Governor Browne, who commenced the Taranaki war, has thoroughly committed himself to a declaration of its justice, and has given a version of the circumstances attending its origin, by which he must either stand or fall. In his speech at the opening of the New-Zealand General Assembly, on the 30th July, he said—

"The Province of Taranaki, which has long been a source of anxiety, has recently become the scene of an insurrection, involving portions of several tribes of aboriginal natives.

page 35

"The immediate occasion of the disturbance of the public peace has been an attempt on the part of a native chief of the Ngatiawa tribe to forbid the sale to the Crown, and forcibly prevent the survey, of a piece of land to which he he neither asserted nor possessed any title.

I felt it to be my duty to repel this assumption of an authority inconsistent alike with the maintenance of the Queen's sovereignty and the rights of the proprietors of the land in question. In this course I have received from all parts of the colony assurances of sympathy and support, affording gratifying evidence of the loyalty of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects."

The Governor again, in his despatch to the Duke of Newcastle, represents Wiremu King's claim as being one of "a merely feudal character," and asserts that that chief 's avowed object is to become sovereign of that part of New Zealand which is the seat of war. He says—

"I have insisted upon this comparatively valueless purchase, because, if I had admitted the right of a chief to interfere between us and the lawful proprietors of the soil, I should have found further acquisition of territory impossible in any part of New Zealand. Even if the rights of'mana' (viz. A feudal sovereignty without proprietary right In the land) exists at all, William King could neither possess nor exercise it, Potatau, the chief of the Waikatos, having obtained it by conquest, and sold all his claims at New Plymouth to the New-Zealand Company. Without admitting this right (which is the only one asserted by William King), I could not, with reason, have rejected the offer made to me by Teira and his party, because that was the only obstacle to selling the land, and (by the treaty of Waitangi) they are prevented from selling to any one but the Government. It follows that I must either have purchased this land, or recognised a right which would have made William King virtual sovereign of this part of New Zealand, which is his avowed ambition."

It becomes of the last importance that we should understand the nature of the native land tenure; and more especially that we should entertain a clear idea of the office and functions of a chief, The question is far from being so complex or difficult to understand as some persons have represented it to be. The chief is not an arbitrary despot, as in Kaffraria: he wields influence rather than power,. The rights of property are well defined. Some of these rights are common to the whole tribe, as in the case of waste lands; while others appertain to the individual members thereof. page 37 But in no case is a native permitted to alienate his land, without the consent of the chief, as the representative of the tribe, Dr. Featherstone, in his admirable speech delivered in the House of Representatives 00 the 7th August, gives the following lucid explanation—

