THE SECOND YEAR
of
ONE OF ENGLAND'S LITTLE WARS.
by
archdeacon of kapiti
new zealand
WILLIAMS AND NORGATE
14. HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON;
AND 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH.
Hocken Library Facsimile No. 6
This copy of the orginal edition is published
by the Hocken Library, University of Otago,
Dunedin, New Zealand, 1967
This copy of the orginal edition is published
by the Hocken Library, University of Otago,
Dunedin, New Zealand, 1967
I have been induced by the perusal of Professor
Pamphlet to send to England a few further remarks on the origin of
the Taranaki war. I have directed particular attention to some of
his misstatements—all that are important: I have necessarily omitted
to notice many others. I have reprinted some letters previously published
in the Colony, because they contain information that
pears
original form, partly from want of time to recast them, and partly to
shew that I have fearlessly stated my opinions here knowing that they
could not be refuted. I have also given some notes by
Martin
able
natives, as well as to a speech and a letter from a Chief,
siding
obliged to vindicate myself from certain charges brought against me
for not communicating to the Governor letters which I had received
from W. King. But I have refrained from any allusion to the
Governor's calumnious imputations against me in reference to the
origin of a Petition for his recall, which was sent to Her Majesty the
Queen by the Maories of this place and its vicinity, having written
officially to the Secretary of State for the Colonies contradieting and
refuting his statements.
O. H.
Otaki,
April1, 1861.
Printed Itek-offset in New Zealand
by John McIndoe Ltd, Dunedin
by John McIndoe Ltd, Dunedin
The silence of the local press as to the real merits of the Taranaki war induced me to send home to England in May, 1860, a few remarks on that subject, which were published in the form of a letter to His Grace the Duke of Newcastle, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The letter on its return was reprinted by the local press, and became widely circulated through the Colony. Nobody here has been rash enough to attempt a refutation of a single statement contained in it. But what nobody has ventured to do here, Professor
It is almost needless to say that I see no reason to recall or modify any expression contained in the letter which has called forth such unqualified condemnation from Prof. Browne. I am charged with having pronounced severe and undeserved censures on Colonel Browne's conduct; and with having left no stone unturned to effect his ruin and disgrace. I was not aware of any prejudice likely to warp my judgment or incapacitate me for the duty I had undertaken when I directed public attention to what I then considered, and still believe to be, an act of flagrant injustice—an act absolutely illegal and wholly indefensible. I am charged with allowing zeal and intemperance to blind me to principles and facts which under other circumstances could not have been overlooked; but what these
Reprinted. London: Dalton. Cockspur Street
A large part of the Ngatiawa tribe, with
It is admitted on all sides that about the year 1830 Waikato completely defeated that portion of the Ngatiawa who remained at Waitara, and defended Pukerangiora. The Waikato were, however, very shortly afterwards repulsed by another section of the Ngatiawa led by
But there is an aspect of this question which seems to have escaped notice, it is this—that even if Waikato had taken possession of, and cultivated, the land after their triumph over a subordinate portion of the Ngatiawa tribe, such possesion could in no way whatever have affected the rights of W. King and that portion of the tribe absent in Cook's Strait. That a forcible entry had been made upon their territory during their absence could not affect their rights. Maori law or custom on this subject is clear and distinct. It is not pretended that any capitulation took place, or that any terms were made at the capture of
It follows also that Governor Hobson's purchase of the whole territory, now constituting the Taranaki Province, from two Waikato chiefs, could not impair or invalidate the rights of W. King and his tribe to their land at Waitara. The object of the transaction having been to prevent any interference on the part of Waikato in Taranaki land questions. Mr. Richmond unwarily admits this: “This deed was relied upon as, at all events, precluding the interference of Waikato in the Taranaki question.” (Papers E, No. 3, p. 33.)
The next statement made by the Governor and his supporters is, that the New Zealand Company purchased the Waitara from certain persons residing at Taranaki. It appears that a deed of cession was executed at Taranaki, on the 15th Feb. 1840.
Sir
It appears, therefore, that nothing whatever occurred during the interval between W. King's departure from Waitara in 1827 and his return to that place in 1848 to affect his rights at Waitara, or those of that portion of the tribe who acknowledged him as their head, and accompanied him in his movements.
It may have appeared quite superfluous to have entered into an examination of the claims resting on the Waikato invasion of Waitara, and of those founded on the New Zealand Company's deeds, when the right of the Ngatiawa to reoccupy and possess their property at Waitara has been practically admitted by the Government, not only by leaving them unmolested there, but by repeatedly entering into negotiations with various members
There is a view of this subject that has been entirely overlooked, but on which I have laid particular stress from the very beginning of this controversy. In my letter referred to above any allusion to Tribal right was altogether omitted, not because any doubt was entertained on the subject; but simply because it appeared that the whole controversy might be greatly narrowed by avoiding any reference to it.
The Government documents contain innumerable repetitions of the assertion, that W. King and those acting with him have never made any claim to the disputed land. It is presumed that some meaning is intended to be conveyed by these reiterated assertions; but it is difficult to imagine what it can be. The assumption that a number of men may be forcibly ejected from land which they have inherited from remote ancestors, and which they are actually occupying, unless they send in claims to such land at the bidding of a Deputy land purchase Commossioner, is so absurd and unreasonable that it cannot deserve serious refutation. But it may be safely predicted that such an arbitrary process of confiscation, if authorized by the Home Government, will require a larger portion of the British army to enforce it than may be expected, for Maories will never submit to such an act of spoliation.
It has been asserted that W. King never advanced any claim to land at Waitara, except in his capacity as head of an “anti-land-selling-league.” Appendix B. J. Appendix A. B.
It will probably be inferred from the constant reference to claims that some Court formally investigated the respective titles of claimants to the land at Waitara. No such investigation ever took place. Mr. Parris allows that he failed in his attempt to make even a preliminary inquiry. “I spent this day and many others with them endeavouring to induce them to meet The second question is, “Did the Governor do rightly in submitting the question of title to Mr. McLean. Chief Land-Purchase Commissioner?” (P. 23.) This question seems very unmeaning, it being an acknowledged fact that the consideration of title was never submitted to Mr. M'Lean till more than four months after the war began. This sentence is curious. The Chief Commissioner has no special authority from the Queen. Professor Browne assumes that Mr. M'Lean holds the same office as that held by Mr. Spain, and is commissioned “to investigate and determine titles and claims to lands in New Zealand.” (Page 23.) In this assumption he is quite wrong. Again, Mr. M'Lean has not held his office anything like twently years. So far from spending eight or nine months in patient enquiry, he was absent the whole time, as has been shewn, from Taranaki, having been chiefly engaged on the opposite side of the island, near Napier. He never reported that “ The whole of this “conspiracy,” by means of which Mr. Richmond first got rid of the old New Zealand Company's purchasers, and then involved the country in a war to uphold an illegal purchase from a man that was not the proprietor, is exposed in a memorial that will be presented to the two Houses of Assembly, from sic volo sic jubeo of Colonel Browne, which his subordinate. Mr. Parris, though he had himself once described the transaction as “a treacherous and dishonourable conspiracy
The Government has now abandoned the original ground on which it defended the war. Prof. Browne will perhaps be surprised to find himself among the heretics. Mr. Richmond's Memorandum lately published in answer to Sir W. Martin's “Taranaki Question,” contains the following words:—“The opening proposition that ‘the present is a land quarrel’ has a tendency to mislead. The question raised in the original dispute with W. King was one of authority and jurisdiction, not a question of title to a particular piece of land.” (p. 2.) Prof. Browne took the same view of it as Sir W. Martin, his opening proposition being—“The quarrel now unhappily existing between the Government and some of the natives originated in a dispute concerning the sale of about 600 acres of land.” All the “acknowledged lies” about an “investigation” and a “decision” as to the rights of the persons expelled from Waitara, which Prof. Browne seems to have believed and relied on, are now thrown to the winds; the Government now no longer ventures to defend them. Mr. Richmond now boldly says—“The Governor being of right sole judge of questions respecting Native Territorial right, was justified in enforcing his jurisdiction in the only practicable mode, viz. by military occupation.” (p. 2.) After these admissions from Mr. Richmond, the Native Minister, it is to be hoped that no friends of the Governor will again venture to defend the untenable position that there ever was
The inquiry still remains as to what was the real motive that induced the Governor to begin this war. It is clear that when he indignantly repudiated the suggestion made to him by the Taranaki Provincial Council, that he might by an irregular and dishonest course obtain the Waitara, he was not prepared for the step he subsequently took: he did not then see what he afterwards saw, that it was “essentially necessary for the consolidation of the Province, Professor Browne says, that I “reproached the Governor for not acting without consultation with his Ministers.” (P. 34.) There is not a word of truth in this. On the contrary, it is well known here that I have for several years predicted the disasters that would follow from allowing an individual Governor to act on his mere impulse or caprice; and have pointed out nearly five years ago in an official letter, in reply to one from the Governor, the Professor Browne says, “As regards birth, it is proved by their respective pedigrees that as well as for the use of the settlers.” (E, no 3, p. 3.) There is no doubt that what has been aptly described in the House of Representatives as “sinister influence,” was brought to bear on him.à priori absurdity of supposing that two races so thoroughly intermixed as the Pakeha and the Maori could be successfully governed. not only on two different systems, but by two distinct authorities. In even alluded to this fact in my letter to the Southern Cross, on which the Professor has commented, but which he seems to have read very carelessly. The “sinister influence” was brought irregularly to bear on the GovernorMaori Messenger.” (Page 40.) That any one should have been such a gobe mouche as to believe the ridienlons hoeus-poeus here referred to amezes me. It is howevever satisfactory to find that the amiable Professor does not adopt Mr. Richmond's views about “beastly communism.” Hear what a disinterested Maori Chief says about the pedigree:—“Sir, what about his genealogy? This is the second proof he has given you (against himself)—his theft first, and now his genealogy. By these you may know him. W. King would never give his genealogy, because it is known throughout the island; it is not recounted. This is a thing for a common man to do who never was heard of before—for an obscure thief. You must know that this is a thing done by the lower orders.” (See App. N.)my land Waitara to you, never, never, never.”.
It is now well known here that from that time offended pride and dignity sought for satisfaction. The Governor returned to Auckland heavy and displeased because of the word which W. King had spoken to him; for he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers. In the same month, March 29, 1859, he wrote to the Secretary of State—“W. King then rose, and while asserting Mr. Bell:—“He believed that the question of no claim to it, said he would never permit the land to be sold; then waving his hand to his people, he and they left the meeting with some want of courtesy to myself.” He had even then, nearly twelve months before the war actually began, determined on hostilities against W. King; for he says in the same dispatch,—“I have, however, little fear that W. King will venture to maintain his assumed right; but have made every preparation to enforce obedience should he presume to do so. Copies of the instructions I have given to both the Civil and Military authorities are herewith enclosed.” I presume nobody will have the audacity to assert that there had been either any investigation of what the Governor thinks
Southern Cross, Aug. 12, 1860.) There will be observed a difference between this and the report in the New Zealander. The truth is, Mr. Bell is a good writer, but a bad speaker. Professor Browne will perhaps learn from this why it is that there are so many “uncontradicted statements” in the New Zealander's reports.
I have been censured for charging Colonel Browne with an act of “flagrant injustice,” and “folly closely bordering on insanity.” I did bring against him both these charges; but I said nothing of motives. I now reluctantly give my deliberate and matured opinion that he was actuated by a motive quite unworthy of a man holding a high official position. Were anything more wanted in order to establish this conviction than the language which has been adverted to, it would be the fact that though the Governor had been in the constant habit of consulting such persons as Sir W. Martin, the late Chief Justice, Mr. Swainson, the late Attorney-General, and the Bishop of New Zealand, on matters affecting Maori policy and affairs, and had actually recommended them to the Secretary of State as members of a permanent Council, being in his opinion the most highly cmpetent persons for the purpose of advising him on such matters; and that they were all, at the time when he resolved on war, at Auckland, he was so conscious of doing wrong, so ashamed of his proccedings, and so certain that what he proposed would be disapproved of and discouraged, that he never said a word to any one of them on the subject. If the Home Governments, notwithstanding the experience gained during former disturbances, and Sir
I now advert to certain charges brought against me of having withheld from the Governor information contained in three letters from W. King, written to me in 1859, in reference to the disputed land at Waitara. The first of these I received in July; I replied to it saying that I felt quite sure the Governor would do nothing unjust. His second letter was written in the same month. It expressed satisfaction with my reply to the former letter, and ended by saying that the writer remembered his promise to pay me a visit here. There was nothing whatever in these two letters to create alarm: the suspicion which had existed in his mind seemed to have been partly removed. I received the third letter towards the end of December. In this the writer inquired of me, whether I knew anything about “the Governor's new plan” for obtaining land. He asserted a claim on his own behalf, and on that of other members for his tribe, to the land said to belong to the Governor was seeking ground for a quarrel.” He added,—“If the Governor should come to where you are do you say a word to him.” My reasons for not communicating this letter to the Governor were.—1. That I did not believe, after the very positive assurance the Governor had himself given me in the previous May, that he had either any plan for confiscating native lands or any such intention whatever.—2. That as his letters contained no description of the disputed land I could not have offered any opinion in reference to it.—3. That, however I may have subsequently been convinced to the contrary, I did not credit W. King's assertion that the Governor was seeking ground of quarrel against him.—4. That the Governor, who was in the Middle Island at the time, was expected at Wellington, where I should have seen him. As soon as I was attacked by Mr.
As this subject has been brought prominently forward, it may be worth while to ascertain its real value. It is not altogether a personal question: an inquiry into its merits may throw light on collateral subjects. But I am met at the outset with a difficulty, because W. King's letters are described in diametrically opposite terms by the Government. Mr. Bell and those who agree with him, characterize the letters as documents that might have prevented war had they been in the Governor's hands; a view of them repeated by Professor Browne, who goes so far as to charge me with having “suppressed letters tending to peace.” But Mr. Richmond, the Native Minister, who, whatever may be thought of his honesty, Appendix G. H. I.
But there is another aspect of this question that can hardly be
The Governor states that he had requested me to write to him on any matters connected with native affairs occurring in my district that I might consider important. I complied with his request. At the same time I always carefully avoided giving advice either to the Government or the natives about any transactions in reference to the purchase of land. Professor Browne says: “If he had come forward, as both parties had requested him, and had acted the part of a mediator, is it not in the highest degree probable that much might have been done to prevent the outbreak?” (P. 34.) That the Governor ever once mentioned W. King's name, or Waitara, or Taranaki to me, or ever requested me to mediate in any dispute, is so absolutely false, that as no reference whatever is given in support of the allegation, I am compelled to say that the passage I have cited is to me wholly unaccountable.
