well wearied – T. C. W.

16 Query. – T. C. W.

17 The largest of the Chatham Islands is used as a penal settlement for the Maoris.

18 An offering.

Conditions of Use

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

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

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

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

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

Request for permission form