Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Rare Volume

The Case of the War in New Zealand. — Section I.—History of Events

page 6

The Case of the War in New Zealand.

Section I.—History of Events.

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. The land in question is part of a territory known as the Taranaki territory. It lies immediately south of the river Waitara. On a portion of the Taranaki territory, purchased from the natives by Governor Fitzroy, stands the town of New Plymouth.

The whole of this country was inhabited by a tribe called Ngatiawa. It appears that, whilst some portion of1834 this tribe was absent from home, the more powerful tribe of Waikato invaded their territory, drove some of them out, took captive others, reducing them to slavery, and by the terror of their arms prevented the absentees from returning. This occurred A.D. 1834. A few of the conquered tribe had fled to the mountains, and then to the number of from 40 to 60 returned, as their invaders retired, and again partially occupied their original settlements. In the year 1839 Col. Wakefield purchased from 1839 this scattered remnant of the tribe a block of 60,000 acres, including the land now under dispute, for the New page 8 Zealand Company1. In negotiating for this land Col. Wakefield went to Queen Charlotte's Sound, where some of the Ngatiawa tribe were living, unable from fear of the Waikatos to return. Here he negotiated with some of their chiefs. Notice also was given of the sale to those at Port Nicholson, and their claims were satisfied 2. But what is much to be observed is, that a certain chief then called Witz, but now known as Wiremu Kingi (or William King), accompanied Col. Wakefield to Queen Charlotte's Sound. Moreover, he signed the deed of general cession, known as the Queen Charlotte Sound deed, which comprises all the New Plymouth district. He signed for himself and his father at the very head of the list 3. On the strength of this bargain, English settlers came and took possession of the land. But all1842 claims had not been satisfied. The Waikatos asserted a superior or paramount claim to the Taranaki land by right of conquest. They asserted, that the returned remnant of the Ngatiawas were merely slaves, living at Taranaki only by sufferance, and that they had no right whatever to sell their land without the consent of the chief of the Waikatos. That chief himself (Te Whero-whero), in illustration of his argument, put a heavy ruler on some light papers, saying, "Now so long as I keep this weight here, the papers remain quiet, but if I remove it the wind immediately blows them away; so it

1 Papers on the Taranaki Land Question, presented to both Houses of the General Assembly. E, No. 2. Nos. 1, 2, 3.

2 Ibid. No. 7, pp. 6, 7.

3 Ibid. No. 2, p. 3. See also Mr Richmond's Speech in the House of Representatives, Aug. 3, 1860, New Zealander, Aug. 8, 1860, p. 5, col. 4. Also Mr Gillies' Speech, Ib. p. 6, who asserts, without contradiction, that the disputed block of land is within the boundaries assigned by the deed, to which King or Witi put his signature. Mr M.Lean asserts that, though some of the natives may not have fully understood these transactions, King, who was more intelligent than the rest, and took an active part in the whole concern, understood it well. Evidence before the House, Paper E, No. 4, p. 16.

page 9 is with the people of Taranaki1;" by which lie meant to express that lie had mana, or superior, paramount, authority over the people of Taranaki. This mana, or superior authority of the Waikatos, Mas universally admitted by the natives at the time of the conquest. "Many acts of ownership over the soil had been exercised by them. The land was divided among the conquering chiefs; the usual customs of putting up flags and posts, to mark the boundaries of the portions claimed by each chief, had been gone through. The Waikatos' right was thus established as a right of conquest, and was fully admitted by the Ngatiawa themselves, who, on each occasion, when they sold a portion of the land at Taranaki, sent a part of the payment to Waikato, as an acknowledgment of conquest or of the right of mana possessed by the Waikato chiefs as their conquerors2." This claim then of 1842 mana, made by the Waikatos, it became necessary to satisfy. Accordingly, in 1842, a new sale was effected, the Waikatos selling all their rights in the Taranaki lands to Mr Clarke, Protector of the Natives, "for Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England, her heirs and successors, whether male or female." The deed is signed by the two great Waikato chiefs, Te Kati and Te Whero-whero3.
Peaceable possession of the land being thus obtained, European settlers went to Taranaki; the country was opened up by roads; farms were established; and the Europeans formed a tolerable safeguard against the Waikato tribes. At this time portions of the Ngatiawa tribe, who had been released from slavery, as well as those inhabiting Port Nicholson and Cook's Straits, feeling reassured by the presence of the Europeans, and regarding them as