The Governor has also laid much stress on a casual expression occurring in a note of mine, to the effect that I would inform him of anything likely to occasion alarm to the settlers (the remark was made in reference to a false alarm that had just been raised near Wellington), or to the Government: I was of course alluding to my own neighbourhood and the Province in which I resided. I must candidly confess myself unable to see the
The ‘Southern Cross,’ (Aug. 7), said—“The Archdeacon, like ourselves placed a blind confidence in the Governor's promise not to buy any land the title of which was in dispute; and knowing of his own knowledge the points of the dispute, would as soon have expected to see His Excellency walking on his head as waging war about the particular piece of land in question.” I have already noticed the fact that there were persons at Auckland quite competent and willing to advise the Governor, but that he purposely withheld from them all knowledge of the coup-de-main he was contemplating. It further appears from his own words that he valued private communications on this subject very lightly: he say—“Private letters are full of surmises and alarms, and talk of a war of races; but I do not put faith in them.” (Disp. Feb. 27, 1860.) The following points may now be considered established:—
-
That I had no wish to withhold W. King's letters.
-
That W. King's letters contained no claim to Waitara that was not more strongly expressed in his letter to the Governor of April, 1859.
-
That in the opinion of the Native Minister the letters of W. King “fortified the case of the Government against him.”
-
That I had no reason whatever for supposing that any information I could have given on the Waitara question could have been of use.
-
That the Governor declined to ask advice from competent persons in immediate communication with himself.
-
That he treated the private advice given him with contempt.
-
That his possession of the letters did not induce the Governor to alter his conduct towards W. King, though the letters were withheld by no fault of the letter.
-
That the admission, that though W. King's letter to the Governor in April, 1859, had been disregarded, one forwarded through me would have been attended to, is derogatory to the Government.
-
That the attempt to throw blame on me was only to draw off attention from the Governor's illegal and unjustifiable proceedings, and to weaken the force of my censure of these.
The Debates in the House of Representatives, in August, 1860, made it notorious throughout the country, that there was a great difference of opinion amongst the Colonists themselves, as to proceedings of the Government. I believe that notoriety to have had a most wholsome effect in checking the spread of the war. The Natives were thereby encouraged to believe that what was done at the Waitara was not the doing of the Pakeha as a race, and would not be approved by the Queen.
There can be no clear understanding of the present state of affairs, unless we distinguish between two things which are confounded in official papers, the British Government, and the Colonial Government. Even yet the great mass of the Native population is disposed to trust to the justice of the British Government, but I fear there are few who are disposed to trust to the justice of the present Colonial Government.
Every one knows with how much caution it is necessary to regard statements made after the fact by persons concerned in justifying what has been done. The statements here cited from
Here, on the subject of the “Investigation,” the same course is taken by Mr. Richmond as before, with reference to the “points in dispute.” Scraps and fragments of doubtful assertions, and unsifted evidence are produced by Mr. Richmond, and we are asked to accept them as a substitute for that proper inquiry which was demanded by every consideration of justice and expediency. Unproved allegations and uncertain inferences cannot be allowed to take its place. The defect of inquiry can only be supplied by a proper inquiry herafter. The web, which Mr. Richmond has woven, is too weak to bear the weight of a civil war. One passage only I think it necessary to notice: It is as follows (Par. 82); “Where unrepresented claimants are known, or believed, to exist, the Government makes inquiry on the spot; as was done in the present case at Queen Charlotte's Sound, and at Wellington. But where (as in the case of the Waikanae Natives) there is no reason to believe in the existence of valid claims, no local investigation is instituted. The Waikanae claimants (for whom the Rev.
I have asserted that the persons invited to the Kohimarama Conference were, with few exceptions, such as were known to be friendly to the Government. When Mr.
Here is the main proposition on which Mr. Richmond relies: “In law, as well as in fact, their territorial rights and obligations are not subject to the interpretation of our Courts. These stand upon treaty, of which the Crown itself is rightfully the sole interpreter.” The practical consequence is drawn in Par. 121: “If the Governor had jurisdiction, he was justified in asserting it in the only practicable mode, viz. by force; in other words, the Governor being of right sole judge of questions respecting Native Territorial rights, was justified in enforcing his jurisdiction in the only practicable mode, viz. by military occupation.”
I have argued that the people of the Waitara, being subjects of the Crown, have not been dealt with as subjects of the Crown. Mr. Richmond answers by saying, they are not subjects of the Crown: they have had all they are entitled to.
The fallacy of Mr. Richmond's argument is obvious. A treaty
extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her Royal protection, and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects.”
It may not be casy to find an exact counterpart to the Treaty of Waitangi; but there is a considerable analogy between it and the Charters and other instruments, by which Princes at various times have granted rights and franchises to their people. Whether the rights of the subject have been, as in Europe for the most part, doled out by Charters wrung from unwilling hands, or given freely and at once, as in this case, makes no difference as to the nature and effect of the compact; the only difference is one of degree, and not of kind. Now in such cases it has not been left to the Charter: but the franchises of the people have been expounded and maintained by tribunals independent of the Prince.
It is not meant that the whole complex body of English law was at once to be applied to the natives; but it is meant, that the plain and fundamental principles of English law became applicable at once: that the natives became at once entitled to the essential rights of British subjects. Amongst those rights surely are the following:—that life shall not be taken without a fair trial; that land shall not be taken without a fair trial. “The rights and privileges of British subjects” must mean at any rate the opposite to despotism. The proceedings of the Government at Waitara were pure despotism. Mr. Richmond
However little the theoretical value of Mr. Richmond's doctrine may be, it is a significant and remarkable fact that such a doctrine is put forth. It is remarkable as bearing on the position, which I have maintained, that the natives at the Waitara, being British subjects, have not been treated as British subjects. Had it been possible to shew that they have been treated as British subjects, Mr. Richmond would hardly have had recourse to a doctrine which denies them to be British subjects at all, which repudiates the assurances given by word and deed in a vast variety of ways during twenty years, and which puts the natives in the same position in which they would have stood had the Treaty never been made. It should be noticed also, what that is which is now clothed with the name and dignity of “the Crown.” “The Crown itself (says Mr. Richmond) is the sole interpreter of the Treaty.” (Par. 98.) It might be inferred then to be the duty of the Governor to provide for the Crown the means of interpreting, to ascertain all the facts, to submit them to the Home Government, and to act upon their decision. But Mr. Richmond requires nothing of the kind. In Par. 121 he applies the general principle to the particular case of the Waitara, and attempts thereby to justify the proceedings of the Government in this particular question. This enables us to understand what Mr. Richmond means, when he says that the Crown is the sole interpreter of the treaty, The Crown then, in Mr. Richmond's sense, does not mean the Queen or the Government of England. They had never authorized, they did not understand, they had no means of understanding, what the Colonial Government was doing at the Waitara. That which Mr. Richmond calls by the name of “the Crown,” is, in fact, the Governor of the Colony, acting in a matter vitally concerning
In May, 1857, the present Ministers recorded their opinion on the policy to be pursued in native matters: they said, “As to the ultimate end to which the British Government in these islands is bound to shape its native policy, there can be no difference of opinion. Successive Governors have promised, in the name of the British Crown, that the Colonists and the Maories should form but one people, under one equal law, and no effort must be spared to redeem this pledge.” (T. Q. p. 100.) In December, 1860, a theory is boldly put forward by one of those ministers, which, if England were capable of adopting it, would render the fulfilment of those promises absolutely and for ever impossible; a theory according to which the native population must submit to be aliens on their own soil; to bear the pressure of our dominion, but not receive the protection of the law or the privileges of English subjects. Thus, while professing to aim at raising and preserving this race, and bringing them into a peaceful union with ourselves, we uphold and prescribe a course of action which must provoke them to the most determined resistance to our authority, and can only end in the failure of our undertaking, in discredit to ourselves, and in ruin to them.
ON PROFESSOR BROWNE'S PAMPHLET, &c.
Professor Browne speaks of the war as “at first unboundedly popular.” At first nobody knew anything about the cause of the war: the now “acknowledged lies” were believed to be facts. But Mr. Fitzherbert, one of the most eloquent and courageous members of the House of Representatives, explained what the popularity of the war meant. He said, “What we mean by war is a good market for our fat oxen and fat sheep—plenty of commissariat expenditure.” Such a war, so long as it does not come too close, is very likely to be popular. What would be the state of Europe now if nations could go to war, not only without incurring expenditure, but actually derive pecuniary profit from it. It is not many years ago that Mr. Gladstone pointed out that a great check on war would be to increase taxation instead of raising loans, that the immediate pressure might restrain warlike feelings. What would he have said to a ‘paying’ war. But as a matter of fact it is a libel on the settlers to say that war with the Maories is or was popular. The Governor's Ministers would have exhibited a sorry figure in the House of Representatives, if the question of deciding on the merits of the war had been left to the members of the Northern Island—the only persons who knew anything about it. I myself heard Mr. Moorhouse, the Superintendent of Canterbury, in his speech describe the debate on the war as “a debate wholly uninteresting to him as a member for Canterbury.”
The following is one of the strangest and most instructive parts of this controversy. Archdeacon Hadfield writes to the Duke of Newcastle: “With regard to the very commencement
of hostilities. I feel that nothing I could add to this fact, would tend to strengthen the assertion I make, that the claim set up on behalf of was fighting on King's side; the fact being that Tamati Rara had assisted to cut the boundary lines for the surveyor of the very block in dispute. Tamati Rara's only objection to the proceedings of the Government was, that they had not at once given him a gun to enable him to fight on the Government side. They had received letters from him, not declaring that the lands should not be sold, not desiring that the survey should be stopped, or the military occupation of the land be abandoned, but asking for a gun to fight for them.”’
This note surprises me. Professor Browne must be a very loose thinker if he imagines that the extract given from Mr. Stafford's speech contradicts one particle of my assertion. If indeed he had remembered what he had himself written at Page 15 of his pamphlet, he would have seen that Mr. Stafford referred to a survey made subsequent to the military occupation of the land, for he there informs us that only one Maori, Henri Potaka, assisted at the one attempted before the war began. How many survey lines he may have assisted in cutting See Appendix Gafter the commencement of hostilities, or in what other manner he may have shewn his zeal with a view to excuse his tardy conversion, in no way affects my statement, that cross. Sometimes a note is made by the writer that he is
I had written, “What are the loyal natives to think of a Governor, who, without the least provocation, singles out this chief, distinguished through a long course of years of years for his loyalty to Her Majesty's Government, and friendship to the English, for a hostile attack?” Professor Browne observes, “It is scarcely worth while to notice the perversion in this statement, as though the Governor had attacked King, whereas King first defied and then attacked the Governor.” I pass over the vague word “defied,” as incapable by any kind of interpretation of being forced into a ‘casus belli.’ But the assertion that W. King attacked the Governor is so gross—so reckless—so absolutely destitute of a particle of evidence to support it, that I am unable to conceive how Professor Browne could have been guilty of it. He does indeed refer in a note to some rhetorical language of Mr.
It is to be observed that the official Maori version of the Proclamation of Martial Law was a declaration of war on all the natives of the Province of Taranaki, including even the Ngatiruanui. Upon this Professor Browne remarks—“It has been replied, that, whatever effect it may have had on other natives, King was too well informed for it to have so affected him. He had, on a former occasion, been living in a district where martial law was proclaimed, and fully understood its meaning.” (P. 16.) It is remarkable what different conclusions are drawn from the same facts, according to people's prejudices. The inference I should have drawn would have been, that as W. King perceived a wide difference in the wording of this proclamation, from that of the former one with which he had been aequainted, he concluded that something different was intended by it.
Professor Browne says, “As to the so-called coup-de-main, is it strange in any country that, when a mob resists and overawes the civil authority, the executive should call in the aid of the military? Could any one suppose that the Governor would yield as soon as the police was overpowered?” As I have already shewn, Professor Browne knows nothing at all about the subject on which he has presumed to write. No mob resisted the civil authority. A trespass was rightfully and lawfully resisted without violence—as is acknowledged by the Governor—by men on their own land. There was no civil authority resisted: no
coup-de-main was agreed upon nearly a month before the lawful interruption of the illegal trespass authorised by the Governor.
IV. It is necessary to notice an exception which has been taken to my explanation of W. King's reported saying that the land belong to
V. Professor Browne says, that “King's party was thoroughly organized.” There is not a particle of proof advanced in support of this. Mr. Richmond makes the same assertion:— “King's preparations for armed resistance, long before the commencement of hostilities, are undeniable. He did not need to accumulate warlike stores, having always been well provided with arms and ammunition. But he prepared his pa in the bush, so that he might be ready for hostilities at any moment— ready, as he threateningly said to Mr. Parris, ‘to go to the
VI. An attempt is now being made to justify the war on the ground that the King-movement must soon have required one. Nothing in the past conduct of the Government leads me at least to place much reliance on this assumed foresight as to a coming necessity. There is certainly no official document bearing date before the commeneement of the war to indicate that they possessed it. But so far was the suppression of the King-movement from having been the object of the war, that, as I last year pointed out, the Government committed the extreme folly of attacking a loyal Chief, wholly disconnected from that movement, when it was becoming apparent to all persons moderately acquainted with Maori affairs, and possessing the least sagacity, that the movement had become too important to
Moori Gazette, are these remarkable words:—“Hearken to us! The fault is your own. Some time ago we informed you of its commencement, and that Potatau was set up as King. You answered that you did not believe in it, and that it was mere child's play; but that if all this island were to acknowledge it (the Maori King), then you would believe in it.* * * Your fault is this: had you extinguished it (the King-movement) some time back, it would have disappeared ere this.” There is something very humiliating in seeing how vastly superior these so-called savages were in foresight to the British Governor. Their scarcely concealed sneer at his statesmanlike sagacity in saying that he would believe in it when he saw it is instructive.
