Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Rare Volume

III. The Precipitate Declaration of War

III. The Precipitate Declaration of War.

There is no evidence that any final report of the proceedings of the Land Purchase Commissioners had been made to the Governor in January. The only report laid before the House page 19 of Representatives is dated as late as July. On this point the testimony of Mr. Fox is clear :—

"No report on the sufficiency of the purchase was furnished by the Land Purchase Commissioners to the Governor before the war commenced; nothing, except two or three letters of so many lines, 'reporting progress,' in the transaction by Mr. Parris. But no general report was furnished till the middle of July, 1860, five months after the war had commenced; and the Reports then furnished by Messrs. Parris and McLean, contain no evidence of title, nor any means to enable the Governor to judge of the completeness of the transaction. See these in Sessional Papers, E. No. 3 A." (Fox, p. 40.)

Moreover, "evidence has, since the war began, been brought to light, proving that. . . . when the Governor commenced the war, he had by no means made himself the proprietor of the land for which we are fighting, nor has he done so to this day."—(Fox, p. 38.)

"At the date of the proclamation of martial law, and indeed to this day, only an instalment of the purchase-money had been paid, and no deed or agreement whatever had been executed. After the war broke out, a deed was prepared, (but without any plan of the land endorsed), and signed by nineteen vendors, men and women, the Government, as the native minister stated in the House of Representatives, being afraid that these vendors might get killed in the war, and taking their signatures to an incomplete deed 'ex cautel°.'"(lb. p. 39.)

In the course of the inquiry into native affairs in 1856, Mr. McLean, the Chief Commissioner, had recorded his opinion that "it will be found in almost every case impossible to induce the natives to consent to a survey of any lands which they may not previously have unanimously agreed to sell, as they generally consider any attempt to survey or mark page 20 boundaries, as an exercise of the right of ownership, &c." (Parl. Papers, July, 1860, p. 307.)

Yet the New Zealand Ministry* advise (Jan. 25, 1860)

"1st. That Mr. Parris be instructed to have the said land surveyed in the ordinary manner, and to take care that the native chief, W. King, be indirectly, but not officially, made aware of the day on which the survey will be commenced.

"2nd. Should W. King, or any other native, endeavour to prevent the survey, or in any way interfere with the prosecution of the work, in that case, that the surveying party be protected during the whole performance of the work by an adequate military force, under the command of the Senior Military Officer; with which view, power to call out the Taranaki militia and volunteers, and to proclaim Martial Law, be transmitted to the Commanding Officer at New Plymouth.

"3rd. That when the survey shall have been completed, the Officer commanding at New Plymouth shall, until further instructions, keep possession, by force if necessary, of the said land, so as to prevent the occupation of, or any act of trespass upon it, by the natives." (Despatch of the Governor to the Duke of Newcastle, June 28, 1860. New Zealander, Aug. 25.)

Accordingly on the 20th of February, the survey was attempted. It was resisted, but not by an armed force. Some 60 or 80 of Kingi's followers were present, but they were kept in the back ground, and the interruption was caused, Mr. Parris says, by one man, according to other accounts by a number of women, who "went out and 'hugged' or embraced them, telling them not to survey the land," and some of them are said to have held the chain. Among these women, as it is now ascertained, were the wife and two daughters of Patukakariki, the chief of Teira's subdivision of the tribe, and the spot where they interfered, is said to have

* Appendix H.

page 21 belonged to that chief, who was and is dissentient from the sale, and is now fighting on Kingi's side. (Fox, pp. 36, 39, 52. Archdeacon Kissling, C. M. S. Papers, p. 15.)

"A short struggle ensued, in which a native, who accompanied the survey party, struck down one of King's men . . . Mr. Parris, therefore, rushed in to prevent further collision and probable bloodshed, and directed the Surveyors to retire."—(Mr. Richmond's Memo., May 25, 1860.)

The advice of the ministry had provided against interference in any way. In accordance with it the Governor had prepared a Proclamation of Martial Law, dated 27th January, which he had "forwarded to Brigadier Lieut.-Col. Murray, the officer in command of a detachment of the 65th Regiment at Taranaki, with instructions "'to issue it, if circumstances should occur such as, in his opinion, to render it impossible to carry out the wishes of the Government without resorting to the powers conferred by it.'" (Fox, p. 34). It was issued, Feb. 22, two days after the resistance to the survey.

The terms of the Proclamation, moreover, are stated, by competent Maori scholars, to have made it a declaration of war,*—and that too not against Kingi and his party, but against all the Taranaki tribes,—and as such, it is said to have been understood by the natives.

A doubt has been expressed as to whether Colonial Governors have authority to proclaim martial law. It is not necessary to discuss the question here. Even had Wiremu Kingi's claim been less colourable than it is, nay, even though, in the judgment of the Government, he were

* Appendix I.

When Governor Grey issued Proclamations of Martial Law in 1845, 1846, and 1847, an Indemnity Ordinance was passed by the Legislative Council (Oct. 14, 1847), discharging from all legal liabilities, the officers who had acted under them. (Parl. Papers, Aug., 1848, p. 68.)

page 22 clearly in the wrong, the interposition of the military was uncalled for under the circumstances of the case. At the worst, the resistance to the survey was no more than a breach of the peace. The natives of New Zealand are not to be dealt with as a race of savages. By those who know them intimately, they are represented as a law-loving people, and they do not swerve from the conditions of a bargain fairly made and fully understood. They have given proof of their moderation in their general conduct to Europeans, whom they have hitherto greatly outnumbered; and in the present instance, tribes whose sympathies with Kingi is undoubted, have nevertheless stood aloof from the strife, though it was in their power to have created powerful diversions in his favour, by operating against the unprotected settlements. Archdeacon Hadfield distinctly testifies to Wiremu Kingi's having "stated that he really had no objection to the Pakeha's buying land. If they only allow them (the natives) to settle their own differences and define their own boundaries, he would be prepared to negociate with them for the sale of the land." The result of this conversation was communicated to Mr. Parris next morning. The Archdeacon expresses his belief "that had six or twelve months been allowed to elapse without molestation, a sale might have been effected with general consent." (Evidence, Aug. 14.) Kingi, therefore, would not have assumed the aggressive, and negociation was still open to both parties.

But the Governor had committed a further error. The communication with Auckland by steam was easy and rapid, yet he entrusted the issues of peace and war to other hands. In point of fact, he actually hastened down to Taranaki, and on the 1st of March invited Kingi and "any reasonable number of his followers" to a conference, under a safe conduct. But it was too late. The Proclamation of "fighting page 23 law" had been issued. The Governor did not recall or suspend it. Kingi refused to trust himself within his power, and is said, in turn, to have "asked the Governor to come to his pa, assuring him safety." The Governor now complains that "the officer commanding at Taranaki did not carry out his instructions in the manner intended." (Despatch to the Duke of Newcastle, June 28.) Had the Proclamation been withheld till he could reach the spot, the delay of these few days might have given opportunity for calmer deliberation and more cautious action.

It is not necessary to pass under review the events subsequent to the 22nd of February. The tactics of the natives, and their general mode of conducting the war, must be judged of by a Maori rather than by a European standard. The acts of violence and rapine ascribed to them since the war broke out, have been perpetrated by the few, and not participated in by the main body of those in arms against the Government. But they are beside the point now under consideration. No transaction subsequent to the Proclamation of Martial Law can affect the question of the justice or policy of its issue. Whatever opinion be entertained on the points involved in the land question, beyond all controversy the paramount consideration is the precipitancy of the appeal to arms.*

* The Native Policy of the Colonial Government is further exemplified by subsequent measures adverted to in Appendix K.

page break