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 63

Letter from Archdeacon Hadfield, (now Bishop of Wellington), upon the rights of the Ngatiraukawa and Ngatiapa tribes, in connection with the Rangitikei-Manawatu Block

Letter from Archdeacon Hadfield, (now Bishop of Wellington), upon the rights of the Ngatiraukawa and Ngatiapa tribes, in connection with the Rangitikei-Manawatu Block.

"My Dear Thomas,—

"In acceding to your request that I should furnish you with some information concerning the rights of the tribes connected with the Rangitikei- Manawatu district, I will endeavour to condense as much as possible what I have to say on the subject. I came into the district in 1839, before the Queen's sovereignty was established in the country, that is, before it was proclaimed a British Colony. I do not think there are many other Englishmen alive who knew the Natives of the district at that time. Ngatiraukawa were then in undisputed possession of the district. They also asserted claims to land on the north side of Rangitikei, but as they were at war with another tribe to the southward, and had their attention occupied with this, I do not recollect seeing them located on that side. The previous owners, Ngatiapa, had been conquered by them, and were held in a state of subjection; some being actually in slavery at Otaki and Kapiti, others resided on the land as serfs, employed in page ci pig-hunting and such like occupation. They had ceased to be a tribe. They had no organisation, no rights. Even that portion of the tribe which lived between Rangitikei and Whanganui was in a state of degradation. It was without mana. It would take me too long to detail the proofs of this, and it is unnecessary. There would have been then no room for questioning the title of Ngatiraukawa. There was no one to question it; it was a self-evident fact that they were in undisturbed occupation. They have never ceased to occupy and hold possession. There is then clear evidence to prove their conquest from Ngatiapa, and their possession in 1840. Well, then, as English law, on a transfer of sovereignty, recognizes all previously existing municipal rights, the title of Ngatiraukawa must remain unchanged until the present time, unless it can be shown that they have alienated their land by some formal act of their own. That there never has been any such formal act of alienation on their part is notorious. It is not, I believe, alleged that there has been any act of the kind, on the contrary, when, at the time the north side of Rangitikei was sold, Ngatiapa attempted to lay claim to the south side by building a hut there, this was forthwith destroyed by Te Rangihaeata, and the attempt was thus crushed in the bud. But further, when Ngatiraukawa, in 1849, consented to forego all claim to the north side of Rangitikei, they distinctly and; emphatically, in the presence of the Land Purchase Commissioner and others, reasserted their title to the south side, and their determination to retain it. I do not think the investigation of any title could have given less trouble to the Native Lauds Court than this, had it been brought before it. There was nothing complicated to unravel. After what I have said, you may think it strange that recent difficulties should have arisen. If you do think so you can have had little acquaintance with the doings of Land Purchase Commissioners. The difficulties were all purposely made by Government officers. I must try to explain what I mean. Notwithstanding the strength, of the Ngatiraukawa title, there was one vulnerable point in its exterior, small indeed, almost infinitesimal. But what can escape the scent of that most omnivorous of all land sharks—a Superintendent created Land Purchase Commissioner? Let me see, then, whether I can make this point intelligible. I am now alluding to the fact that some Ngatiapa men had been allowed to return to, and live in, the immediate vicinity of the late chief Nepia Taratoa, and were permitted by him to receive some part of the money paid as rent for lands illegally leased by Englishmen. I will show how this came about. When Ngatiraukawa accepted the Christian religion, they, unlike the American slave holders of the Southern States, deemed it inconsistent with their profession of religion to retain their fellow men in slavery. They let their slaves go free. Several of those men continued to reside among their former masters. There were some inter-marriages; they were thenceforth treated as equals, but page cii without any thought of their being again reinstated in their former possessions. There were one or two attempts made about the year 1855 to regain a footing there, but these were instantly stopped. Subsequently it was agreed to erect a mill at Makohai on the Rangitikei River, for the joint use of Ngatiapa and Ngatiraukawa. In consequence of this there was a joint endeavour to raise funds for the purpose agreed upon. This gave rise to the first leases to squatters, in which both parties combined, but this was only a temporary arrangement agreed upon for a specific purpose with a view of arriving at an object concerning which there was no difference of opinion.

Some time afterwards, during the Taranaki war, when the whole of the tribes on this coast had their attention more or less pre-occupied with matters of general interest, Nepia Taratoa, being alarmed, wished to have his old slaves again around him, they being for the most part avowed Kingites. He invited some of them to come to his neighbourhood. In order to secure their services, he promised to let some of his lands, and pay them with money derived from the rents; what was done was to promise them some temporary participation in the proceeds from the leased lands. This act of his, which was done without the sanction of the tribe, could not possibly be construed into a formal transfer of the land.

It has never, I believe, been alleged that there was at this time, or at any other, any division of the land with Ngatiapa; but the joint participation by two different tribes of the ownership of land, is a kind of tenure absolutely unknown to Maori custom, and utterly repugnant to their whole system. I defy any one to produce a single instance of any such joint tenure. When two tribes have lived intermingled, either one was the acknowledged superior and the other the inferior, or there were well defined boundaries to their respective possessions. In my opinion Ngatiapa had no kind of right to the Rangitikei-Manawatu block of land.

Shortly after Nepia Taratoa's death, Ngatiapa began to assert a claim based on his liberality, which, together with rumors that their claim might be acknowledged by the Government, so alarmed the Ngatiraukawa, that they, early in 1863, sent a large party both to remove some cattle and sheep which were supposed to be there on the authority of Ngatiapa, and also to occupy and cultivate land close to the Rangitikei River.