The war is even defended on more general ground; namely, that a war between the two races must have taken place sooner or later. This appears so silly that it is not very easy to imagine the mental state in which it could have originated, and may perhaps be though incredible in England. It is of about the same value as would be the defence of a man charged with committing murder, who should say—It is true I killed the deceased, but in any case he must have died some day or other. Even this hardly equals the absurdity of the defence set up for an unjustifiable war, because, though it be true that every man will die, there is nothing whatever to prove that war must necessarily have taken place in New Zealand. On the contrary,
VII, “In the assembly of Maori Chiefs, gathered from all parts of the island, after the principal Land-Commissioner had made a statement, the Chiefs debated the questions among themselves. At the conclusion a series of propositions were moved and seconded by different Chiefs, and carried by a majority of 107 to 3, the dissentient 3 being relations of W. King: The most important were:—‘That this Conference having heard explained the circumstances which led to the war at Taranaki, is of opinion that the Governor was justified in the course taken by him; that W. King provoked the quarrel, and that the proceedings of the latter are wholly indefensible.”’ (p. 18.) I regret to be obliged to contradict the writer. There was no such resolution carried by such a division as he asserts. The resolution was put to the Assembly but was not carried—no division took place on it. The Rev. Southern Cross (Aug. 24), “It will be seen by reference to my ‘memoranda’ that a majority were in favour of Res. II. and that therefore it was carried —not so Res. III. which is indeed the Resolution of the series, Mr. Clark (a Government officer) allows that ‘some confusion did arise, but not from opposition to the Resolution.’ He does not deny, however, that when the meeting was called upon to approve of that Resolution by a show of hands the majority did not put up their hands, and that no better success attended a second
did hold up their hands in favour of it, Res. III. was not passed because a majority did not hold up their hands. What took place after the Chairman had ‘declared the Conference closed,’ I am not prepared to say.” What took place after the closing of the Conference is now very well known. Underhand means were used to obtain the signatures of those who had been members of the Conference to a document which embodied the objectionable resolution. Several of those who signed this, which they regarded as a complimentary address to the Governor, did so because they expected to receive payment for their attendence at the Conference so soon as this document was signed, they having heard that £3000 had been voted by the General Assembly to cover the expenses of the members. This reason for affixing their names to that paper after the Conference was finally closed has been assigned to me by several members. It is well known that there was great dissatisfaction and discontent expressed when they found themselves disappointed, more especially as they well knew that the Members of the House of Representatives are paid. It is said that the dissentient three were W. King's relations. This is not true. By tracing back the pedigree five or six generations, it may be shewn that they are connected with him; but the same process will shew that they are more nearly connected with brother see that the same objection may be raised against his defence of his brother.’ The truth is the members of the Conference were hastily got together at a time and under circumstances when the leading chiefs could not leave their people, and consisted principally of inferior men, many of whom were paid agents of the Government. I allude more especially to those from the southern parts of the Island.
VIII. “All this shake's one faith in the extreme simplicity of
IX. Professor Browne seems to think it is a sufficient answer to my statement to quote some scraps from what he calls “authentic documents;” which authentic documents generally turn out to be extracts from Mr. Bell's reports of his own speeches, or it may be extracts from Mr. Stafford's speeches, or portions of Mr. McLean's statements. He seems to have no suspicion whatever that he is overlooking the most obvious rules which
See Appendix.
It would be absurd to expect from him any information as to Maori tenure of land. As an illustration of what I mean, his answer to a question (49) in his examination is given—“What do you mean by Tribal right? I suppose it means the right of a tribe.” Mr. McLean never lived among that section of the Ngatiawa tribe which includes W. King, See Appendix I.
Professor Browne says, “Mr. McLean is represented on all sides as a man of singular knowledge and experience in questions of native title and rights. Within the last twenty years he has investigated the title to, and conducted the negociations for the sale of, from 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 of acres, and in no important respect has the validity of these purchases ever been disputed.”
Notwithstanding the observations I have thought it necessary to make, it is only doing justice to Mr. McLean to say that I believe he never would have advised the Governor to adopt the course he did at Waitara, had he been consulted on the subject.
To the Editor of the Southern Cross.
Sir,—
I shall feel obliged by your inserting in the columns of your paper the following observations:—
I cannot refrain from expressing my utter astonishment at seeing in an Auckland paper, lent me by a neighbour, certain statements, made by the Native Secretary and the Chief Land Commissioner, many of them seriously reflecting upon the reputation and loyalty of the natives of Otaki and their Missionary.
I constantly read erroneous opinions put forth in the local journals in reference to Native matters, which have passed unnoticed, and I do not think I can fairly be accused of “rushing into print;” but when I consider the circumstances under which those statements were made, by a person who is looked upon as an authority, I feel myself called upon to offer a few remarks upon facts with most of which I was personally acquainted, having resided for eight years in the Otaki district, in connection with Archdeacon Hadfield, prior to my appointment to this coast.
I have no intention of accusing the Native Secretary of wilfully misleading the public, but he has most certainly been misinformed upon some of these points. I have often admired his great amount of patience and perseverance with the natives in the purchase of land, but that serious errors have been committed, cannot, I think, be fairly denied.
There are many points in the Native Secretary's statement which appear to me exceedingly incorrect, but I confine myself to the following. I quote his own words:—
“I first heard of this League as having originated at Otaki. The natives of that place assured me that they had good advice on the subject, and were determined not to dispose of any more land to the Government.”
In order to show how far advice given to the natives at Otaki had proved injurious, I will state that when the Rangitikei country was offered for sale to the Government by the Ngatiapa great excitement prevailed, and both
In consequence of the behaviour of the Ngatiapa, after the sale of the Rangitikei block, who, notwithstanding the handsome manner in which they had been treated, threatened to sell even the land occupied by some of the Ngatiraukawa, the Otaki, and Manawatu natives (principally Ngatiraukawa) entered into an agreement not to sell any more land within certain boundaries, over which they had an undoubted control according to native custom. This agreement was, however, cancelled in 1852, in consequence of some of the natives on the Manawatu River wishing to sell a portion of their land; and it was arranged that they should be left free to do as they pleased. The “good advice” which is said to have led to such serious consequences, we are no doubt to infer was given by Archdeacon Hadfield; but I must remind the Commissioner that that gentleman was at the time in Wellington, where he had been almost entirely confined, nearly four years, to what was considered to be his death-bed. I was never aware of the natives having any advice in favour of such a scheme, although they were decidedly recommended to give it up.
Again, the Native Secretary says:—
“This League kept gaining ground for some years till a general meeting took place in the Ngatiruanui country, where the natives pledged themselves, not only that they should sell no more land, but that they would take the life of any one who attempted to do so.”
The meeting at Manawapou, in the Ngatiruanui district, had no connection whatever with the agreement entered into at Otaki and Manawatu, which had been cancelled two years before. At Manawapou it was proposed to form a Land League, which was rejected; and it was decided that each tribe should be left to its own affairs. What is called the Land League at Waitara was entirely of a local character, and, in accordance with this decision, having no connection whatever with the Ngatiruanui. Parotene Te Kopara, in advocating the League at Manawapou, produced a hatchet, which was offered to the Southern Chiefs, and was placed before them for their acceptance, as a pledge that they would unite in supporting the League. There were stated to have been about 500 natives present, but not one of them received the hatchet, and it was returned to its owner!
Also—
“It was also resolved at this meeting of the natives that they should entirely repossess themselves of land already alienated by them, and drive the European settlers into the sea.”
This most startling assertion is positively contradicted by one of the principal Chiefs, who was present; the only one who has since been within my reach. I never heard such an idea breathed before. Having seen a number of the natives on their return from the meeting, I feel
Further—
“The subsequent murders, involving the deaths of Rawiri and
My opinion upon these matters differs widely from that of the Commissioner. I have no hesitation in saying that the evils here spoken of have, to a very great extent, arisen from injudicious purchase, or attempts to purchase, of disputed lands. One of
Again he says—
“The venerable gentleman who was examined previous to myself has endeavoured to convey an impression that land purchases at the South have produced dissatisfaction.”
There can be no doubt as to the land purchases having of late caused very great dissatisfaction at the South. The “tikanga hou,” or new policy of the Government—purchasing lands from individuals without the sanction of the rest of the tribe, has much perplexed the natives of this district. I have repeatedly met with the assertion (in spite of all that could be said to the contrary) that the Government were trying to provoke a quarrel with them, in order that they might have some pretext for depriving them of their lands; and when they heard of the disturbance of Taranaki they considered that their predictions were being fulfilled. They see a wide difference between the repeated assurance of the Commissioner in former years, ratified by the pledge given them by the Governer, during his last visit to Napier—that no land would be purchased excepting from those tribes who were free to sell—and the way in which it has latterly been acted up to; and say that the Government have broken faith with them. They are now kept quiet under the assurance that no act of injustice can be intended by the Home Government, and that existing errors will in time be rectified.
He continues—
“The purchases to which he probably refers, those at Rangitikei and the Middle Island, were carefully conducted; I am prepared to uphold the purchases between Otaki and Whangaroa as having been acquired from the true and rightful owners.”
Most of the old purchases made in the Wellington and Ahuriri Provinces, I am willing to support; they do great credit to the Commissioner; and it is much to be lamented that a system which gave such universal satisfaction was ever deviated from.
Further—
“It was perhaps the misfortune of some of these owners that they did not belong to the same denomination as the Venerable Archdeacon, and this in a great measure (at least it appears so to me) forms, in his estimation, a barrier to their claims.”
The insinuation that Archdeacon Hadfield could lower himself to do or say anything to the prejudice of persons of a different denomination to his own, I should have considered beneath the Native Secretary. I do not admit that any of the tribes alluded to are entirely Wesleyans, although they are in some cases intermixed with our people; and with them we were always on most friendly terms.
I lastly quote as follows:—
“Reference has been made to land being at one time bought from the conquered, and at another from the conquerors.”
Taking this quotation with the next preceding, I am at a loss to know what the Commissioner means. Does he complain of the conquered Ngatiapa, among whom there are many Wesleyans, being allowed to keep the whole of the purchase money for Rangitikei, besides having an interest in the land retained by the Ngatiraukawa? Or does he suppose that it is denominational prejudice which induces the Archdeacon to sympathise with the conquered Ngatiruia of Te Honere, Pelorus River (part of whom were Wesleyans), because they were not consulted in the sale of their land; they, in his opinion, holding a similar position in the Middle Island to that of the Ngatiapa in the Northern (
In conclusion, I would remark, that during the eight years I was in immediate connection with the Archdeacon—sometimes acting for, sometimes with him, I never once, that I can recollect, heard of his attempting to dissuade any Maori from selling land, although he did remonstrate with the purchaser when the transaction was likely to lead to a disturbance. This appears most unfairly to have been interpreted into an opposition on his part to the sale of land.
amuelW
illiams.
new zealand spectator, nov. 3.
To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.
Sir,—
Will you allow me to offer a few comments on a passage occurring in Mr. M'Lean's evidence given in the House of Representatives. It is this—“I believe that most of the difficulties and opposition which has been met with in pursuing this purchase have originated entirely with the anti-land-selling-league. This league I first heard of as having commenced at Otaki. The natives of that place assured me that they had very good advice on the subject, and that they had resolved not to dispose of any more land to the Government. This league kept gaining ground for some years, until a general meeting took place in the Ngatiruanui country, where the natives pledged themselves not only to sell no more land, but to take the life of any one who should attempt to do so. This meeting took place about seven years ago. It was also resolved at this meeting of natives that they should entirely repossess themselves of lands already alienated by them, and drive the European settlers into the sea. The subsequent murders, involving the deaths of Rawiri, Southern Cross, and republished by you, Sir, in your issue of October 6th:—“I cannot refrain from expressing my utter astonishment at seeing certain statements made by the Native Secretary—statements made by one who is looked upon as an authority.” He may well express astonishment at such statements made by one who is not only looked upon as an authority, but who is actually the governing head of the Native Department, whoever may be its ostensible one. The remarks contained in Mr. William' letter in reference to Mr. M'Lean's assertions are so clear and definite, and so thoroughly refute them, that it seems superfluous to add anything to them. But there are some points raised by Mr. M'Lean that compel me to offer a few further comments on his allegations.
Mr. M'Lean asserts that most of the difficulties and opposition which have been met with in purchasing Waitara originated entirely with the Anti-Land-Selling-League. It is unfortunate that Mr. M'Lean did not afford more information about this league, to which such powerful influence is attributed. He says, indeed, that he first heard of this league as having commenced at Otaki. He avoids committing himself by saying positively that it did originate at Otaki. But, assuming that he meant this to be inferred from his language (if he did not, it fails in the object for which it was advanced, namely, in connecting me with the movement), I must treat the insinuation as though it were an assertion
Hawea o te Marama (the Man in the Moon).
What I now assert, and until proof is adduced to the contrary by those who can show where this imaginary league exists, must continue to assert, is, that there is no such league, and that there never has been any such league; that the whole story is an invention, a fabrication, an imposition; that it either is a fiction, or the Government is chargeable with gross negligence for never having taken steps to put down a conspiracy having objects so clearly avowed and so dangerous as Mr. M'Lean states them to have been seven years ago. But I am quite sure that no proof can be adduced to the contrary. It may be suggested that I am ignorant of the subject. But, until the questions I have asked above are satisfactorily answered, there is such a primâ facie appearance of incredibility about it, that the charge of ignorance is bardly worth refuling. But Mr. M'Lean is debarred from making such an objection, because he has stated his belief that the league commenced
The Native Minister made use of language in the House very similar to that used by Mr. M'Lean. And during the whole of the debates on the origin of the Waitara hostilities, it was really amusing to notice how every speaker on the Ministerial side of the House, when all arguments in defence of either the justice or necessity of the war seemed to fail, immediately had recourse to the land-league. omne ignotum pro terrifica. This imaginary league did more service on the Government side of the House than all the other fictions invented for the occasion put together, such as before war was officially declared. The general ignorance displayed on the subject by the Native Minister and his supporters may account for, though it does not justify, the use made of this bugbear. But Mr. M'Lean cannot be excused in the same way. I must repeat, that the language contained in the passage cited above from his statement deliberately made before the Committee of the House, is the most barefaced and shameless fabrication that I ever knew to be officially made.
I shall probably be asked whether there was not such a land-league at Otaki many years ago, and whether this league did not keep gaining ground for some years until a general meeting took place in the Ngatiruanui country seven years ago. The answer has been given by Mr. Williams: “The Otaki and Manawatu natives (principally Ngatiraukawa) entered into an agreement not to sell any more land within certain boundaries, over which they had an undoubted control according to native custom. This agreement was, however, cancelled in 1852.” It would simply be an absurd and unwarrantable abuse of language to call this local agreement made for the prevention of the further sale of land—until some internal differences and disputes had been adjusted, a league. But this agreement, made for a temporary purpose, and which terminated in 1852, is the only agreement of the kind that has ever existed here. To assert, therefore, as Mr. M'Lean does, that this local, temporary agreement, which he calls a league, and which actually ceased in 1852, “kept gaining ground for some years until a general meeting took place in the Ngatiruanui country,” where the murderous resolutions already referred to are said to have been agreed upon, and that it ultimately developed itself in an anti-land-selling-league which occasioned most of the difficulties and opposition which were encountered in the attempted purchase of Waitara, is to state what is absolutely false. Mr. Williams confirms my statement; he says—“The meeting at Manawapou, in the Ngatirnanui district, had no connection whatever with the agreement entered into at Otaki and Manawatu, which had been cancelled two years before.”
I have already denied that any such resolutions as those mentioned by Mr. M'Lean were adopted at the Manawapou meeting. The attempt
There may still be objections raised by persons little acquainted with this subject. It may be asked—how comes all this talk about a land-league if no league exists? Is it possible there can be all this smoke without any fire to cause it? A very few words will suffice to answer this. I believe there has been, during the last ten years, no general disinclination on the part of the natives to dispose of their lands. Purchases of several extensive districts have been made. But it will hardly be denied by any one competent to give an opinion on the subject, that very great dissatisfaction has existed (which has during the last few years increased), with the mode in which transactions have been carried on by the land-commissioners in reference to the purchase of land. Quarrels have been formented, and, as in the case of Taranaki when Rawiri was killed, and in the disturbances at Ahuriri, many lives were lost. The result has been the formation, from time to time, of separate and independent agreements in various tribes, for protesting against, and peaceably resisting, the mischievous proceedings of the land-commissioners. But I positively deny the existence of any combination, or confederacy, or league, between any two distinct tribes.