"Sir, I apprehend that there are certain native titles which are based upon well known customs, and have certain incidents attached to them, which admit of no question—of no possible dispute. First, however, let me remind the House! that by the treaty of Waitangi 'the Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands, and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties, which they muy collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their desire to retain the same in their possession.' It follows, that whatever rights, especially territorial, the natives possessed at the time the treaty was made, the Government is found to respect and preserve inviolate. Now, there are two titles to land which are so universally acknowledged, that they admit of no dispute, viz. by inheritance and by conquest. When land in the possession of a tribe is inherited by them from their ancestors, it is, so far as uncultivated land is concerned, the properly of the whole tribe. Lauds actually cultivated by individuals are not absolutely their own, but they are their own as against all other individual claimants; but not as against the tribe. An absolute title does not exist; that is, no individual could sell without the consent of the tribe. And the reason of this restriction upon the power to alienate is plain and obvious If an individual possessed such a power, he might have sold his land to a member of another tribe, and that, possibly, an enemy, and might thus at any time have embroiled his tribe in war. The restriction was thus dictated by the instinct of self-preservation : it was therefore a universal law—a law necessarily arising from the division of the natives into separate tribes, independent of each other. In the same way, land held by conquest was the property of the whole tribe, because it was obtained by the exertions and valour of the whole male population of the tribe. The leading chiefs had the first choice, then the minor ones, and lastly, their followers selected such land as they required. But these appropriations, for the reasons I have just mentioned, were not considered as establishing an absolute title. They were good holding titles as against all other individuals; but they conferred no right to alienate any portion of the territory of the tribe. But what was the effect of this restriction upon the power to alienate? and it is to this I wish specially to invite your attention. It established a right of property in the whole trihe over the whole territory of the tribe; in other words, a tribal right was created, of which the chief was the representative, the protector, and guardian. The Minister for Native Affairs admitted that the existence of this tribal right must be decided by authority; but he failed to adduce any against it, for the best of all reasons, that there never was a point upon which there existed so unanimous a concurrence of opinion. Thus, if we refer to the report of the Commissioners appointed by the Governor in 1856, to inquire into and report upon the state of native affairs, we find them laying down these laws—'That each native has a right in common with the whole tribe over the disposal of the land of the tribe, and has an individual right to such portions as he or his parent may have regularly had for cultivation, for dwellings,' &c; but this individual claim does not amount to a right of disposal to Europeans, as a general rule. 'Generally speaking, there is no such thing as an individual claim, clear and independent of the tribal right.' The chiefs exercise an influence in the page 38 disposal of the land, but have only an individual claim, like the rest of the people, to particular portions. 'When natives first began selling land, they intended only to convey a title similar to that which they as individuals hold themselves,'—'the right of occupancy.'"

This testimony is clear and to the point. For the security of the tribe against possible treachery, or the sale of its lands to an enemy, the individual right of proprietorship was restricted in the way described. When Wiremu Kingi refused to permit the sale of land at Taranaki, he did no more than exercise the right which was thus clearly invested in him, Mr. Fox, in his able pamphlet, entirely confirms this view of the right of the chief, acting in conjunction with the heads of the hapus, to forbid the alienation of land—

"The native tribe (Iwi), is subdivided into 'hapus.' There is a head chief of the tribe; inferior chiefs, the heads of hapus; and individual 'tatua,' or freemen. Every tribe owns large tracts of land, These are the common property of the tribe. Particular hapus, or individual freemen, appropriate by occupation, cultivation, and otherwise, small portions of the common estate. Such occupation vests in them the ownership of the portion appropriated, and gives a right of separate ownership, as against all other individuals. But it does not confer the right of alienation. To other members of the tribe, the hapu or individual may alienate. But they cannot alienate from the tribe without the consent of the tribe. The power of giving this consent is usually vested in the chief, who is a trustee of the rights of the tribe. This limitation is founded on reason, the political status of the tribe, as a whole, depending on its maintaining the integrity of its territory, and on the exclusion of foreigners, who might be members of a hostile tribe."

Mr. Fox fortifica himself with the authority of Dr. Thomson,^* Mr. Busby, who gave evidence before a Committee of the House Commons in 1840, Archdeacon Hadfield (a Missionary of twenty-three years standing), and Mr. George Clarke, formerly Protector of Aborigines, and the head of the Land-purchase Department for many years. The latter gentleman says—

"We never considered a purchase complete until all parties having claims, or pretended claims, were satisfied, The same rule was adopted by Commissioners Godfrey and Richmond in reference to European purchasers (as distinguished from purchases by its Government) Had such a chief as William King objected to a purchase, or a chief of much less note, it would have been rejected by them immediately. Apply the rule to the present pretended purchase by the Government. I should have objected to any purchase where such an influential chief as W. King opposed the measure, or even hinted at an objection; and there is no tribunal at which such cases could be decided but that of the chiefs. And after all, no decision could have been valid without convincing King, and having his assent to the purchase,"

Mr. Fox further says—

"No instance previous to the Taranalti purchase has ever occurred in which

^* "Story of New Zealand," Vol. i. p. 97.

page 39 land has been purchased by the Government from a hapu, or from an individual, against the remonstrance of the head chief. (See the preceding extract from Mr. Clarke's letter.) A return of any such purchase, if it existed, has been moved for in the House of Representatives, and the mover has been told by the Government that the return would be simply 'nil,' and no return has yet been made. The purchase from E. Teira, which has led to this war,^* is believed to be the first attempt to buy from individual natives or from a hapu, against the personal remonstrances of the chief of the tribe, and the chief of the hapu. The natives, consequently, regard the transaction as indicating an entire change in the system of land purchases, and as a departure from the principle of the treaty of Waitangi."