1 Despatch of Governor Hobson to the Secretary of State, 13 Dec. 1841. Papers as above, E, No. 2, p. 5.

2 Evidence of Mr Commissioner McLean. Further papers, E, No. 4, p5.

3 Papers, &c. E, No. 2, p. 5, No. 6.

page 10 a protection against their ancient enemies, gradually returned to Taranaki, and soon finding themselves numerically superior to the Europeans, began to claim the whole district and to turn the Europeans off their farms1. Mr Spain, who had been sent out as chief Commissioner, with authority from her Majesty "to investigate and determine titles and claims to land in New Zealand2," was now appealed to, and after a very careful investigation, gave a most luminous judgment, declaring the purchase to have been legally made, determining also, that, as those natives who had left Taranaki and settled in Port Nicholson had been permitted to hold their possessions in Port Nicholson, their claim to the Taranaki district also could not be admitted, and with certain reservations assigning the purchased lands to the New 1845Zealand Company3. This award of Mr Spain, Governor Fitzroy refused to confirm4. But Mr Spain, claiming plenary authority from the home-government, denied Governor Fitzroy's power to reverse his decision, and again with full legal solemnity repeated his judgment51846. This was in 1845. In 1846 Mr Gladstone, then Secretary for the Colonies, writes to the new Governor Sir Geo. Grey. His words are these: "I cannot but express my great surprize and regret at not haring been placed by Capt. Fitzroy in possession of a full report of the course which he pursued in this case, and of his reasons for that course. I, however, indulge the hope that you may have found yourself in condition to give effect to the award of Mr Spain in the case of the Company's claim at New Plymouth, and in any case I rely on your endeavours to gain that end so far as you may have found it practicable, unless indeed, which I can hardly think probable, you may have seen reason to believe that the

1

Despatch of Sir George Grey, Papers, &c. E, No. 2, p. 21.

2

lb. p. 17.

3

lb. Nos. 7, 8, pp. 6 to 9.

4

lb. p. 12.

5

lb. No. 14, p. 11.
page 11 reversal of the Commissioner's judgment was a wise and just measure1."
Sir Geo. Grey in the following year admits the justice 1847 of Mr. Spain's award, says he has enforced Mr Spain's decisions in all cases against the New Zealand Company, and it remains to be considered whether they are not entitled to the benefit of this decision in their favour2; and gives instructions to Mr McLean, the Commissioner who appears to have succeeded Mr Spain, to the effect that "every effort should be made to acquire for the European population those tracts of land which were awarded to the New Zealand Company by Mr Spain; that, if possible, the total amount of land resumed for the Europeans should be from 60,000 to 70,000 acres;" that "those natives who refuse to assent to this arrangement must distinctly understand that the Government do not admit that they are the true owners of the land they have recently thought fit to occupy3."

For some reason or other, probably from difficulty of enforcing it, this decision of Sir Geo. Grey's was never acted upon. On the contrary, the Governor thought fit to acquiesce in the assertion of proprietary rights by the ancient occupants: and the precedent thus set has not been departed from by the present Governor, Col. Browne.

It is to be observed that William King, who had been active in 1839 in assisting Col. Wakefield in his purchases, and who signed his name to the deed of cession to the New Zealand Company, was also very active in 1847, in behalf of those Ngatiawas who were resident in Port Nicholson, and in desiring to be negotiated with about the Taranaki lands4. In 1848, finding the claim of the New Zealand Company not supported

1 Ib. No. 15, p. 20.

2

lb. Nos. 16, 17, pp. 21, 22.

3 lb. No. 18, p. 22. Sir G. Grey desired that the price paid for the land should be only that of waste land, eighteen pence an acre.