If I am asked why the Ngatiruanui, if no league existed, went to
In these observations, which I have found it necessary to make, I have abstained from all allusion to the King-movement, which notoriously originated with Waikato, and with which it is admitted
I consider this letter as a supplement to Mr. Williams's letter, which ought to be carefully read.
Your obedient servant,
Octavius Hadfield .
New Zealand Spectator, Oct. 10, 1860.
Sir,—
I wish to make a few remarks on a passage contained in a Despatch of the Governor's (June 28th), commenting on a letter to the Duke of Newcastle, to which the Bishop of Wellington's name and mine were attached. It is as follow:—
“The Bishop states that the Head of the Department did not investigate the title; but his statement is inaccurate, as your Grace may see by Mr. M'Leans's report, forwarded in my Despatch No. 63, of 27th June last, in which the subject is incidentally mentioned.”
I think a careful consideration of the documents published since the letter was written will remove all doubts as to the fact asserted—that Mr. M'Lean did not investigate
But my knowledge of the fact, that the Chief Commissioner did not investigate
I certainly considered this conclusive as to the fact stated in the letter, that the Chief Commissioner had not investigated
Your obedient servant,
.Octavius Hadfield
Statement respecting the Procedings atWaitara , by Tipene Ngaruna
In the course of September, 1858, I arrived at Waitara. I stayed there during three months of 1858, and three months of 1859.
The second meeting was at Werohia.
The third was the great meeting at Waitoki, in the town. It will not be good that you should take the pillow from under my head, because my
pillow is a pillow that belonged to my ancestors.” It will not be good that you should drag from under me the bed-matting of my ancestors.” If I were to drag the bed from under you, you would be angry.” parawai to the Governor as a pledge for the sale of Waitara.
On the occasion of our talk at Hurirapa, Teira spoke, and said that his lands outside the boundary should be given in exchange for the lands of the many, which were within the block that was being sold by him. The many said: “Your lands outside the boundary will not be an equivalent for ours, because our lands, which are within the land which is being sold by you, Teira, are far greater.”
When the chain was laid (upon the land), Tamati Raru did not join in laying down the chain, nor did he consent.
.Tipene Ngaruna
Pap.E. No. 3. p. 6.)
Friend,—Salutations to you. Your letter has reached me about Te I will not agree to our bedroom being sold (I mean Waitara here), for this bed belongs to the whole of us; and do not you be in haste to give the money. Do you hearken to my word. If you give the money secretly, you will get no land for it. You may insist, but I will never agree to it. Do not suppose that this is nonsense on my part; no, it is true, for it is an old word; and now I have no new proposal to make, either as regards selling or anything else. All I have to say to you, O Governor, is, that none of this land will be given to you, never, never, not till I die.
I have heard it said that I am to be imprisoned because of this land. I am very sad because of this word. Why is it? You should remember that the Maories and Pakehas are living quietly upon their pieces of land, and therefore do not you disturb them. Do not say also that there is no one so bad as myself.
There is another word to you, O Governor. The land will never, never be given to you, not till death. Do not be anxious for men's thoughts. This is all I have to say to you.
Wiremu Kingi Whiti.
To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.
Sir,—
I shall feel obliged by your insertion in your columns of a letter I addressed to the Governor nearly five years ago. My object for desiring its publication is to shew that the opinions I have recently advocated are not new ones. It will be observed, that I called attention to the suspicious combination among the chiefs that subsequently resulted in the King-party;—that I discouraged any attempts to raise or increase their influence, advising on the contrary the impartial enforcement of law;—and that I pointed out even then what would inevitably be the result of the reckless proceedings of the Land Purchase Department. It will be observed that the letter was written in reply to one received from the Governor asking for my “opinion of the present state of feeling among the natives towards the Europeans and the Queen's Government.”
Your obedient servant,
Octavius Hadfield
copy.]
Sir,—
In accordance with the wish expressed in your communication of the 9th March, I have the honour to offer a few remarks on the present state of feeling on the part of the authorities towards the Queen's Government and the settlers.
I must premise the observations which I am about to make, by saying that I have not of late years kept myself so thoroughly informed of the proceedings of the natives throughout the country as I did formerly, and consequently that my remarks will apply more especially to those in this part of the country.
-
There is at present no hostile feeling towards either Europeans or the Queen's Government, as such, in this part of the country, there appears to be no inclination to provoke war or create a disturbance.
-
There is, however, a certain kind of restlessness among some of the chiefs and leading men, which has manifested itself within the last three or four years by efforts to get up meetings in various places. And I now understand that there is a secret intention of assembling, if possible, most of the leading chiefs of the centre and southern parts of this Island, in the ensuing summer, for the purpose of
raising the authority of the chiefs. The very vagueness of the object renders the movement worthy of notice, as it implies some feeling of dissatisfaction apart from any special grievance. -
It is worthy of notice, in attempting to estimate the present feeling of the Native population, that there are many young men who are grown up in a state of ignorance, being neither under the influence of religion nor under subjection to law, and who would be quite ready to
take part in any disturbance which might, on the occasion of any accident, arise; and that a large number of natives who have been all their lives accustomed to take an active share in the management of the business of their respective tribes, and who have even been accustomed to deliberate and decide on such momentous subjects as the declaration of war or the establishment of peace, are now in a great measure left without any opportunity of employing their active minds. Should any untoward event unfortunately lead to war, it would be much more serious in its consequences than the former disturbances. The communication between the distant tribes has become much more frequent of late years: there would be more unanimity of purpose than ever there was before; there would be more unity of action. -
The only permanent grievance is that connected with the purchase of land. There is no disinclination on the part of the aborigines to alienate their lands. But there will be innumerable difficulties in dealing with this subject until some clearly defined principle of ownership is laid down—such a principle as shall be assented to by the natives as well as by the Government, and which shall form the basis of negotiations for the purchase of land. There appears to have been an entire absence of any intelligible principle at to the ownership of land on the part of those commissioned to make purchases from the natives in this part of the country; a consequence of this has been that sometimes the claim to ownership of those in possession, at other times that of those who were formerly owners, but who have been either conquered or expelled, is set up, as the Commissioners may imagine that the one party or the other is more disposed to sell. There is nothing more likely than this to lessen their respect for law, or to lead to disaffection towards the Government.
I will now offer a few suggestions on the future treatment of the native race by the Government:—
-
The primary object of the Government should be to make the whole of the native population amenable to law. Until law is respected it can scarcely be said that the Government is firmly established in the country. If courts, presided over by discreet magistrates, to be assisted by native assessors, were established in various parts of the country, natives of all ranks would become familiarized with law and accustomed to submit to it. Unless such a habit be speedily acquired, no amount of military force likely to be maintained in the country will ensure permanent tranquillity.
-
It appears to be highly important, notwithstanding a very general opinion to the contrary, that the Government should do nothing towards establishing the influence of the chiefs, but should rather endeavour to lessen this by every legitimate means, especially by raising the position of inferior men through the equal action of law.
-
It is absolutely necessary, if the peace of the country is to be preserved, that all transactions with natives in reference to the purchase of land should be entered on with the greatest caution and care, and that these should be entrusted to those only in whom the Government has perfect confidence, and who are directly amenable to the General Government.
-
It would be advisable that the Government should show its good will towards the native race by encouraging the spread of education, by the employment of natives as much as possible on public works, by giving assistance to efforts made by themselves to advance in civilization.
-
Great care should be taken that the military force in the country should not be so divided and scattered as to be rendered really ineffective on every point, and besides expose the Government to insult at headquarters, which would greatly lower its prestige, and encourage any disaffected persons to insubordination or rebellion.
In conclusion, I will merely add that I am strongly of opinion that Government ought by no means to relax its efforts, either to promote civilization or to establish law throughout the land. It may fairly be anticipated that the joint action of religion, law, and civilization, will lead these people to happiness, peace, and prosperity.
.Octavius Hadfield
To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.
Sir,—
At Page 11 of Mr. Richmond's “Memorandum,” in reply to Sir W. Martin's Taranaki Question, I find the following words:— “Tipene's assertions about
“With his own hands he helped to cut the boundary line of the block.” Now, then, it will, perhaps, be said, he must be right, for he enters into particulars; he says Raru did it “with his own hands.” It is extremely painful to be obliged to expose a gross attempt at deception in a person occupying Mr Richmond's public position. Will it be believed that Mr. Richmond is now referring to a different survey, one made in March, after the military occupation of Waitara; whereas he very well knew, that the survey spoken of by Tipene—the survey—the notorious survey—the only one which tested the wishes of those who desired, and those who refused, to sell, was the one attempted on the 20th February. That Mr. Richmond could have had no doubt as to which survey was intended, is clear from the circumstance that Taupahi, who put his name to Tipene's paper, for the purpose of corroborating this one fact of which he was cognisant, actually alludes to it as “the survey of Parris.” I must characterise this as a lamentable rather than a “ridiculous” falsehood. Mr. Richmond goes on to say—“His is the first signature to the Deed of Cession.” This will, of course, have appeared conclusive to many persons. And it will now be assumed that I can have nothing further to say on behalf of Tipene or myself. But, stop; it is Mr. Richmond who makes this assertion. We have already seen how important it is to be gifted with the facility of ignoring a month—what an advantage may be gained in a State Paper to be read in England, by confounding what occurred in March with what took place in February. The first inquiry then is—when was the Deed of Cession signed? I anticipate the answer, “Of course,” it will be said, “before the publication of martial law, and before the military occupation of the land conveyed by the Deed.” I need now do no more than direct attention to the fact, extorted from Mr Richmond in the House of Representatives, during a debate on the 9th August, namely, that, the Deed of Cession was not executed at the time the survey alluded to was made, nor, in fact, till some time after actual hostilities had taken place. The statement will be found in a report of Mr. Fox's speech of that day, Mr. Richmond having interrupted him in order to make it. It will be seareely necessary to add, that the denial by Tipene, an actual witness, of Raru's participation in the sale of Waitara, prior to the survey of the 20th February, is in no degree whatever invalidated or affected by Mr. Richmond's false assertions to the contrary; or that Raru's signature, placed at the head of those attached to the Deed of Cession, and obtained after the war began, proves how necessary the Government perceived the sanction of his name to be, in order to give validity to the purchase of even that small portion of the block described by only sufficient for three or four tents to stand upon,” but which he had professed to cede, when it appeared more than probable that their irregular proceedings would be eventually dragged to light. It will hardly be thought necessary to account for the motives that subsequently induced a father, when he found that, hostilities having commenced and neutrality being impossible, he was obliged to make his election, to determine in siding with his disobedient son.
Your obedient servant,
Octavius Hadfield
New Zealand Spectator, Feb. 6, 1861.
To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.
Sir,—
I must request your permission to notice in your columns some allusions to myself contained in Mr. Richmond's reply to Sir W. Martin's Pamphlet—The Taranaki Question.
At Page 15 are the following words:—“Speaking of the official statement which the Governor had caused to be circulated immediately on the breaking out of hostilities the Archdeacon says:—‘I deny the truth of all the statements. I am prepared to prove their falsity here [in New Zealand] where evidence can be obtained.’” I regret to be obliged to say that this assertion of Mr. Richmond's is absolutely false; I never said what he attributes to me. Nor would it have occurred to me to say that I denied all the statements contained in the official document referred to, such, for instance, as this:—“The Governor has said that he will not allow land to be bought, the title to which is disputed.” I selected four propositions from the official document, the truth of which I denied. The words I used were these: “It is stated that the land belonged to
Mr. Richmond proceeds:—“Upon the General Assembly being finally summoned for despatch of business, on the 31st July last, Archdeacon Hadfield came up from Wellington. The House of Representatives being made aware of the strong views which he entertained on the subject of the Waitara purchase, examined him at the bar of their House. Considering that on the 29th May he had committed himself to a public pledge that he was ‘prepared to prove the falsity of all the statements,’ his evidence at the bar in August, when he had had so much time to complete his case, should have been clear, definite, and conclusive.” Mr. Richmond seems to have a peculiar logic of his own, which is not likely to find much acceptance with thinkers accustomed to the ordinary modes of reasening. If I understand him, his argument is this,—that as I pledged myself in May, here, where evidence can be obtained, to prove that certain statements were false, therefore my own evidence in August ought to have been clear, definite, and conclusive. This sort of reasoning may be very satisfactory, and apparently is quite conclusive to Mr. Richmond; but it puts me in mind of Coleridge's ridicule of similar logic: “The watchman cries, ‘half-past three o'clock;’ therefore the great Cham of Tartary has a carbuncle on his nose.’” What I pledged myself to do was to prove here, where
Southern Cross, Aug. 14, I see these words, “They select Archdeacon Hadfield to give secondary evidence, but insist on precluding him from bringing up those who could give direct evidence to the same effect.” Mr. Richmond—the Native Minister—the Member for New Plymouth—was very well aware of the weakness of their cause; and he knew that I could bring witnesses—witnesses, let it be remembered, some of whom were then in Auckland, and who are still available when the proper opportunity occurs,—to expose the injustice of their proceedings. What object Mr. Richmond expected to obtain by making a false assertion that was sure to be refuted, or by drawing a false inference that was certain to be exposed, I am unable to conjecture. But this much is clear, that a cause requiring such means for its defence must be bad indeed.