What right had the Governor to set aside, without the consent of those who were primarily interested in the matter, customs which had obtained among the natives from time immemorial, which were founded upon reason and justice, and which were expressly guaranteed to them by the provisions of the treaty of Waitangi? The Governor had determined to annihilate the tribal, and to recognise only the individual right. He wished to facilitate the purchase of land from the natives, and not to permit the authority of a chief to interpose. But in trampling native customs under foot he was guilty of an act of aggression which no pretext can justify. He writes in his despatch as though the authority claimed by Wiremu Kingi was a modern innovation, instead of being an ancient custom—a custom which has been recognised in innumerable instances by every successive government of New Zealand, from Captain Hobson's time down to the present Governor's. Mr. Forsaith, the member for Auckland, in his able and exhaustive speech, delivered in the House of Representatives on the 3d of August, gives an example which has occurred within the last year or two—

"A case strictly analogous to that of Teira occurs to my mind. Wata Ku-kutai, a well-known chief of Waikato, desired to accomplish certain objects, towards the accomplishment of which the possession of some ready money was indispensably necessary. To obtain funds, he determined to sell a piece of land on the borders of the Lake Waikari, of which he was the undoubted principal proprietor. He came to town and made the offer. Te Karehi, a distant connection, and a thorough Maori-Kingite, heard of Kukutai's intention, and followed close upon bis heels to forbid the sale. As soon as his objection was known at the office, the Commissioner closed the negotiations, telling Kukutai, that as there was a dispute, the land would not be purchased. Why could not the same course have been adopted with reference to Teira?"

But having shewn that Wiremu Kingi, as chief of the tribe, was page 40 entitled to exercise a power of reto over the sale of the land, we proceed to another part of this unhappy history, which exhibits in a still more marked manner the injustice of the Governor's proceedings. Wiremu Kingi, as we have before remarked, claimed, and appears to have actually enjoyed, a personal right of proprietorship in a portion of the land which Teira sold. More than this, Teira took upon himself to sell land belonging to numerous members of the tribe who were living at Waikanae, Otaki, and other places, and whose "bedrooms" it was the sacred duty of Wiremu Kingi, in their absence, to protect. The Governor asserts that the right of "mana" is the only one claimed by Wiremu Kingi, evidently founding this statement upon a report of a conversation between Mr. Parris, the Land Commissioner, and the chief, in which the latter, when asked the question, "Does the land belong to Teira and party?" is said to have returned the following answer—" Yes, the land is their's, but I will not let them sell it." This, according to native idiom, by no means implied that he admitted Teira's sole and absolute right to the land. Mr. Forsaith, who is the best Maori scholar in the House, says—

"I stake my reputation for some little acquaintance with the native language and the modes of native expression, upon the assertion that the question and answer, as here given, were perfectly compatible with the existence of claim on the part of W. King."

But this is proved beyond doubt by the evidence of the chiefs own letter to the Governor. This letter, together with Mr, Forsaith's running comments upon it, we subjoin—

