Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

An Epitome of Official Documents Relative to Native Affairs and Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand

II. Bishop of New Zealand.—1860

II. Bishop of New Zealand.—1860.

The Native land title is simple enough in its origin, but, from obvious causes, extremely complicated in its actual state. In its theory it is this: A few leading chiefs, with a small body of children and retainers, arrive at different parts of the Island, and make a rough partition of the territory among themselves by natural boundaries of mountains and rivers. These families grow into tribes, each possessing the patrimony derived from its ancestors. To preserve this inheritance unimpaired was a primary object of their care. To this end two restrictions were necessary—(1) Upon the right of alienation, and (2) upon the liberty of marriage. The case of the daughters of Zelophehad is strictly analogous to Maori usage. "If they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received. … Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry." Other reasons may be page 18assigned for these restrictions, such as the right of the tribe to require service from all its members, the necessity of keeping up their own numbers, and of preventing strangers from acquiring landed property to be used to the injury of the tribe.

There is reason to think that an independent right to alienate land without the consent of the tribe, is unknown in New Zealand. On the other hand, in the ample territory which each tribe at first possessed, there was probably much freedom of choice in the particular spot which each member might wish to cultivate. This spot became his own by right of occupation, and, in the absence of all forms of conveyance, descended to all his children and grandchildren, sons-in-law, and daughters-in-law, till the right, which was at first personal, became complicated by a multitude of claims. In the neighbourhood of fortified places these plots of ground, from the necessity of the case, were as minute as cottage gardens near a populous town; and it may be taken for granted as a general rule that in such cases every acre of land will contain ten or twenty plots, and for every plot there will be ten or twenty claimants, as I have repeatedly found. In such cases also, for the sake of mutual protection, the right of the tribe to control the alienation of land to foreigners would be most rigidly enforced.

Three points then seem to be clear on this subject—(l) That there was originally a distinct owner for every habitable spot in the Northern Island; (2) That these claims have become complicated by the obvious causes of inheritance and marriage, without forms of conveyance or bequest; (3) That these rights of ownership, whether in one or many joint proprietors, were not alienable without the consent of the tribe.—[Memorandum to the Governor, May, 1 860: in Sess. Paper E.–No. 1.]