4 lb. No. 19, p. 23.

page 12 by the Governor, he deserts his pa and cultivations at Port Nicholson, and prepares to return to Taranaki. Sir George Grey, however, positively forbids him to settle on the South of the river Waitara, the territory which had been sold to the Company. But King, having obtained leave of Raru, Teira's father, to build his pa on the south side of the river, and on Raru's cultivations, disregards the Governor's prohibitions, and, it is asserted, that he now pretends to claim Waitara, at least a kind of mana or seigniorial authority there, in virtue of a species of conquest achieved by his defiant return1.
From that time to this the disputed territory has been the scene of strife and bloodshed. One party of natives has been anxious to sell their lands, another as anxious to prevent the sale. Native title is of all things in the world the most complicated. When one man or set of men offer their lands for sale, others are sure to 1854rise up and deny their power to alienate. In 1854, just as Sir George Grey had left the Colony and before the arrival of a new Governor, a murder was committed, because one man2 proposed to sell land in which the other 1858claimed a share, and in 1858 vengeance was taken by the friends of the murdered man3. In 1859 a temporary cessation of hostilities took place, but Dr Thompsom, in his well-known work on New Zealand, observes, "The feud, however, is not settled, the cessation of hostilities is more an armistice than a peace, and its permanence

1 Memorandum by Mr Richmond, Minister for the Native Department. E, No. 1,13, p. 2.

2 lb. pp. 26 to 30.

3 Rawari was the name of the first murdered man, Katatore of the second. The Government of New Zealand has been continually endeavouring to induce the natives to put themselves under English law; but to enforce English law in the purely native settlements would be impossible without a much larger body of military. One reason why the Home Government has declined to constitute tribunals for native causes has been this want of power to enforce decisions.

page 13 will only be secured by the Governor purchasing the disputed lands1."
The Governor took the view expressed in these words of Dr Thompson, and his responsible ministers entirely coincided with him in opinion2. The peace of this once promising portion of the Colony seemed only to be attainable by an equitable purchase of lands from those who were willing to sell. With this principle in 1859view Col. Browne, accompanied by the minister for native affairs, Mr Richmond, and Mr McLean the chief Commissioner, went in March 1859 to Taranaki, and in an assembly of the natives made a declaration, that he would purchase for a fair price from any one willing to sell, who could make out an undoubted title to his land; that he would buy from no one whose title was not clear, but that he would permit no one to prevent the sale of land by those to whom it undoubtedly belonged. Thereupon a native named Te Teira3, rose

1

Story of New Zealand, by A. S. Thompson, M.D. Vol. II. p. 259. Mr Dillon Bell says, "For five years these Ngatiawa chiefs had been slaying each other in disputes about their titles to land, till the blood of murdered men cried to Heaven against the rulers who continued to permit such crimes. The Queen's sovereignty was sunk beneath contempt. The punishment of death was pronounced against any chief who should dare to sell his own land. It was inflicted with merciless ferocity in the shining light of day. A league of minor chiefs of a conquered and broken tribe claimed to usurp the authority of law, and substituted for English rule a Maori reign of terror. This Wiremu Kingi held up as a model of Christian virtue, at one time threatened (I refer to a public and official statement which has never, so far as I know, been contradicted) to exterminate every man, woman, and child, in a pa he was besieging...I ask you, which of you will be rash enough to say, that the Governor was not justified in trying to put an end to such fearful evils?" Debate, Aug. 16, 1860, New Zealander, Aug. 22, 1860. I have referred to the New Zealander, because it gives the debates moro fully than any other paper. The Southern Cross gives in extenso only the speeches on the opposition side.

2 Papers, E, 1, B, p. 4.

3 Teira appears to be simply the Maori pronunciation of the surname Taylor, as Wiremu Kingi is of William King, the natives, since the introduction of Christianity having adpoted English surnames as well as Christian names.

page 14 and declared that there was a block of land of 600 acres belonging to him, and that lie was prepared to sell it. After some discussion about the sale of another block, which was afterwards withdrawn, Teira said to the Governor, "Will you consent to buy my land?" The Governor replied, "If the land is yours, I consent to buy it." Upon this Teira laid down a mat at the Governor's feet, as a token that the land had departed from him. Seeing that there was no interruption, some natives present said "Waitara is gone." Then, William King arose and said, "Waitara is in my hand, I will never let it go. Governor, there is no land for you." Thereupon he waved his hand, and with his followers abruptly left the assembly1.