It is difficult to imagine with what object a long extract from a despatch of the Governor's, commenting on my evidence given before a Committee of the House of Representatives, is introduced by Mr. Richmond into an attempt at a reply to Sir W. Martin's pamphlet; it appears to be introduced apropos of nothing. But as it has been brought forward, it cannot be allowed to pass without comment. Do the Governor and Mr. Richmond mean to insinuate that my evidence given on that occasion strengthened the Government side of the question? Are they prepared to deny that my evidence damaged their cause with the House? Will they deny that Mr. Stafford, after having given notice of a motion approving the war policy of the Ministers, was subsequently obliged to modify the terms of his motion (nothing whatever having occurred in the interval but Mr. M'Lean's evidence and mine) because he found that his own supporters, after hearing that evidence, declined to support his original motion, and that he was taunted with this in the House? If so, if this was the effect produced on the House by the evidence, of what use can it be to detach a few passages from the body of the evidence, and represent these as inconclusive? Or what can be intended by a verbal criticism (indicated by italics) of words that were not mine? My examination lasted four hours and a half. I was more than once cautioned by the Chairman that I spoke too rapidly for the reporters. About one-fourth part of what I said was taken down and committed to print. I make no complaint of the general drift of the printed evidence; I have no doubt that much actually uttered would have appeared in print to be mere surplusage; but when stress is laid on particular words and expressions, I must distinctly protest against the inferences intended to be drawn
when I was at Waikanae [150 miles away] portions of the land which belonged to
“81. Has
“82. What proof have you that Hamuera Ngaia has a claim on the block? I before stated that I am unable to produce all the evidence which I have had, but I may state to the Committee that an old man who resided at Waitara forty years, pointed out to me, when I was at Waikanae, portions of the land which belonged to
The Governor's despatch, as cited by Mr. Richmond, proceeds:— “When he is asked if he knows the position of the land in dispute, he says, ‘I do not know the precise boundary line.’” If it was not the Governor's object to deceive and mislead by giving this extract from my answer, and to convey the impression that I was ignorant of what I ought to have known, I am unable to suggest what his motive was. The question, with my answer, was as follows:—“Do you know the position of the block of land in dispute at Waitara? The only difficulty I have in answering that question arises from my never having seen the official survey boundaries. It has been described as a block of land containing about 600 acres, situated on the south bank of the Waitara; this land I have seen and been over; but I do not know the precise boundary line of the Government. It is three years since I was on the land.” I really see nothing in this answer to be ashamed of. But why does Mr. Richmond, of all people, cite this passage? How was it possible for me to define precisely the position of a block of land, concerning which Mr. Richmond had stated a few days before, in answer to Mr. Fox, that one of the boundary lines was still undefined? Certainly, Mr. Richmond turned very pale, looked very confused, and hung down his head, when he made that statement; but still I did not at the time suspect his veracity. But in the report of a speech delivered by Dr. Featherston at a numerously attended public meeting in Wellington in November last, I find these words:—“The Government further declared that for the purpose of excluding such lands, they had refrained from fixing the internal boundary of the block, thus admitting that they really did not know what lands they had bought; and yet—will you believe it?—when the map was laid on the table the inland boundary was found to be cut.” And now it comes to this: that I am sneered at by Mr. Richmond (for what else can be meant by the quotation?) as a mere gobe mouche, because I gave credit to a statement officially made by him, a minister of the Crown, in his place in the House of Representatives.
A detailed explantation of all the detached scraps of my evidence collected by the Governor in his despatch, and now given to the public by Mr. Richmond, would be too great a tax on the patience of your readers; I will make an extract, and offer a few further remarks on its contents.—“When asked whether he is acquianted with the details of the negociations for land in the New Plymouth district, he says, ‘I could not say that I was acquainted with the details.’ When asked of whom the Bell Block was bought, he says, ‘Principally, I believe, from returned slaves from Waikato; so I have been informed.’ Of whom the Hua Block? ‘I do not know.’ Of whom the Taururutangi? ‘I do not know.’ When asked whether hapus of which he says I have never professed to be acquainted with the boundaries.’” What inducement could I have been supposed to have had for wasting my time on acquiring a knowledge of the “details” of negociations for land at New Plymouth having no connection whatever with Waitara? Does either the Governor or Mr. Richmond intend to deny that the Bell Block was bought from returned slaves from Waikato? At Page 7 of this very “Memorandum” I find that the Governor himself says of the Bell Block—“The land was bought from the chief boundary.”—not subdivisional boundaries—of the “four hapus” to do with the question at issue—whether territorial boundary of the “four hapus”? I could proceed with the rest in the same way, and expose more fully than I have yet done the miserable quibbling contained in the document under consideration; but what I have now said will suffice on this subject. For my part I am quite content to let the value of the evidence rest on, firstly, the fact mentioned above, that is, the effect produced on the Committee at the time it was given; and secondly on this, that with all the pains taken by the Governor and Mr. Richmond to invalidate and misrepresent my words and meaning, I do not find that the mis-statement of a single fact is alleged against me; certainly none is proved.
I have already directed your attention to the fallacy pervading the whole paragraph of the “Memorandum” on which I have been commenting, namely—that because I had pledged myself to establish a case, if allowed to bring witnesses, I was therefore bound to establish it on my own. The last question and answer at the close of my examination were—“Do you believe that if you were permitted to summon witnesses from the South, you could substantiate by direct evidence the statements you made before the Committee, where requiring direct confirmation? Yes, I think I could substantiate every one of the statements I have made relating to the Natives at Waitara. I am quite sure I could substantiate all of them.” But this was just what the Government refused to permit. I was prepared to give evidence on native tenure of land. I was equally prepared to state the relative positions of hapu, Coke upon Littleton, may not be acquainted with the actual boundaries of any single estate in the kingdom: and it is quite certain that with the clearest case, he would break down, if precluded from bringing up his witnesses.
At Page 14 Mr. Richmond says—“Perhaps the most important circumstance is, that the sellers have exclusively occupied the block since their rerturn from the South in 1848, with the exception only of the site of King's pa. This fact of the exclsive occupation of the block is not disputed by Archdeacon Hadfield.” I have before remarked that it is quite impossible for any ordinary mortal even to guess at Mr. Richmond's mode of reasoning. Suppose Mr. Richmond should have thoght proper to assert that Waitara is in the Moon (it would be but little more absurd than many of his assertions), and then call this a fact; is it to be said, because I never disputed such an assertion, of which I had never heard, that I admit the fact? But if Mr. Richmond means that I have ever admitted the fact asserted by him, that “the sellers have exclusively occupied the block since their return,” I must inform him that his assertion is untrue. Nor is it likely that I should have made such an admission, when my own published letter of May last, cited from an official statement published at New Plymouth on the 20th of March the following passage:—‘King's followers have, however, encroached with their cultivations upon the South side of the river: and these encroachments have been, for a long time, a source of continual discussion.” It appears, therefore, that the Government itself did not venture to deny what was a notorious fact. I myself had no personal knowledge of these recent caltivations, and therefore declined to give evidence upon the subject. The Government however must lose the benefit of this imaginary “most important circumstance.”
At Page 16 there is a remarkable passage which I feel compelled to notice. In allusion to the Waikanae claimants Mr. Richmond says of me—“Mr. Parris also privately applied to him through Archdeacon Govett, of New Plymouth, requesting him to use his influence to procure the withdrawal of King's opposition. The Archdeacon replied—‘That he would not advise natives to sell their land; that he was not pleased with anything the Government had done for the natives, and that the Government would find that a large party of the natives at Otaki would espouse some of his land at Waitara, say, on the south bank of the river. There is a very strong feeling against him, not only on the part of the Europeans, but also of a large number of the natives, on account of his obstinancy. Te not to sell their land to the Government. I now state most distinctly and unequivocally, that I have never, since New Zealand became a British colony, either directly or indirectly advised, or in any way endeavoured to influence, any native, or party of natives, not to sell their lands to the Government; and that Mr. M'Leans's statement is a falsehood, and one, I regret to say, which the many opportunities that have occurred for explanation, render wholly inexcusable. It is frequently said that I have great influence with natives. Whatever the amount of my influence with them may be, it is in a great measure traceable to my systematic and rigid abstinence, during a long course of years, from any interference with their affairs or proceedings where no religious or moral consideration was involved. Whenever, therefore, I have interfered, the natives have been convinced that some such principle was involved. An instance in point was my effective resistance of the Maori King movement in this district in May last, which the Government had made no effort to check. I then enforced only one single principle, namely, that a treaty made twenty years ago is not now open to reconsideration. If this movement should, after this long interval, recover strength, it will have been occasioned by the infatuated folly of the General Government. But to return from this slight digression. That I ever stated in writing, or in any other way, what is now attributed to me—that “I was not pleased with anything the Government had done for the natives,” is absolutely false. On the other hand, I have no doubt whatever that I distinctly stated, that under the circumstances contemplated by the Government, “a large party of the natives of Otaki would espouse coup-de-main at Waitara, supposed only to require “a couple of volleys,” to enable it to effect its object. It is now confessed by the
that I then conveyed to him my opinion that the contemplated step would bring on a general war, for that is evidently implied in my answer. That not the slightest weight was attached to my warning has since been proved by facts. What weight would have been given to it at a subsequent and maturer stage of the proceedings, may not be difficult to conjecture. Here, then, to apply Mr. Richmond's own words to himself, is “an engineer hoisted with his own petard.”
I refrain from further comments on Mr. Richmond's peculiar logic. It really seems very silly to say in an official paper, that because I thought the natives of Otaki would take a certain view of an event still future, of which at the time they had never heard, “therfore it is evident” that the natives of Waikanae, “which is close to Otaki,” ought to have brought forward their claims to a block of land, about the contemplated purchase of which they knew nothing.
I abstain for the present from any general notice of this “Memorandum.” I deliberately pronounce my opinion, formed from a tolerable acquaintance with the facts touched on, that it contains the most barefaced and disgraceful mis-statements and misrepresentations that I ever saw. I can say nothing more condemnatory of a State Paper. I conclude with one word of advice to any one who, having read Sir W. Martin's pamphlet, thinks that its facts or arguments are in any way impugned or affected by this reply, that is—Read it again.
Your obedient servant,
.Octavius Hadfield
NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR, MARCH 6, 1861.
To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.
Sir,—
I wish to offer a few remarks on the following passage from Mr. Richmond's “Memorandum,” Page 16:—
“Riwai names in his letter of 23rd June, three specific claims, one on behalf of
Allow me to say that there has been no “evidence cited” that contradicts any statements by the Rev. mara (translated in the version of his letter printed in my evidence given before the House of Representatives, “portions of land”)—fields—former cultivations, as is clear from his saying,—fields of their “mothers” and their “ancestors.” Mr. Richmond's inference, therefore, is worthless, being founded upon a blunder of his own.
Any inference drawn from Mr. Richmond's conjectures, as expressed in such words as—“nor is it at all likely, &c.,” I must leave to those who think that a charge of inaccuracy can be substantiated by such a trashy mode of reasoning as this.
Mr. Richmond contradicts Aperiea 6, 1860. Ko toku taenga mai tenei ki Waitara, ka kite au i nga pa o pas were all destroyed by fire. The names of these pas are Werohia, Te Hurirapa, and Kuikui: not a whare remained: all were burnt. One whare remained; it was a building for meetings; it was outside Te Hurirapa pa. We were two hours there, I went on board the steamer; we sailed to Waitohi. This is all. From Wi Tako.”
Mr. Richmond's assertion that “no pa was burnt by the soldiers,” is a mere evasive quibble. The pas referred to by Wi Tako and
Mr. Richmond says,—“He scoffingly denies the fact that W. King had leave to place his pa on the block.” He does not say one word about it. He certainly would have denied it, if any allusion had been made by him to the subject, because he knew, as I know, that the assumed fact is an absurd falsehood. No question was ever raised as to W. King's right to settle on the “block;” the only one was that explained by me in my published letter of May, namely,—“whether his pa should stand a few chains nearer the water side than it would have stood, had it been erected on his own land on the same side of the river.”
It will hardly satisfy any impartial person, to be told that the officers charged with the investigation.” Why! these are the very persons whose whole conduct and proceedings in reference to the Waitara purchase have been impugned. Anything more absurd, except on the hypothesis of the absolute infallibility of these officials, can scarcely be conceived; and, if that is the assumption, it might as well have been broadly asserted from the beginning. What “the proved facts of the case” are, or where they are to be found, would, I fear, puzzle Mr. Richmond to show.
It will be seen that not a single statement made by the Rev.
Octavius Hadfield .
Sir,—
You will oblige me by publishing the enelosed letter, being the copy of one addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Your obedient servant,
Octavius Hadfield
Hurirapa, ko to Kuikai, Kaore he whare i toe, pau katoa i te ahi, kotahi te whare i toe—he whare hui, i waho o te pa o te Hurirapa. Erua haora e noho ana matou i reira, ka eke au ki runga ki te
Na Wi Tako.
(
copy.)
My Lord Duke,—I request to be allowed to draw your Grace's attention to some very serious charges brought against me in an official document contained in certain “Miscellaneous Papers” forming part of an Appendix to a Memorandum by Mr. Richmond, on Sir W. Martin's “Taranaki Question.” The document referred to is— “Copy of a letter from the Chief-Land-Purchase Commissioner to the Governor,” dated 1st December, 1860; and purports to be a reply to a letter of mine published in the New Zealand Spectator of the 12th October, 1860.
I forbear to trouble your Grace with any remarks on Mr. Donald M'Lean's contradictions of my statements. What I wish to bring under your Grace's notice is the following passage:—
“And now I shall briefly advert to some observations which appear in Archdeacon Hadfield's evidence before the House of Representatives in the last Session. (Ans. to Q. 44), ‘I was absent from the Colony about twelve months, and on my return I found that the [King] movement had made rapid strides in the South. The progress of the King movement is to be attributed, in my opinion, to the action of the Land Purchase Department in the South part of this Island.’ In making an assertion of this description the Venerable Archdeacon should have had the candour to avow that the “anti-land-selling-league”—which eventually merged into the King party—was really a project of his own, and was recommended by him to the natives as early as the years 1818 and 1849. The natives have openly stated at their meetings, on the subject of land-selling, that they had been instructed by the Archdeacon not to alienate any portion of their territory of the Government. Mr. Hadfield seems to find it very convenient to conceal the part which he took in influencing the minds of the natives, and very adroitly to endeavour to impute to the Land Purchase Department the blame due to his own acts. I apprehend it would require a measure of more than the Archdeacon's ingenuity—great as it may be—to defead his efforts to embarrass the Government in their operations with the natives, and by his advice and counsel to lead them on to their own destruction.”
In reference to this extract, I beg leave to make the following observations:—
-
I have no doubt whatever that the opinion I gave in my evidence before the House of Representatives as to the King movement is correct. I shall be prepared to prove its truth whenever an opportunity is afforded me of adducing evidence in support of it.
-
I have proved in a letter published in the
New Zealand Spectator, November 3, 1860, that there never has been any “anti-land-selling-league” in New Zealand. -
I have never had any project whatever as to an “anti-land-selling-league”; nor have I ever recommended anything of the kind to any native.
