Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 10

Par. 32

Par. 32.

What is called by Mr. Richmond the first Counter-proposition, and which is here taken to have been established, runs counter, not to what I have really maintained, but to what I am assumed to have maintained. My proposition as to the rule of Native Tenure is, that the individual holder is a member of a Community, and that the consent of the Community is necessary to the alienation of the land; and that in every purchase it is one of the matters of fact to be ascertained, what the Community is in that particular case. This proposition, page 35 so far from being disproved, is in fact admitted in express terms in Mr. Richmond's last paragraph; where Mr. McLean is cited as saying "The whole of the purchases previously made at Taranaki had been effected on the same principle as the present one from Te Teira, namely, that of acquiring the land from the different clans and sub-divisions of clans which came in from time to time to offer it." Mr. McLean admits the rule; but there is nothing to shew that in this particular case that rule was carried out. There is nothing to shew that the right of the Community was ever investigated at all. Nor is there any way of reconciling the rule so admitted by Mr. McLean with the direct and express denial, on the part of the Government, of everything but the individual right, throughout the proceedings at the Waitara.

Here I leave the question of the exception alleged to exist at Taranaki, and the novel assertions that have been made on the subject since the proceedings at the Waitara. Those assertions have been directly denied by a number of members of the Ngati awa. In reference to Mr. McLean's statements before the House of Representatives, (Q. 58, 59,) they say "We, of this Ngati awa, now hear for the first time of those modes of proceeding;"——"we have never heard of this custom all these years. We now hear of it for the first time in this answer." (New Zealand Spectator, Jan. 2, 1861.) See above, p. 5.

I now notice the stages by which men have advanced to the new theory.

In 1853, Mr. Charles Brown, one of the oldest page 36 settlers in the Province of Taranaki, was elected Superintendent, the first under the Constitution Act. Whilst a candidate for the office, he put forward his views on the Land question, in the following words—"I look forward with hope that the time is not far distant; when the Government will buy no land and have none to sell, and that its office will then be confined to extinguishing the collective titles of tribes, and giving individual titles, available for sale." (Taranaki Herald, 18 May, 1853.)

In accordance with this view, Mr. Superintendent Brown addressed to the Colonial Secretary the following letter, dated 6th March, 1854—

"Sir, A recent purchase having been effected by Mr. Commissioner McLean of a tract of land in this Province, I beg to draw the attention of his Excellency the Officer administering the Government, to the peculiar features of this purchase, is bearing in the most important manner on the relations of the two races.

Mr. McLean did me the honour to request my opinion on the offer of the land in question, at what he considered a high price, and in which it was proposed to exclude all but a few pah reserves, securing to the Natives the pre-emptive right of purchase of 2000 acres at 10s. per acre, each Native to purchase separately and possess a separate Crown Title for his property.

As an opportunity of introducing a principle so beneficial to the Native race, breaking up the common rights which cripple their individual energies, and giving them separate rights with Crown Titles, might not occur for a long time, I expressed the opinion which I hope will meet with the approval of his Excellency, that the introduction of such a principle, was worth attaining at any cost, whether as regarded the. Province individually, or its benefit as an illustration to the whole Native, race. I have no hesitation in anticipating that the adoption of the principle by any Native tribe, will convert the members of it into settlers and citizens fully as valuable as the European population." (Southern Cross, Nov. 2 1860.)

page 37

In another letter to the Colonial Secretary, dated 26th September, 1860, Mr. Brown stated that the plan proposed in 1854 had been carried out, and that "the owners of these individual holdings are the most loyal, peaceable, and industrious Natives in the Province, as well as the best neighbours the settlers in the district could wish for." It will be seen that Mr. Brown had no notion of any difference, as to the communal right, between Taranaki and other parts of the island.

Thus Mr. Brown sought to effect a good object by fair and reasonable means. This was the first stage.

The second stage was when the Provincial Council at Taranaki presented their Memorial to both Houses of Assembly in 1858, urging "that the Government should compel an equitable division of such common land among the respective claimants, on the petition of a certain proportion of them." The third stage was when the Government, instead of seeking to remove by proper means the difficulty presented by the communal right, assumed it to have been removed, and denied or ignored every right except that of the individual holder.