The next step in this matter was a direction of the Governor to Mr McLean, the chief Land Commissioner, to investigate carefully Teira's title to the land. Nine months were occupied in the enquiry, every available proof was had recourse to. A public invitation was given to any one who had claims to any portion of the block, requesting that such claims should be stated, and promising that they should be respected2. It is given in evidence by the chief Laud Commissioner before the Legislative Assembly, that no such claim was ever asserted, except the general claim of an anti-land-selling league (of which more hereafter), which grasped at the mana over the whole of the extensive territory between Waitara and Mokau, although this same land had been ceded to the Government3.

Nine months then were spent by the chief Commissioner, Mr McLean, aided by the district Commissioner, Mr Parris, in investigating the title. At the end of this

1 Papers, E, No. 1, B, p. 2; E, No. 3, H, p. 2.

2 E, No. 4, p. 17. It is dated March 18,1859.

3 Ibid.

page 15 period, they reported to the Governor, that the title of Teira and his associates was clear, and the claim of William King untenable. Accordingly, the Governor desired the land to be surveyed and the purchase to be effected. Still, because it was possible that some claimant might not yet have come forward, after the first payment a notice was inserted in the receipt, in the Maori tongue, to the following purport: " The Governor says, that, if any man bring forward a just claim to any portion of the land included within the boundaries written in the deed, and is not willing that his portion or division should be sold, such portion will be marked off, and he will be allowed to retain it1." This was read over in the presence of W. King, Nov. 29, 18592. No definite claim, however, was preferred at this or at any other time3.
Mr Parris, the district Land Commissioner, having 1860been instructed to proceed with the survey of the land, appointed Feb. 20, 1860, for the commencement, and informed W. King accordingly. On arriving on the ground, with a surveyor, two chain-men, and a native, Hemi Potaka, one of the sellers, he was met by a party of seventy or eighty of King's friends waiting for him. The surveying instruments having been placed on the ground were seized and a struggle ensued, in which Hemi Potaka struck one of the opposing party down. Mr Parris then exerted himself to stop any further collision, and drew off his party. Shortly after the Governor arrived at Taranaki, and sent a message by Mr Parris, Mr Whitely (a Wesleyan Missionary), and Mr Rogan, to W. King to the following purport:
"I hereby pledge my word that W. King, and any reasonable number of his followers, who may choose to

1 lb. p. 19.

2 E, No. 3, A, p. 3.

3 Ib. p. 4.

page 16 come to New Plymouth unarmed and converse with me, shall be allowed to return unharmed and in freedom, to the place from whence they came.

"This promise shall be good from this day till the night of the third of March, 1860.

(Signed),

"T. Gore Browne."

William King refused to comply with the Governor's request, and from that time remained away in the bush, having decided on hostilities against the Government1. The interruption of the survey above related was now considered as a formal act of defiance, and on March 4, troops were ordered to be present, not to act against King, but to support the civil authorities in case of aggression. The Governor, moreover, gave Col. Murray, the officer in command, power in case of need to proclaim martial law in the district; this being a measure of precaution, rather intended to restrain (if necessary) the Europeans, than directed against the natives2. Actual force was not resorted to, until a fighting-party of King's people had erected a pa, and danced their war-dance on the disputed ground, and had contemptuously rejected a summons from the commanding officer to evacuate the pa16. Even after hostilities had begun, and Col. Gold, the commander of the forces, had been sent to the scene of the disturbances, the Governor desired him not to act at first on the aggressive, not to cross the Waitara and

1 E, No. 3, A, p. 4.

2 It has been complained that the Proclamation of Martial Law was so badly translated into Maori, as to appear to the natives as a declaration of war against them. This, if true, was most unfortunate; but 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.