"I regret," Bays Mr. Forsaith, "that I have not the original before me, because, even through the veil of a translation, I can see how pregnant with emphatic meaning is every sentence it contains:—' Friend, salutations to you. Your letter has reached me about Te Teira's and Retimana's thoughts. I will not agree to our bedroom being sold (I mean Waitara here), for this bed belongs to the whole of us,' (I beg hon. members to mark this expression, 'be-longs to the whole of us.' Is not this asserting a claim?) 'and do not you be in haste to give the money. Do you hearken to my word. If you give the money secretly you will get no land for it. You may insist, but I will never agree to it. Do not suppose that this is nonsense on my part; no, it is true, for it is an old word; (this is a remarkable phrase, and embodies an allusion which I shall presently refer to and explain); 'and now I have no new proposal to make, either as regards selling or any thing else. All I have to say to you, O Governor, is, that none of this land will be given to you, never, never, not till I die. I have heard it said that I am to he imprisoned because of this land. I am very sorry because of this word. Why is it? You should remember that the Maories and Pakehas are living quietly upon their pieces of land' (a singularly quiet sentence to be penned by the turbulent leader of a mob), 'and therefore do not yon disturb them. Do not say, also that there is no one so bad as myself. This is another word to you, O Governor The land will never, never, be given to you—not till I die. Do not be anxious for men's thoughts. This is all I have to say to you. From your loving friend, page 41 Wm. King.' Sir, there is nothing disrespectful in this letter, nothing turbulent, but every word is pregnant with emphatic meaning."

And yet, many months afterwards, the Governor, in writing to the Duke of Newcastle, asserted that Wiremu Kingi made no claim to the land other than that which was based upon a mere feudal authority, inconsistent with the sovereignty of the Queen ! It is important to note that this letter was dated the 25th of April 1859, that is, three months before the Governor declared, in his speech before the General Assembly, that Wiremu Kingi" neither asserted nor possessed any title" to the land. But there are two or three other important letters of Wiremu Kingi's which we must put on record, as shewing the real nature of the question at issue between him and the Governor. The first is a communication which he addressed to Archdeacon Hadfield on the 2d of July 1859.^* We will quote this document, together with Mr. Forsaith's page 42 explanatory remarks, which, as we before observed, are rendered valuable by his familiarity with the Maori language—

"'Listen to me, these are not recent thoughts of mine respecting Waitara : you well know that it is this—this is Waitara, think of the words of Rere,' (This is but the literal rendering of this remarkable passage. It means more than this; it is as though the writer had said, You know all the endearing associations connected with this place; Waitara has wound itself around the very fibres of my heart). Then, further on, after alluding to Mr. Parris, he goes on to say, 'He (Mr. Parris) has lifted up his heel against me. This is what he said to me—" I was the means of saving your life." I must apprise hon. members that the literal rendering of this sentence gives but a very faint idea of the real import of the original words, 'Naku koe i ora ai.' Maori scholars will understand me when I say that this sentence to a native chief conveys a great deal more than 'I was the means of saving your life.' In short, it is a most humiliating and offensive form of expression. It does not amount to a curse, but, when addressed to a native chief, could hardly be regarded otherwise than as a grievous insult. Personally, I have but a very slight knowledge of Mr. Parris. From what I know of him I should at once acquit him of any intentional offence. But if he used this form of expression—however innocently on his part—I gather from the very fact a convincing proof that he is not possessed of that intimate acquaintance with the language and the habits of thought and feeling of the natives, which ought to be regarded as essential qualifications in a person entrusted with the delicate and difficult task of investigating a title to land. If Mr. Parris did use this expression—whether innocently or not is no matter—he could not have hit upon a more certain mode of raising a formidable obstacle to his wishes, and defeating the object he had in view, the inducing of W. King to accede to the sale. I proceed with my quotations—

"'Recently, his (Mr. Parris) and Hare's word' (I don't know whom the writer means by "Hare,")—[An hon. member: Mr. Halse]—has appeared to roe that I am to be taken prisoner because I withhold the Land, inasmuch as the withholding of the land is, in their estimation, the greatest of offences, and for this reason has appeared (or is reported to me) the opinion of all the Europeans that I am the worst of men. I am not able, up to this time, to discover wherein consists my guilt.' This is a very mild yet forcible appeal, as though he had said, I have resorted to a rigid self-examination, but up to the present moment I have failed to discover the justice of this general impression of my guilt. He goes on; 'If I had taken any land belonging to the Europeans, then my fault would have been proved; or if I had assaulted any European, then my accusation would have been just. But they are bringing guilt to me.'