-
During the whole of the year 1848 I was ill and confined to my
bed, at the house of a friend in Wellington, and had no communication with natives. It was not till near the end of the year 1849 that I recovered and returned to this place: but the subject of land was never once mentioned, there being at that time no negotiation for the purchase of any land in my district. -
Before I had seen the charges on which I am now commenting, I had said in a letter published in the
New Zealand Spectatorof the 6th inst., “I here take the opportunity of noticing an insinuation, if not a statement, publicly made by Mr. Commissioner M'Lean, that I have advised natives not to sell their lands to the Government. I now state most distinctly and unequivocally, that I have never since New Zealand became a British colony, either directly or indirectly advised, or in any way endeavoured to influence any native, or party of natives, not to sell their land to the Government: and that Mr. M'Lean's statement is a falsehood, and one, I regret to say, which the many opportunities which have occurred for explanation render wholly inexcusable.” As Mr. M'Lean gives no information as to who “the natives” are, and when and where they made the statements imputed to them, I can add nothing more on this head. -
Your Grace will not expect that I should condescend to reply to the calumnious and malignant insinuations contained in the latter portion of the extract from Mr. M'Lean's letter. But what the effect of my advice and counsel has really been among those natives over whom I may be supposed to have any influence is pointed out in a letter addressed by me to the
Southern Cross, August 24, 1860, when a similar attack was made on me by the Native Minister. “It is twenty years since I first went to reside at Waikanae and Otaki. During the whole of my residence in the district there has been profound peace. No Englishman or Maori has ever been murdered. No collision has ever taken place among the natives themselves. No outrage has ever been committed on the person or property of an Englishman. During the last twelve years—when law first began to be enforced—there has never been an attempt to prevent the execution of a warrant issued by the Resident Magistrate of Wellington, though placed in the hands of only a single constable. I boldly challenge any one to point to a single instance of disloyalty on the part of any of the natives of my district, or of any act which has the slightest tendency to produce disloyalty, until the month of May last, when after the Taranaki war began, a colour from the Maori King was sent from Waikato, and an attempt was made to erect it.”
I should not have troubled your Grace with this letter, were it not that peculiar circumstances, which it is unnecessary for me to explain, render it unadvisable that I should at present take legal proceedings against Mr. Commissioner M'Lean.
Your Grace's most obedient servant,
.Octavius Hadfield
The Right Honourable the Duke of Newcastle.
From certain Members of the Ngatiawa Tribe to the Superintendent
of the Province of Wellington.
Mr. Superintendent,—Greeting to you. These are our words: hear them, that you may declare them openly in the presence of the Governor.
We have portions of land also at Waitara within the piece of land which was wrongly sold by Ngatituaho and Ngatihinga, or to the ancestors of
Nor is it land that has lately been discovered by
Now we have heard the defence of Parris wrong doing with reference to our portions of land there, which says, “A long time was allowed to elapse, and nothing was said about the land: Parris, the Land Commissioner of Taranaki, carefully inquired that he might find out who were the owners of the land which was offered to him. Parris searched, and at length he found them out.”
These words were intended to excite everybody's admiration, that it might be thought that he really had searched. Listen. We were all the time living at Waikanae; one of us at Otaki. Now Parris never came to make inquiries of us as to whether we had land there or not; nor did any assistant of his in that work come to inquire; nor did he write any letter of inquiry; nor did he, in the course of that year, print in the newspaper his inquiries as to the owners of that land, None, none at all.
Off goes one of the land purchasers to make inquiries of some people of Arapawa, passing over us without inquiry.
We did not hear of it until the time when
The second time was when they went to survey it.
The third time was when the soldiers were sent to take it. How could we get a word in? When the trouble had become serious, then Parris goes and prints in the newspaper that he has made inquiry.
We ask this question. What are we, peaceable persons, who are not joining in the fighting, to do when our lands are wrongly taken away by the Governor? Where shall we seek a way by which we may get our lands restored to us? Shall we seek it from the Queen, or from whom? We imagined that it was for the law to rectify wrongs. Up to this time our hearts keep anxiously inquiring. We will say no more.
From us, members of Ngatiawa, and owners of that land at Waitara.
.Hohepa Ngapaki , x
.Kiripata Pake
.Patihana Tikara
.Epiha Paikau Tupoki , x
Pinarepe te Neke, x.
Henare te Marau, x.
.Paora Matua awaka
.Hutana Awatea
.Wiperahama Putiki
.Teretiu Tamaka
.Riwai te Ahu
To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.
Friend,—Will you print our letter in your paper.
When we read Mr. M'Lean's false answer to the following questions put to him we were very sad; we were sad because, though he knew nothing about our claims to that land at Waitara, or the connections of the various tribes and their chiefs, he nevertheless gave evidence at random on these subjects. But we will point out the errors of his answers, that all the Pakehas may understand, and that they may not ignorantly condemn New Zealand Spectator, October 6, 1860.
-
The Hon. Mr. Richmond—Had the Ngatituaho and Ngatihinga a right to the disputed block, independent of thehapusof the Ngatiawa? —Yes; decidedly.We say—It is quite false to assert that it belongs to these tribes alone, we now hear for the first time from Mr. M'Lean that it belongs to these tribes alone. -
Do the sellers, including Ropoama and his people at Queen Charlotte's Sound, properly represent these two
hapus?—They do.We say—This is false, some of those men are not real members of those tribes, some are slaves from Totorewa and from Ngaitahu; the principal men of those tribes are those (at Waitara) who are being trampled upon,Patukakariki and others. -
After the inquiry you have made do you know of any outstanding claim?—I have referred to one man who may have a claim, that is
Patukakariki , though I do not know that he has.We say—This answeris intended to deceive. He did not make proper inquiries of the people to whom the land belonged; but he is quite right to confess his ignorance, for he is only talking at random about what he knows nothing in denying Patukakariki 's and our claims to that land. -
Do you believe that any considerable claim can be outstanding?— I do not.
We say—This is false. We, who are connected with that land, say that there are persons who have real claims, that is, to the lands cultivated by their ancestors and parents; he has no right to deny their claims. -
As to
Te Patukakariki , did he opposeTeira 's offer?—No, he never did.We say—He did (see 35), and everybody has heard that the Government survey was resisted by women. Now, some of those women were Patukakarika's wife and his two daughters. What more could they do to shew that they opposed the sale? -
Has he ever made a claim?—He never, to my knowledge, made a claim to that particular block.
We say—He did strongly assert a claim to that block of land, both he and his nephew,Paora Karewa . He (Mr. M'Lean) heard it with his own ears on the day thatTeira gave hisparawaito the Governor; but he had determined not to listen. -
Do you think he possibly has a claim to any extent?—I think he may possibly have a claim to a small extent.
We say—He has a claim; he has several pieces within the block. All the pieces held by individuals within the block, whether by those who have been driven off it, or by us, or by those who sold it, are equally small; each person may have two, or one, or four, as the case may be. -
Do you consider that
Riwai Te Ahu has a valid claim to any part of the block?—I do not consider that he has.We say—He has a just claim. Mr. M'Lean could know nothing justifying his denial of it; he is stating what is false when he denies the claim; it was his desire to have the land that made him say this. -
Has King ever made a claim of proprietary right?—
William King has never made such a claim, to my knowledge.We say—This is quite false. Mr. M'Lean would not listen to what he said, in the same way that he would not listen to whatPatukakariki said (Question 6). -
Under the peculiar circumstances of the Taranaki case, had King in your opinion any right to interfere with the sale by another
hapuof their lands?—Decidedly he had not.We say—It is only this landjobber who would venture to denyWilliam King 's right to withhold the land: we say that he had a clear right to withhold the land, for it did not belong to thosehapusalone, or to other tribes, or other ancestors. Was it his animosity toWilliam King that made him say this? -
Has any similar interference by the chief been recognised in Taranaki, either in favour of King or of any other?—Never in connection with any of the purchases made there.
We say—That the land purchaser refused to listen, and that chiefs who opposed salesdid not always think proper to enforce their claims. -
Mr. Fox—You have stated thatRiwai Te Ahu had no claim. How can you be sure of this if you have never investigated claims at Otaki, where he lived, nor notified the sale to him?—I am sure of itfrom this fact, that he once preferred a claim to land there, which I investigated. I was under the impression that it was of considerable extent, but I found on inquiry from the parties through whom he claimed, and whose names he gave, that his claims were really insignificant, and were situated near the river Waiongana. Even those small claims the natives disputed, as the land was occupied by a sister of his. The extent of the land as represented to me is not larger than the floor of this house. I communicated the result of my inquiries to Riwai, who was disappointed at it. I, Hapakuka Mache, say, ThatRiwai Te Ahu has land which belonged to his ancestors between Mangoraka and Waiongana in that portion of land whichKatatore offered for sale before his death. It is the right to this piece of land which Mr. M'Lean denies. Again, he says, “I found on inquiring from parties through whom he claimed, and whose names he gave.”I,, say, This is false. I never named any persons of whom he should make inquiries; he asked Mahau, in the town at Taranaki, a person who had no connection whatever with the lands of our ancestors. Again he says, “His claims were really insignificant.” All lands held by individual Maories are small pieces (it is only Pakehas who have 100 or 200 acres each); these pieces may be small, but they are inherited from ancestors. It is not a man's fault that his land is small; what is unjust is to seize lands which belong to others. He further says, “Levi seemed disappointed;” yes, because he only inquired of Mahau, who knew nothing about the land.Riwai Te Ahu -
In investigating Riwai Te Aha's claim, was he present, and had he the opportunity of examining the witnesses on whose evidence his claim was negatived by you?—I believe I have answered that question already. He was not present, and indeed it would have been of little use if he had, as he knew almost nothing about his claim, which he referred wholly to me.
Riwai Te Ahu Katatore is purchased, I will settle about your piece of land there.” I assented to his proposal, assuming that he would act in good faith. -
Believing that
Patukakariki has possibly a claim to the disputed block, why have you not endeavoured to ascertain it, and to treat with him?—He has had frequent opportunities of preferring his claim. I have already read a letter dated 18th of March, 1859, inviting him and others to come forward and prove their claims.We say—Who can tell whether he would have been attended to; for when he and his nephew,Paora Karewa spoke, at the time theparawaiwas given, they were not attended to, and what could they say more than they had said then? -
How was that letter published and circulated?—It was not published at all; it was written by me to the chiefs of the district, without being otherwise notified than by being put into their hands.
We say—It was useless his writing.Patukakariki and the other chiefs would not come to him, when they had objected all along to the sale, and no attention was paid to what they said. -
Was a copy delivered to
Patukakariki ?—The letter was addressed toWilliam King ,Patukakariki , and all the people at Waitara.We say—Mr. M'Lean had heard the words ofWilliam King and others when they refused to sell Waitara; why then write? Why should they pay any attention to his letter? -
Is not
Patukakariki the head of thehaputo which TeTeira belongs? If he is not, who is?—I never recognised him as such. I know the contrary. I admit, however, that he is a chief of some importance. The principal chief of thesehapusdied some years ago. Ropoama, at Queen Charlotte's Sound, represents them.We say—The father ofTe Patukakariki was the principal chief of those (two) tribes; his name was Karewa; he is dead; he died long since, about twenty-three years ago. We all knew him as the chief. Where did Mr. M'Lean learn thatPatukakariki was not the chief of those tribes? and where did he hear that the chief of those tribes was dead? We should like to know the name of the chief who, he says, is dead. -
Suppose that
Patukakariki 's claim is a good one, is he bound to prefer it? and if he does not, what law will bar its future assertion?—I really do not think that I am called upon to state what his claim is. I had to hear his title adduced, which universal custom recognises as the manner in which he should prefer his claims,We say—Mr. Fox is quite right; he is only inquiring of the person who professes to know all about it. If they did not wish to sell their land, why should they go, more especially when what they had said on previous occasions had not been attended to? -
You have heard of the eleven claims mentioned by the claimants as existing at Otaki: have you investigated them?—I have not investigated those claims, with the exception of the one to which I have referred in answering a previous question.
We say—Take not of his prevarication. Listen: that is a different piece of land about which he had spoken; it is atWaiongana , about five or six miles distant, in the block offered byKatatore before his death. See at question 33, what was said about that land. But this, about which he was questioned, is the land now being fought about at Waitara. Having nothing to say, he said what was false, it being quite impossible for him to prove that our claims at Waitara are not good and valid. -
Did you ever hear of a meeting at which Te
Teira offered to give up to the parties opposing the sale some lands belonging to him outside the block in exchange for the lands he was offering to the Government?—I did not hear of a meeting at which any proposal of that nature was made in reference to the land he was offering to the Government. I am aware that there was a meeting at which there was some discussion about the accommodation of their claims. This was a considerable time pr or to the purchase.We say—See how clever he is at quibbling.Teira did make that offer; we heard it fromTipene Ngaruna , who was present at the meeting at Waitara. -
What are the rules of alienation in the Ngatiawa tribe?—In the Ngatiawa a family of three or four people has been regarded as empowered to dispose of its common property.
We say—We of this Ngatiawa, now hear for the first time of this mode of proceeding (in alienating land), but perhaps he is in an underhand way laying down a new rule for this Ngatiawa, or does he mean for Ngatiawa at Tauranga (of whom we know nothing). -
Have they long enjoyed this right?—It has been so for the last eighteen years.
We say—We have never heard of this custom all these years. We now hear it for the first time in this answer. -
Did not
Patukakariki protest repeatedly, three or four times, at public meetings against the sale of the disputed block?—Never against the sale of the block in question; but he has protested against the sale of other land.We say—What other portion of Waitara was ever sold by any natives to any other land purchaser, that he should have had an opportunity of objecting? No, it was that same block of land which they are fighting about. What Mr. M'Lean says is quite false, that “he has protested against the sale of other land.” -
Has he claims within the block?—I have stated, he may have claims; he has never proved any title.
We say—See, he merely conjectures, from utter ignorance of the facts. We positively assert that he has land there. -
Do you believe he has claims?—It is altogether conjectural; it is probable he may have a claim within the block.
We say—If he does not know, why does he venture to give evidence about that land, and thus expose his ignorance? -
Mr. Bell: In the evidence of Archdeacon Hadfield, he says that TeTeira is not a Chief at all, but a “tutua:” is that your opinion as to his position in the tribe?—Certainly not.We say—Archdeacon Hadfield was quite right. He lived five years with us in our pa at Waikanae; he was therefore well able to know who were Chiefs, and who were men of no rank at all; but this person, who contradicts another, has never lived among us, that he should know who are Chiefs and who are not. -
Mr. Domett Teira 's block was good, before the purchase of the block was made?—I advised the Governor to accept the offer, and proceed with the purchase of the block, because it appeared to me that TeTeira had an unquestionable title.We say—He had a claim to his own little piece of land scattered among those of all of us. It is very wrong to doggedly persist, without any ground for his assertion, in saying that our pieces of land belong toTeira only. -
Mr. Fox: When did you give that advice to his Excellency?—In March, 1859.We say—Exactly so; then it is he who has misled the Governor. -
Had the title at that time been fully investigated?—The offer was made publicly, which was the first and best evidence you could get of title, and a more minute investigation into the titles of the various claimants was afterwards instituted.