16 E, No. 3, A, p. 4.

page 17 attack King, but if King attacked the Queen's troops, then to chastise him severely. No other restraint was imposed.

In the month of August 1860 the General Assembly met at Auckland; and at the same time the Governor invited the Maori chiefs to meet in Council, and discuss the merits of the war. In the General Assembly the opposition naturally attacked the responsible ministry for the advice offered by them to the Governor, which led to, or at least confirmed, the course, which the Governor had pursued. Very long and animated debates were carried on in both houses. In the House of Representatives, it was admitted, even by the opposition, that war, if it had not broken out at once, must have broken out ere long, owing to the disturbed state of the native mind, but it was regretted that the cause of war should have been a quarrel about land1. On a division there appeared 19 votes to 4 in affirmation of the proposition that the war on the part of the Government was just and inevitable2.

In the Legislative Council, a body consisting of members unconnected with the Government and appointed for life by the Crown, after the strongest testimony on the part of the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General (the two principal law-officers of the Colony) to the justice and moderation of the Governor's policy3, the house divided, 11 to 4, in favour of the Address, which affirmed the same principle as the motion in the House of Representatives.

1 Speech of Mr Forsaith; New Zealander, Aug. 8, p. 7, col. 4.

2 The words of the motion were: "That in the opinion of this House the interests of both races of Her Majesty's subjects in New Zealand and the due maintenance of the treaty of Waitangi rendered it the imperative duty of His Excellency the Governor to repel the forcible interference of Wiremu Kingi with the sale of the Waitara Block; and that the vigorous prosecution of the war and the complete vindication of Her Majesty's authority are objects of paramount importance."

3 New Zealander, Sept. 5.

page 18

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 earned 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 Wiremu Kingi provoked the quarrel, and that the proceedings of the latter are wholly indefensible."—"That this Conference deprecates in the strongest manner the murders of unarmed Europeans committed by the natives now fighting at Taranaki1."—"That the Conference desires to thank his Excellency the Governor for his goodness to the Maori people, that is, for his constant kindness and love to them; and also for granting them this great boon, the Runanga (Parliament or Conference), whereby they are enabled to express their views, and to propose measures for the settlement of the difficulties which arise among the native people."—"That this Conference desires to thank their friend Mr McLean for his great exertions on their behalf, and for his kindness to the natives of this Island of New Zealand2."

1 Alluding to the murder of two men and three boys, engaged in tending their cattle, by some of W. King's party soon after the first outbreak of the disturbances.

2 New Zealander, Sept. 1, 1860. As the Southern Cross has made some objection to the mode in which the votes were taken, it is well to add, that there appearing some misunderstanding among a few of the aged chiefs, the Resolutions were sent in the evening to the several wards, and were freely discussed among the chiefs without any European being present. On the following morning the chiefs assembled in the Conference-Hall and there publicly expressed their entire approbation of all the resolutions, which were then eagerly signed by 107 of the chiefs, 3 only having expressed any dissent, and that only from the third resolution, which condemns King. This is the statement of an eye-witness, Mr H. T. Clarke, Resident Magistrate, Bay of Plenty. New Zealander, Aug. 22, 1860, pp. 2, 3.

page 19

The above contains a simple statement of historical events. They cannot be denied, and, in great measure, speak for themselves. They, at all events, acquit the Governor, and those who counselled him, of intemperate haste and wanton injustice. Had King yielded, instead of resisting, or had his resistance been feeble and our troops successful from the first, we should probably have heard but little in the Houses of Assembly concerning the equity and wisdom of the proceedings of government. The fact, that King's party was thoroughly organized, that there had been for some time preparations for a struggle with Government, that therefore we have a war and not a mere tumult, the fact too, that our own troops, always at disadvantage in bush-warfare, have suffered serious reverses, these have brought the conduct of the Governor, at first unboundedly popular, into doubt and debate1.

1 See New Zealander, Aug. 15, p. 6, col. 3; also Aug. 22, p. 3, col. 4.