"The original here is very forcible. It means, I am hitherto guiltless of intentional offence, but they are driving me into the position of an offender. They are forcing me to become a guilty man.

"'There is another word of his (Mr. Parris). The Europeans will not regard my words. They now say, although only one roan shall offer to give up the land, they will be satisfied. Now hear me, this is bad, very bad, extremely bad.'

Again, the chief, in a letter dated 27th July 1859, writes—

"Listen: the conduct of the Europeans is unchanged. I am to be imprisoned for my obstinacy in holding the land . . . . This is another word of mine, do not let it grieve you. Mr. Parris is the European who strives so. Great is page 43 the obduracy of this European. His word has appeared to me (or been reported to me) that I am to be shot, and buried outside in our cultivations, not to be carried to the burial place."

"The original," says Mr. Forsaith, "is very significant; it is as though the writer had said I am to be shot, and buried with the burial of an ass; my carcase is not to be allowed to repose in the sepulchres of my fathers. And when he speaks of the 'tohe' of Mr. Parris about the land, we must remember that this word 'tobe' (literally, striving, entreating) 'when persisted in for a long time, and stereotyped, as it were, in practice conveys the idea of an irritating, teasing, worrying process."

"Therefore I thought you might have influence with the Governor and Mr. McLean, to cause his (Mr. Parris') procedings to be stopped with reference to the Waitara—his endeavours to obtain it. Listen also, the course pursued by that European is a bad course. He is leading in the part that will end in causing men to offend."

We have given Mr, Parris's version of his interview with Wiremu Kingi. Let us now have the benefit of the chiefs own account of that affair, contained in a letter dated the 5th of December 1859— page 44

"Friend, listen to me: this is my saying, that yon may explain to me the new policy of the Governor. I heard from Mr. Parris, on the occasion of my going to town, to prevent the money of the Governor being given for Waitara, 100l. I said to him (Mr. Parris) 'Friend, keep your money.' He answered me, 'I will not.' I replied, 'There will be no land upon which your money can alight.' Upon which he (Mr. Parris) answered, 'This is wrong. When the Governor comes it will be very wrong.' I replied, 'Be it so. It is for you to bring me the wrong (i.e. you must be the aggressor.') Enough for me, I keep the land. I also said to him, 'Land that is obdurate (" pakeke," i.e. disputed land,) the Governor is not desirous of having.' He replied, 'That was formerly, but now the Governor has a new method.' My belief is the Governor is seeking to quarrel, as he is putting death before me. Therefore I ask you to enlighten me, as you have perhaps heard of the Governor's new method (or policy) . . . . Listen, the land will not be given up by me. If the Governor without cause attacks me, and I am killed, then there will be no help for it, because it is an old saying the man first, the land afterwards (i e. first kill and then take possession). Therefore I make known my words to yon, that you may quietly understand my offence, and also the offence of all the Europeans—of Mr. Parris, of Mr. Whiteley, of the Governor. They say this piece of land belongs only to Teira. But it is not so; it belongs to us : all to the orphans and the widows this piece of land belongs."

From Riwai Te Ahu's letter it appears that each man's inheritance was clearly defined by stone-posts, and that Wiremu Kingi's own land was so indicated, and bore the name of Te Porepore:—

"Now this land was not divided into different portions for the different hapu, for Ngatihinga and Ngatituaho, and for Ngatikura and Ngatinenuha and other hapu holding within the block, which has been purchased by the Governor, No, they were all intermingled, the boundaries of each individual's land having been marked by stone-posts by our ancestors; besides these hapu are not of two different tribes : they are all of one tribe.^*

"All of these different portions of land have names given to them by oar ancestors : the name of William King's is Te Porepore. One portion of land belonging to his son and daughter, which was the property of their mother, is that on which Te Hurirapa's pa stood, which was burnt by the soldiers. Another portion of land is at Orapa, to the south of where their old pa stood. All these portions are contained in the block asserted to be Teira's, and have all been taken by the Governor.