We say—That afforded no evidence for a decision; the greater part of that Assembly were Puketapu natives and natives from the town, and he would not listen toPatukakariki , andPaora Karewa , andWilliam King , when they openly protested against the sale that day in the presence of the Governor, whenTeira gave hisparawai; perhaps he thought that they had no right to interfere, or, which is more probable, he had determined in his own mind that if they refused their assent the soldiers should take the land. -
Was a contemporaneous, or nearly contemporaneous, notice of
the meeting of March, 1859, at which Teira 's blok was offered, published in theMaori Messenger?—A notice of that meeting was published in theMaori Messenger. We say—There was no mention ofTeira 's having offered land for sale in theMaori Messenger. Ngamotu, Taranaki, March 8, 1859, and Auckland, March 31, 1859. The account of the meeting to which he alludes was in these twoKareres. -
Mr. Richmond: Archdeacon Hadfield has stated that Ropoama refused to come up to the meeting at Kohimarama, because he disapproved of the transactions, falsely alleging illness as an excuse: was this the case?—It was certainly not so; he was scarcely able to stand. I sent a boat for him. He expressed himself willing to come, but he was really so unwell that he might have died at sea. In fact, I could not think of bringing him. In the short interview which I had with him on board the steamer, he again expressed his intention of selling his claims to the Government.We say—What Archdeacon Hadfield said is quite correct; we heard it from the natives who came across from Queen Charlotte's Sound. Illness was not the reason why he andHone Tuhata remained, No; they staid on account of the Governor's proceedings againstWilliam King . Notice the fact that not even one of those people went to Kohimarama.We conclude by saying that Mr. M'Lean had better leave off telling untruths about
William King 's land.
.Heruini Te Tupeotu
.Epiha Poiha
.Hohepa Ngapaki
.Henere Te Marau
.Tamati Te Hawe
.Rawiri Ngawaka
.Wiperahama Putiki
.Wiremu Tamihana Te Neke
.Paora Matuawaka
.Kiripata Pake
.Tipene Ngaruna
.Hutana Awatea
.Teretiu Tamaka
.Hone Tuhata
.Riwai Te Ahu
MEETING AT THE PA WHAKAAIRO.
On the 7th November a Maori meeting was held at Te Pa Whakaairo, which was called by nearly all the Native Chiefs at Ahuriri; about 200 natives were present, some of whom had come from Te Waipukurau, Te Aute, Eparaima, and Waimarama. The Superintendent
Renata, who was understood to act as spokesman and to express the opinions of the natives of Ahuriri and the East Coast. The following translation of Renata's speech is different from, but more correct and intelligible than, the one given in the Hawke's Bay Herald of December 8th:—
This is the day on which the Ngati-Kahungunu tribe and the Englishmen of Napier was held. The mouthpiece of the councils of Te Pa Whakaairo, of Tanenuiarangi, of Waipureku, of Matahiwi, of Te Timu, of Pakowhai, of Te Pakipaki, of Potaka, of Te Hauke, of Te Aute, of Waipaoa, of Te Waipukurau, of Eparaima, of Porangahau, of Tautane, of Te Takapau, of Tikokino, is
The occasion of this meeting is, that we Maoris are grieved at the war that is going on at Taranaki between the Governor and English, though one is a Bishop, another a minister, one is a Governor, and another a soldier, and another a settler; so we (Natives) are all one; Maori is my name: though one man builds houses, and another provides food, and another makes canoes, and some (thanks to You!) are fighting now. My name is like the Church of God, of which the Scripture says, “If one member suffer, all the members suffer with it.” The Church of God is one name, like ours. Therefore, I said, let me also go to my own people, who are being fed by thee (O Governor) with indigestible food. But if you will agree to some way of settling our dispute, and go to Taranaki to discuss and investigate the quarrel between the Governor and W. King, then it will be all right. If it is thereby found that W. King is in the wrong, then let all of us, English and Maoris, combine to oblige him to give up his present course of action; but if it is found that Te
But it is not necessary to go to Taranaki to see the Governor's course is wrong. No: we have seen it here at Ahuriri in the way in which his officials buy land—a very different system prevailed formerly from what is the practice now.
The plan formerely, was to assemble all the people, chiefs and serfs, old men and old women, women and children, in the presence of the Commissioner, so that the conveyance of the land to the Queen might be open and straightforward. The first block so purchased was that at Waipukurau—rightly done; and then Ahuriri, rightly done. Those were the lands the sale of which to the Queen was clear and unobjectionable. We fancied that such was to be the universal rule of purchase—but afterwards it went wrong. The wrong was this, that the Commissioner bought of one person by himself. This was the case in the purchase of the blocks at Cape Kidnappers, at Aorangi, and at Okawa, at Tariotehanawa, at Umuopua, at Tautane, at Aropaoanui. You have got possession of those lands, but by an unfair purchase made by your Commissioners; and thence arose our quarrels amongst ourselves. Afterwards we quietly gave up these lands to you, as a proof of our love to the Queen but we said at the time, put a stop to this practice of buying from one man. To this the Commissioners agreed. But
Now, perhaps you will say that the natives of this island are seeking a quarrel with the English. Not so, for if we were desirous of quarrelling, we should have encouraged the Wanganui plan for killing the English, and that of Tipa for destroying Raglan. But I refused to have anything to do with it; and the councils of the Maori King, who have rebuked you openly to your face, rejected the plan.—(I will not listen to any excuses for the Governor, but do you listen to what I say about our all going to Taranaki, and there investigating this quarrel. Then my ears will listen to what you say. Dost thou not (O Governor) see the open dealings of thy enemies, whom thou art so determined to fight with? I will not be like your Lickplates that met at Kohimarama. My words will be frank and open, although that Conference of yours has acted differently.) This weapon was sent to me by Ngatiraukawa, as a sign of destruction for Wellington. I refused to have anything to do with it. The meaning of this weapon was, that if, on the occasion of raising the King's flag, the men who hold with the Governor and the military attacked the King's men and the flag (then Wellington was to be destroyed). And so again Wanganui did wrong, this was the wrong:—A native living there went and fetched some wood-work from the graves, and burned it in a cooking oven, and then called the fire in his oven by the names of the Maori King and his chief men, Porokoru, Tamihana, Wetini, Epiha, Rewi, and all the chiefs of Waikato; this he did in the hope that the men of Wanganui would be excited to turn against the English there and kill them. And this was the act of those very men who went to the Governor's Conference at Kohimarama. That man had said the name of his child was Te Mutu-mutu (that is, have done with these English), and the name of another was Pakau (strike, strike, strike). But the Maori King forbade it, and so did all our councils. Now this is another instance:—Tipa is the name of a man who shaved his head, and the hair of his dog-skin mat; and this he did that his people might kill the English at Raglan. The King forbade it, and so did we who openly rebuke you to your face. And so did a great part of Ngatiraukawa, who openly rebuke you to your face, as I do now; but you turn and find fault with the Otaki Petition, that openly rebuked you. You turn and get up some delusive talk at the Conference that you called together to tell you a parcel of lies at Auckland. However, I do not intend to have anything to do with attacking
was a murder which Ihaia committed, and which he called revenge. Not so; that was revenge which i.e., the Governor made it his own by making such friends with Ihaia).
Now, with regard to that man, Te Rangitake (heaven, just as my name, Tamakihikurangi ends in heaven. But Te
This is another grievance. The Governor will not let us buy powder, even to shoot birds with. This is not a fair course of his; my rule is, that if my enemy has no weapon, I fling him one, that our fight may be equal. But are you not ashamed, O Governor, at my detenceless hand? Stay, cast away your guns, and powder and shot, and let us fight with our fists only—and if you don't lik that, give it over, have done with it for ever, and rather let us return to the law courts. What is the good of killing men on a wrongful cause? It is a bad business. If you are determined to fight, we shall all of us do wrong incessantly.
RENATA'S REPLY TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF HAWKE'S BAY.
New Zealand Spectator, March23, 1861.
Mr. Fitzgerald,
Sir,—
I have received the report of our speeches made here at the Pawhakairo when we mutually gave expression to our opinions, and which have now been published by you in a newspaper. We all recognise mine as correct (i.e. the report), but yours were not these that have been sent to me; these are newly made up by you. It was not I alone who observed that your speech was incorrectly reported; the whole of us agree that it is wrong, all those who heard our speeches. These are not your words as heard by the meeting; they have been manufactured anew by you. Had you spoken thus when here, you would have been answered by me according to the tenor of your words. Perhaps our friends in other places may suppose that this is a correct report of your speech as delivered here, instead of which it has been made anew by you at Ahuriri. Sir, it comes to me in a new shape, and I must give you a new answer.
Now then, I will answer your speech.
In reply to what you say about your grief for the war at Taranaki. If you felt genuine sorrow you would have been at Taranaki before this; your grief would have led you thither to put a stop to the war; then your word would have been heard beforehand in favour of stopping the evil; then you and I would have had nothing to discuss. I told you that the cause of our meeting was grief for the war at Taranaki, and proposed to go there and put a stop to it, to which you replied—that you could not influence the Governor. Then I thought, Eh! you are not sorry, your grief does not reach up to mine, since you oppose my proposal that we should go to Taranaki to enquire into the war. Although the Governor has the direction of the laws, he will not submit
You say “Fighting is not a good thing.” This is the answer. Truly fighting is not a correct thing, and nothing but the badness of your cause has prevented you from trying to stop it, so that I might know that you were free from the fault of the Governor. This was why we said in your presence, Eh! we are grieved because of the evil going on at Taranaki; but you would not agree to accompany me thither to discuss it.
You say, “Shall we permit evil to prevail?” This is my answer—Is it the Maori who permits evil to prevail? It was proposed to the Governor that an investigation should be had. This is what Te Wherowhero said about the failure of the meeting at Waiuku to discuss the Waitara question. The old man was vexed at the Governor avoiding a quiet discussion and investigation, and he said—“Uenuku, the man-eater, used to be my god; but when the clergymen came to this land, I was told to put away my god, for the Pakeha God was the true one, Jehovah, the preserver of man, the Creator of heaven and earth. When I accepted your God, I thought all wrongs were to be made the subject of investigation, great wrongs as well as little ones. When it came to this affair, I alone was left to worship his God, whilst he, the Governor, went off to pick up my cast away god, Uenuku, the cannibal. And now the Governor, the supporter of Jehovah, has stepped forward and carried off Uenuku the cannibal to Taranaki as his god for the destruction of man.”
Sir, was this evil caused by me—by the Maori, that I should be spoken to by you in that fashion? Why, that is your evil, the Governor's, and you had better yourself stop that evil. The Maori knows perfectly well that it was you who allowed it to prevail, since you did not hasten to put an end to it. If I were the instructor of both of us, I should have said, investigate that the war may be stopped, so that the man may be saved for after days.
You say, “Can chastisement be laid aside?” My reply is, Sir, what is the chastisement alluded to by you? Do you mean bloodshed? Do you mean shooting men down with guns? What part of the children do you mean to leave alive to feel your chastisement? What I have always heard described as chastisement was this, to teach with love. My idea of chastisement is investigation, that the child may survive to listen to your instructions in after days. Those weapons of yours are not good things for teaching with; your teacher is a very bad kind of one, your children will run away. What would be right would be to agree to an investigation, that the evil might be put down, and man suffered to live.
This is one of your words, “It (the war) is being used as a medicine.” This is my reply. Sir, this medicine that you speak of is killing people, then physicking them. Sir, your medicine is the same as that used by the European shepherds to physic our dogs with. This is the kind of physic that you use, and the dogs die. The medicine for mankind is investigation; this is the kind of physic prescribed by the
You say, “It is better as it is with us at Ahuriri here, where we dwell together and eat together.”
This is my reply: Sir, do you mean to say that dwelling peaceably together has only existed at Ahuriri? How was it at Taranaki in your opinion? Why, they had the same manner of dwelling together, of land purchasing, of bartering in trade, of brotherhood with the Maori, just the same. There was the same Mr. M'Lean, the same Governor, and all the same relationships subsisting between the Pakeha and the Maori. Sir, eating together is also a good thing. What
This is the answer: Sir, that is the very thing that
Sir, in time of the former Governor, the crimes of the Maoris were the greatest; and the Governor pursued the crime of the Maori to punish it. But with this Governor, it is quite clear to us that the evil is of his making alone. He is a Governor in your estimation; he is nothing but a common Pakeha in ours. For, had he been really a Governor, he would not have listened to the persuasions of evil. The greatness of his regard (for the Maori) would have been able to keep him out of war.
You say; The Governor went all the way to Taranaki that he might himself see them both (
This is my answer: Sir, that is a piece of your own invention. Who is to be deceived by it? Why, he sent for William King to go and talk with him, after the soldiers had arrived. Why should he go there to put himself in danger of the soldiers? The good opportunity had been lost which was indicated by our great man for investigating the dispute according to law; the Governor had disregarded the wish of Potatau that they should meet and talk it over in accordance with the law. The first thing he hears is, Eh! the Governor has arrived at Taranaki, and is thundering forth with cannons and rockets. A person might suppose from the way you talk that the dispute was investigated by the Governor. Sir, what have you to do with mis-statements? You say, “The Governor was aware that
This is the answer: Sir, wherein did you discover the obduracy of
You say, “When we arrived (at Auckland) we met together (General Assembly) and discussed this matter with many other questions.” This is my reply—Sir, had your meeting been one of inquiry you would have discovered a means of putting a stop to the war at Taranaki. Instead of which your seeking was like that of a man in search of a missing horse. He searches the whole country around in vain; he is not found. He returns home, and behold there is the animal all the time! Had it been a seeking indeed the Governor's assembly of Maori Chiefs would first have taken place; afterwards the Taranaki war.
You say, he said, “I shall not allow it (the land) to be sold, having said which Wm. King arose and walked out of the room.” Sir, I beg you to know that this is the Maori's most emphatic mode of denial: to say his say, get up and go, that it may be known that he will never consent.
You say, “As for this matter it was most carefully investigated when I was in the House of Representatives at Auckland; how careful was the inquiry of that Assembly! its diligent research, its careful and penetrating questions. Nothing could equal it! it was greater than I can tell.”
This is my answer: Sir, what were you looking for when you were at Auckland? Were you seeking to find the wrong of the Taranaki war? or were you trying to find out a way of justifying the Governor's proceedings? or was it to find an excuse for persisting in the Taranaki war? This would have been a great thing for you to do to investigate the matter, but you did not accomplish it; yet there were a great many Pakehas assembled at that gathering. But if you are seeking, let us go to Taranaki and seek there; we shall not be long before we find something.
You say, “For Governors were sent to punish evil doers and to praise those who do well.” This is the answer: Sir, the word of Scripture is right, but you mis-apply it altogether in this instance. It is the Governor who is in fault. Sir, your word is wrong. The chastiser having himself given cause of offence, is he to go out and punish others for it? Rather let crime come of itself, and then let punishment follow; and when men see that which is good, they will praise it. Sir, why did not the Governor, the chastiser, hang up Ihaia by the neck, that murderer whom he has taken to be his dear friend? Your quotation is misplaced.
You say, “Do not suppose that it is only we Pakehas who think the Governor right in what he has done at Taranaki. No, there are great numbers of Maoris who say the same thing.”