Ngatiapa made some little show of resistance, but there can be no doubt, nothing further would have been heard of Ngatiapa's claims had it not been for the unfortunate fact that, when the Government, after many months delay, thought it advisable to appoint some person to investigate the respective claims of the two tribes, they selected Dr. Featherston, the Superintendent of the Province, who had previously secured the appointment of Land Purchase page ciii Commissioner. Anything more absurd and unfortunate than this appointment it would be difficult to imagine.

Nevertheless, Ngatiraukawa, knowing that if there was to be an open investigation their claims must be recognized as good, signed a bond, to abide by the decision of the arbitrator. Ngatiapa, on the contrary, knowing full well that their claim under such circumstances would not hold good, but must prove untenable, positively declined the investigation. They, however, handed over all their supposed rights to Dr. Featherston, in which of his capacities—whether as Superintendent, or Land Purchase Commissioner, or arbitrator appointed by the Government to investigate impartially—does not appear. Dr. Featherston thus became a party to the dispute. He took his side with Ngatiapa. From that time forward any solution of the difficulty was hopeless. Dr. Featherston was determined to obtain the land. Ngatiraukawa were equally determined that, so long as the Ngatiapa claim was acknowledged, they would not sell.

As the Land Purchase Ordinance was still unrepealed, Dr. Featherston impounded the rents, that is he cautioned the squatters not to pay their rents. This was the second blunder he committed. It at once confirmed the suspicion raised in the minds of Ngatiraukawa by his acceptance of the Ngatiapa claims, that he was trying to coerce them into acquiesence with his wishes.

The result was a dogged determination to hold their land to the last. From that time the purchase of the district by Dr. Featherston was simply an impossibility.

I was nearly forgetting to allude to what has been repeatedly asserted, that there was danger of an inter-tribal war. Such an assertion is really ridiculous. I ought to know something of the feelings of the natives of this I district, but I do not hesitate to say, there never was the least chance of it. To suppose it possible for the miserable remnant of the Ngatiapa to have ever seriously contemplated war with their old conquerors, is an opinion that could only have been entertained by those wholly unacquainted with the relative numbers and antecedents of the two parties. I cannot, however, conceal my opinion that the frequent allusions by Dr. Featherston to the probability of war, had a tendency to create in the minds of the natives an impression that the Government would not be sorry to see hostilities take place, in order that it might then either co-operate with Ngatiapa, or make such a war a pretext for confiscation.

But Ngatiraukawa, resting on their clear and undisputed possession ever since the Treaty of Waitangi, have carefully avoided giving any excuse to the Government for charging them with acting illegally. As Parakaia rightly remarked to the Governor—'It is the duty of the Government to keep the page civ peace of the country, and protect loyal men in their rights.' He and others, who have remained staunch in their support of the Government all through the war, feel amazed when they find Kingites, like Kawana Hunia, who only recently hoisted their King's flags, and strutted about with their guns on their shoulders and their two cartridge boxes on their backs, in defiance of the Government, now allowed at public meetings, at which the Superintendent presides, to utter unrebuked threats of war.

I have, perhaps, said as much as you care to learn from me. That Ngatiraukawa were the acknowledged owners and possessors of the land in 1840 there can be no question. That they have never subsequently alienated it, is equally clear. The attempt of the Superintendent to set up a claim for Ngatiapa on the ground that many years ago they owned the land, and his subsequently impounding the rents to force Ngatiraukawa to sell, are points which I hope I have made clear. I will now conclude with a few extracts from Carlyle's life of Frederick the Great, in order to show that, though Dr. Featherston is supposed to have gained some credit for cleverness by these moves, there is nothing novel or original in them.

'This Duchy of Cleve, all this fine agglomerate of Duchies, Duke Wilhelm settled were to be inherited in a piece by his eldest son. This settlement, by express privilege of Kaiser Carl V., nay, of Kaiser Maximilian before him, and the laws of the Reich, Duke Wilhelm doubted not he was entitled to make; and this settlement he made. The painful exactitude of Duke Wilhelm and his lawyers has profited little, and there are claimants on claimants rising for that valuable Cleve country'. Vol. 1, p. 303-5.

'What greatly complicated the affair was the interest the Kaiser took in it. Evidently what would best suit the Kaiser and Spaniards was this, that no strong power whatever got footing in Cleve to grow stronger by possession of such a country; better than best it would suit, if he, the Kaiser, could himself get it smuggled into his hands, and then hold it fast. Which privately was the course resolved upon at head-quarters', p. 307-8.

'A letter is yet extant from the Aulic Council to their Vice-Chancellor, who had been sent to negotiate this matter with the parties; letter to the effect that he must devise all manner of quirks, and achieve it. And accordingly quirks did not prove undevisable on behalf of the Kaiser. "Since you cannot agree (said the Kaiser), and there are so many of you who claim (we having privately stirred up many of you to the feat), there will be nothing for it but that the Kaiser must put the country under sequestration, and take possession of it with his own troops till a decision be arrived at, which, probably, will not be soon", and the Kaiser forthwith did as he had said.' p. 312.

page cv

'It was not till forty-two years after, in 1666, that an effective partition could be practically brought about. In fact, there never was in the German Chanceries, or out of them, such a law suit, armed or wigged, as this of the Cleve Duchies, first and last. And the sentence was not practically given till the Congress of Vienna, 1815, in our own day, gave it; and the thing Johann Sigismund had claimed legally in 1609, was actually handed over to Johann Sigismund's descendants in the seventh generation, after two hundred and six years', p. 323.

"(Signed)

Octavius Hadfield.

"15th July, 1867."