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

On the Tenure of Native Lands. — No. 1. — Mr. Sub-Protector Shortland to the Chief Protector. — On The Tenure of Native Lands

page break

On the Tenure of Native Lands.
No. 1.
Mr. Sub-Protector Shortland to the Chief Protector.

On The Tenure of Native Lands.

page 1
On the Nature of Land Tenure. Akaroa, 15th. August, 1843.

Sir,—

In reply to your letter dated the 19th November, 1842,1 have the honour to communicate to you the information which I have been able to collect relative to the nature of the tenure whereby lands are held among the Natives.

Original Immigration.

According to Native tradition these Islands were first inhabited by the present race, who left their own country—one of the Polynesian Islands—on account of some national disturbance. This probably happened, between five and six hundred years ago. Several canoes are said to have sailed about the same time to seek new lands. Part of them only reached this shore, and the spot where each was finally drawn to land was taken possession of by the crew, who spread themselves from that centre over the more fertile districts, till they became a numerous tribe. In confirmation of the truth of this it is worthy of remark that each of the grand divisions into which the Natives of the Northern Island may be divided has its own characteristic dialect; and it seems probable that the term "waka" (canoe), which is also used to denote these primary divisions, has reference to this origin of the tribe.

Division of Tribes.

At the present day these waka are divided into many distinct "iwi," each of which is again sub-divided into hapu, or smaller communities. These iwi, although descended from common ancestors, have, through quarrels respecting their lands and women, imbibed hatreds to each other which keep them in continual feuds, forgotten only for a while; when assailed by a common enemy they unite for mutual protection, as the tribes of Waikato did when attacked by Ngapuhi.

Division of Lands.

The territory claimed by a waka is subdivided again into districts, each of which is claimed by an iwi. These are again variously apportioned among the different hapu and families of chiefs.

Town and Suburban Allotments.

In the immediate vicinity of a pa the land is more minutely subdivided amongst its inmates, nearly every person having his own small cultivation-ground or holding some spot in common with other members of his family.

Difficult to purchase.

This circumstance would render it very difficult for Europeans to purchase lands once so occupied, even though the pa may have been deserted for many years, as every man whose ancestors cultivated there will expect his claim to be satisfied.

Landowners.

The chiefs are the principal landholders. Every individual person, so far as I have been able to learn, has his own estate which he has inherited from his branch of the family, and which he cultivates as he pleases.

Descent of Property.

The sons of a chief may during his lifetime select kaingas (farms) from their father's estate; but the larger portions are cultivated in common by the different members of the family. When a daughter marries a small farm is generally given to her, which however reverts to her brothers should she die without issue. On the death of the father, the eldest son chooses some part of the land for himself; the others do the same, the daughters obtaining only so much, as their father or brothers choose to leave them.

This order of things is sometimes changed in case the elder brother is of a quiet disposition, and his younger brother happens to be a toa (a. turbulent fellow). The latter will then grasp the bulk of the property to the exclusion of the rest, even during his father's lifetime; and he is, in the opinion of his tribe, entitled to respect for this show of spirit. The husband of a sister is at liberty to do the same if he can. The other members of the family then sink to the condition of "tutua," or insignificant persons, retaining only their right to their kaingas or cultivation-grounds.

Ngatiwhakaue.

Ngatiwhakaue, perhaps the most important tribe in the Island, seem to carry to a great extent this system of raising one member of the family at the expense of the rest.

Hereditary Title, and Rights by Conquest.

A chief, when speaking of the title by which he holds his lands, never fails to make a distinction between those which he has inherited from his ancestors and those which he or his ancestors have obtained by conquest. Over the former his right is universally recognized. The latter appear to be tenable only so long as the party in possession is the more powerful. The claim which he advances is, however, quite characteristic of the people—viz., that they are the utu, or compensation for the death of page 2his relatives who perished in the fight. It is from purchasing lands the right to which is thus contested by two hostile parties, either of whom will gladly avail himself of an opportunity to sell independently of the other, that Europeans have unwarily fallen into so many difficulties.

Disputed Lands.

Besides the lands thus held there are large districts on the borders of different tribes which remain uncultivated. These "kainga tautohe," or debatable lands, are a never-failing cause of war till one party has lost its principal men. The remnant then cease to have any political importance, and are reduced to the condition of mere cultivators of the soil, being contempuously styled "toenga-kai," or offal.

Family Contentious.

When a dispute arises between members of the same tribe as to who is the rightful owner of a piece of laud, the principal persons on both sides meet together to discuss the affair. Their pedigrees are traced, and the ancestor from whom either party claims is declared. Any proof that an act of ownership (such as cultivating, building a house, setting pit-falls for rats, or erecting eel-weirs) was once exercised without opposition by one of these ancestors, is considered sufficient evidence of the right of his descendants to the land. I have been present during such discussions, but have never known them terminated in an orderly manner, nor have I since learnt that any advance had been made thereby towards settling the question.

I have &c;

Edward Shorthand,
Sub-Protector, East District.

G. Clarke, Esq., Chief Protector of Aborigines.