This is my reply; Sir I have told you those fellows were lick-plates, and you still report their words to me. Listen to me; it was not I who condemned them; it was themselves, in their own assembly at Kohimarama. When a great number of them had been dunning the
Mr. M'Lean himself, the author of the evil, stands there himself to investigate it. Why did not the Maoris say: It will not do for the defendant to be a judge in his own case?
This is what you say about the Pakehas (opposition members) who find fault with the Governor: “Those Pakehas are not good people. They are chattering, growling, grumbling Pakehas, aye, bad Pakehas.” This is the reply: Sir, what is the crime of those Pakehas? Is it (the war) a work of such small dimensions that you turn aside after the Pakehas? Did they go and teach Wm. King? It was he who pointed it out to himself (his position); it was not taught him. The evil was notoriously self-evident, and that it was that showed it to Wm. King. Sir, had he been urged on by a Pakeha instead of by his own feelings, the war would probably have been over. A person acting under the instigation of another does not hold out very long; he soon gives in. This is the Pakeha's teaching, that fighting with guns is bad; it is better to fight with words, and with the pen. This war is of Maori (i.e. W. King was not put up to it by Pakehas) origin, the effect of his anger about his land being taken; he talked for a long time, but his words were unheeded.
You say, “Let W. m. King lay down his arms;” you also speak of not making peace, and about (W. King) submitting to the law.
This is the answer: Sir, shall I then lay down the shield, and leave the weapon free to strike me? No, let the weapon be put down, and the shield will follow it. Is this fault the man's (W. King.'s) that he should put an end to it; it is the Governor's own, and he must put a stop to it. Who is the innocent man having charge of the laws? For the Governor himself has done wrong, the keeper of the laws. The Maori will obey the law; if it be properly administered he will always obey. It was the Governor himself who established the law of fighting at Taranaki. The Maori only defended himself.
You quote this passage from Scripture: “A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand; and if a city or a house be divided against itself it cannot stand.”
Sir, Did I, the Maori, turn round upon you to fight? I rather think it was you who turned upon your neighbour,
This is the answer: Sir, who caused the pain? I take it to have been the Governor. Very different were the land purchasing arrangements of former days. There was to be an assemblage, and when they had all consented, then the land should pass. All the Maoris heard this from the Governor. But now they hear, Eh! this plan of buying is changed, and land is now to be sold by a single individual. Sir, this is the way by which this pain, this trouble, has come upon us; it was through double-dealing that this trouble came. Had the old way continued, we should not have gone wrong; but since it has been abandoned, and attention has been paid to a single individual, difficulties have arisen.
You say, “That man must let down his bristles, and pay obeisance to his Sovereign the Queen.”
This is the answer: Sir, what then is the Maori doing? The Maori is yielding obedience. For many years he has been listening to that teaching of the Queen's. But the Governor has made it all go wrong. Your word is not clear. Perhaps you think he is not a man, that you say he should not raise his bristles when his land is taken from him? If your land were taken by a Maori, would your bristles not rise? Give him back his land, and then if we see his bristles still sticking up, I will admit that you are right. You quote from the Scripture that children should honour their parents; quote to the Governor the other portion of the same passage, “Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath.”
You say, “Probably by lengthening, by dragging out (the war), this island will be filled with soldiers and fighting men.” This is my answer: Sir, you have no right to say this to me. Had I (i.e. the Maori) begun this war, you might with justice have applied those words to me. But seeing it was the Governor, if you had said this to the Governor, to him who begun the work at Taranaki, it would have been
For had it not then been asserted that the Maori King had any power (or sovereignty); they were still in search of a rule of action. By and by you will conceal the Governor's fault under this covering (King movement) since you seem determined on war. Sir, the Maori did not look upon war as his avocation; it was you who taught it him, and he stood erect to ward off your weapon, because of your stealing the Maori's land. Sir, is thieving, indeed, then a legitimate occupation? It has been said to be a wicked one—it must be that only a theft by a Maori is wrong, but when a Pakeha commits one, it is a laudable action.
You say, “that by fighting and division, the Maori King will be established in Waikato” (i.e. that the Waikatos think that by fighting, &c.)
This is my answer: Sir, can't you perceive that the Governor commenced that quarrel with his son W m. King? He (W. K.) was an opponent of my little king.
All that Waikato desired was to have an investigation; and for a long time, as far as talking could accomplish, they intervened between the combatants, and for a long time, whilst the Governor was quarrelling with his son, the Waikato were strenuously smothering their feelings of sympathy. But when at length the war became permanent, then they arose to shield him (W. K.) from the weapon of him who was placed over him. Ought they to have given him up to darkness (death)? This is my custom—if my chief is gently punishing his children, they are left to settle their own differences; but if I see him lift a deadly weapon then I get up to interfere. If he thereupon turns round upon and kills me, it cannot be helped. That is a good kind of death in my—the Maori's–estimation.
Sir, did I set up my King in secret? As I view it, Waikato wished that his authority should emanate from the Governor. And then it was that we tried to do the best we could for ourselves. When it was seen that evil was partly put down by the runanga; and the stupid drunkards became men once more, then the work (the King movement) became general. And then I hear that the Governor, who found fault with our runanga, has himself called another Maori runanga, to screen himself that his fault might be hidden.
But is this (King movement) indeed to cause a division between us? No, it will be caused by secret purchases of land, the thing which has been going on for years.
Is he a veritable King in your eyes? Sir, cease to cite this as a cause of quarrelling. For behold, the Treaty of Waitangi has been broken. It was said that the Treaty was to protect the Maoris from foreign invasion. But those bad nations never came to attack us; the
Sir, it is you alone who have broken your numerous promises. You say, “The Maories are not able to fight against the Queen of England and prevail against her.” This is my answer. Sir, you know perfectly well that the Maori will be beaten. What will save me will be my not attempting to instruct you. It is only you who teach me; and then there are both me and your doctrine for you to kill. Sir, I have not strength to fight with you, but the law (of right) is strong, and you cannot kill it. Though it be said that this war is for sovereignty, the fault of the Governor can never be concealed by that. Who is the Maori that is such a fool as to be mistaken about the sovereignty or supremacy of the Queen of England? Or who will throw himself away in fighting for such a cause? No, it is for the land; for land has been the prime cause of war amongst the Maoris from time immemorial down to the arrival of the Pakehas in this island of ours. The Maori will not be daunted by his weakness, by his inferiority, or the smallness of his tribe. He sees his land going, and will he sit still? No, but he will take himself off to resist.
It is not a fight for life, (i.e. we fight without caring for our lives, that being a secondary consideration to a Maori, as is proved by their carrying on the war against hopeless odds at Taranaki); my surviving or dying is a thing to be determined there (in fighting) as you may see them now, being killed at Taranaki. The Queen's sovereignty has been acknowledged long ago. Had it been a fight for supremacy, probably every man in this island would have been up in arms. But in the present case the fighting is confined to the land which is being taken possession of. There is a letter of W m. King's lying here, in which he says that if his land is evacuated he will put a stop to the fighting. This is my answer to what you say about the Maori being starved for want of money. Why did you say this? Am I making light of your money, of your food, of your clothing? I am always buying them, and I am also building churches, and mills, and wooden houses. You had better confine yourself to the subject of the land improperly purchased by the Commissioners. You speak of the Maori improperly buying guns and powder. In reply I say, Well, what would you have? When you are setting us quarrelling amongst ourselves about our land improperly bought, and you leave us alone to fight it out. It is partly to arm ourselves against each other that we buy these things. We do not buy them to be turned against you. For where were we to find a cause, since we heard the Governor saying that he could not be the aggressor. Look for yourself—the earth has long been shaken by you, and yet the Maori has nowhere commenced fighting, through the instrumentality of my little king who kept them down, as I have already shewn you. As to what you say about your Pakehas having no powder, cease to humbug me. Do you then feed your children upon nothing but lead? do you not add a little powder as a relish? By what kind of air then was it (the lead) propelled? You say, “It is quite evident yourselves are the cause of the faulty purchasing. It lies neither with the Governor, nor with his Commissioners, but with the Maori.” This is my answer. Are not you ashamed to put your sins upon my shoulders? When he
he paid us £1300 for that mistake. Other mistakes are likewise paid for.
This was not a subject that we intended discussing; but your having desired it, obliged us to allude to it. But it will probably be just the reverse at Taranaki; he (Mr. M'Lean) will not be able to admit an error there, lest the news of it should spread far and wide, and reach the ears of everybody. Sir, listen whilst I tell you of the last errors of Mr. M'Lean after he had wiped out his former ones, the mistakes that were made subsequently; viz., Omarutairi and Ngapaeruru—these are what I am going quietly to tell you about. Omarutairi was a piece of land held by the owners as a reserve for themselves, the greater part of their possessions being already alienated. When Mr. M'Lean went to Te Aute it was reported that this land was sold. The owners went straight off and said, “Mr. M'Lean, don't buy that land, Sir.” They remained three days repeating this, and then went away; and afterwards the money was secretly paid to two people. As to Ngapaeruru, this land was for sale; but by reason of the faulty purchase, you did not obtain it. This was the fault. Two men came to sell this land by stealth to Mr. M'Lean. The owners heard of it, and wrote a letter to Mr. M'Lean not to pay any money to those men. When they reached Mr. M'Lean, one of us saw them there–Karaitiana Takumoana—who suspected that they must have come to sell the land secretly. Karaitiana put Mr. M'Lean on his guard, who replied, “You are right, for I have got a letter from Paora Tamaihotua.” Karaitiana read the letter, and then said to Mr. M'Lean, “This letter is correct. Don't you give any money for the land to these men, but pay your money into the hands of the tribe on the spot, that the land may pass with a clear title to you.” Mr. M'Lean consented to this, but as soon as Karaitiana was gone, he paid £400 as the price of Ngapaeruru. That was the fault in the case of those two men, and these wrongs prove to us those which have been committed by Mr. M'Lean and his assistants at Taranaki. It is the same Mr. M'Lean and the same system of purchase. You say, “For you have tied up the land. It was free formerly—aye, free from the days of your ancestors.”
This is the answer. Sir, our land is free, but it is now being enslaved, inasmuch as it is being sold for money. In olden times it was not sold, but if we had a man in captivity, that was what we sold. Sir, you should have reflected that the land was free, and therefore had an investigation as a preliminary step before proceeding to purchase. This is a suitable reply to your childish saying. You appear to suppose that by getting hold of a single individual you can gain an advantage over him. Hereafter, whenever the majority consent to a sale it shall take place. Let us have no more blundering. All our troubles have arisen from faulty working, and on this account it was that the door of land selling was shut. But when the system of buying is amended, the door will be opened that sales may be conducted on a regular plan.
An expression of ours is quoted by you—“That no man will be allowed to sell his land although it should be his exclusive property.”
But the word (as quoted by you) is not exactly correct, for it was determined by Waikato that if the land turned out to be the individual property of Te
You say—“Yes, indeed, friend
You told me at our last meeting that the Governor had made a rule that every individual should be free to sell his own bushel of wheat, his potatoes, his corn, and his land as well. We replied to this at the time, “That is right, as applied to the wheat, potatoes, and corn, for they are produced by the labour of his hands; but the land is an inheritance from our ancestors, a father of us all;” and besides all that, how about the rule made by all the Governors who preceded Governor Browne? the rule adopted by the Land Purchase Commissioners, and by the very man, M'Lean himself. “Although a single man should offer land to me, I will not accept it, but let the majority concur, that the purchase may be right.” In those days the land passed clearly, and everything was carried on peaceably, and with Governor Grey it ceased (i.e. purchases were carried on correctly and peaceably till the end of Sir
This is what you say about Te
This is my reply: Sir, what about his genealogy? This is the second proof that he has given you (against himself), his theft first, and now his genealogy; by these you may know him. W. King would never give his genealogy, because it is known throughout this Island; it is not recounted. That is a thing for the common man to do, who never was heard of before, or for an obscure thief. You must know that this is a thing done by the lower orders.
You say to me, “Lay a firm hold on the regulations of the Government, in order that you may see life and length of days, and prosperity increasing without end.”
To which I reply: That is the very thing. Exert yourself to point it out to me, that I may speedily see it. At present I am entirely occupied in looking at your guns, powder, and lead, and at our tribes who are being exterminated by you, through your system of seizing land.
Sir, some of your statements I do not particularly care to notice. Were all true, I should answer all. For this is the only reply to the truth, “What you say is correct.” But now I have occupied months in preparing and digesting a written reply to what you said. That is my difficulty (writing). Had it been an exercise to which I had been accustomed in my youth, I should not have taken long to write an answer to what you have said; or had it been that which I understand properly—an oral discussion, it would not have taken me such a length of time to find a reply. That is all.
,Renata Tamakihikurangi
The spokesman of Ngatikahuhunu.
P.S.—
you have omitted to insert the most important topic of our discussion. I had left it for you to insert, as it arose from your answer to my proposal, that we should go to Taranaki to inquire into the cause of the disturbance. It was proposed in reply to leave it to the Queen to judge between the Governor and Wm. King. You witnessed the general assent of all to that proposal that the Queen should be the judge. Well, does this look in your opinion like a rebellious word in regard to the Queen, that you have left it out of sight, and taken up that word of your own invention about the Maori making war against the Queen? Sir, the Maori does not consider that he is fighting against the Queen. I beg therefore that you will cease to pervert words, and rather consent to our proposal that we should all join in writing a letter to the
Kai-whakawa) to stand between us, and let us all joint together in inquiring into this dispute. Cease (arbitration) by guns, and now let it be left to inquiry, that a remnant of men may be left.
.Renata
To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.
Sir,—
I trust that you will allow me through your columns to clear Archdeacon Hadfield of a grave charge brought against him by New Zealander of August 8th. He is there stated to have said, “I cannot conceive how any man having the interests of the country at heart, or desiring to serve the Maori race, could withhold these letters (W. King's to Archdeacon Hadfield) from the knowledge of the Governor, how a minister of the gospel, the friend and adviser of this chief, when war was raging, even while blood was being shed (loud cheers), could have preferred keeping them secret only to find a paltry triumph in making them known in this House when it was too late (loud cheers.)” It is very characteristic of Archdencon Hadfield, that in his letters to the editor of the Southern Cross, published in your issue of August 22d, he makes no allusion to so grave a charge. With the independent dignity of an honourable man, conscious of right, and of a character that places him far beyond the reach of such aspersions, he does not even refer to it. But what such a man will not do for himself, another may be allowed to say for him. The Governor was made acquainted with the fact of
“I think you have been misled in the matter of Archdeacon Hadfield's conduct about this Taranaki war. He told me some months back that he wished to write to you about the state of the natives at Taranaki, as he had received a letter from W. King: but as I then expected you and the General Assembly to be here in February or March, I recommended his waiting till you came, and talking the matter over. We had no idea of the sudden coup de main your Excellency was planning, and the proclamation of martial law in the province of Taranaki came upon us before we had any opportunity of remonstrance.”
The public can now judge for itself of the value of
C. F. Wellington