"All the portions of land belonging to us and three who opposed the sale—Ngatikura and Ngateuenuku, and some of Ngatihinga and Ngatituaho, besides portions which belong to the hapu, have all been included in the block of land which the Land Commissioner of Taranaki asserts to belong to Teira alone. What can be the meaning of this expression—' William King was permitted to live on that land by their consent when he returned from Waikanae? 'Who can venture to make such an assertion? It was no such thing; each man knew the portion of land inherited from his ancestors. Was it by their assent that Te Porepore became the property of William King when be returned from Waikanae? Was it by their own permission that Te Huirapa became the property of his children when they returned from Waikanae, which has been taken away by the soldiers? Was it by their permission that our lands, inherited from our ancestors, became our property, which lands have all been taken from us at the point of the sword? In my opinion such an assertion is like deadly poison. According to the opinion of the Land Commissioner of Taranaki, Teira was quite justified in asserting his right to sell the whole of that block, and William King was utterly wrong (in denying it). In our opinion Teira's act was a great crime, and nothing can be said in his behalf which can hide his unjust act.

"In conclusion, I must say that I am unable to suggest any thing to my people to pacify them in their sorrow about our lands: they are very much

^* The Ngatiawa, which embraces all the hapus named.

page 46 grieved about the seizure of the lands of our ancestors. If that land should be permanently wrested from them, then this saying will be handed down through all future generations—that land was forcibly and unlawfully taken away by a Governor appointed by the Queen of England."

Who can wonder that a brave and high-spirited people, finding that the Government were determined to wrest from them their lands, should rise up in self-defence? But even this might not have happened, and the war have been averted, if another fearful error had not been committed. The Governor having consulted his responsible advisers, and they, unfortunately for themselves and for the colony, having decided to support His Excellency in the course which he had marked out, a proclamation of martial law was transmitted to Colonel Murray, the officer in command at Taranaki, with a despatch informing him that its publication was to be left to his own discretion. As soon, therefore, as a number of women, said to be the wives and daughters of Patuha-kariki, the principal chief of Teira's hapur obstructed the surveyors in their attempts to survey the disputed land, Colonel Murray issued the proclamation of martial law. Could any thing be more monstrous or illegal than this? Martial law is an instrument of terror which ought never to be made use of except in the most extreme cases, and when every reasonable means of pacification has been exhausted. But in this instance no violence had been attempted, for it is absurd to give that character to the interruptions of a few unarmed and defenceless women. The worst, however, remains to be told. The proclamation of martial law was in reality a declaration of war, and could only be so interpreted by the natives. We subjoin this extraordinary document :—

"Literal translation of the Proclamation of Martial Law from the version published in Maori;—

These, then, are the most serious of the facts upon which we base our opinion that the present war in New Zealand is an unjust and unnecessary war. That opinion is shared in by a large number of the most influential and deservedly-respected of the Colonists, and, as we have seen, by those noble-hearted Missionaries—from the Bishop of New Zealand downwards—who have proved themselves to be the true representatives of the Christian religion, The facts of the war have been insidiously misrepresented at home. page 48 The voice of calumny has been raised more especially against Bishop Selwyn and Archdeacon Hadfield. The conviction that they have done their duty—that they have endeavoured to protect that race whose dearest rights are menaced—will sufficiently sustain them. But they may be also comforted by the assurance that the tide will soon turn in this country. Already, in many quarters, the war is regarded with the gravest suspicion. Some of its advocates have shewn the cloven foot too much by proposing to take advantage of the war to abolish the treaty of Waitangi, as though a local dispute at Taranaki, even if justice was on our side, which it is not, could form any ground for putting an end to a treaty entered into with the general body of the natives. The selfishness and the iniquity of this proposal reveal the existence of a colonial element hostile to the natives, which will require the utmost vigilance and fidelity on the part of their friends to keep under control The Church Missionary Society deserves a high tribute of praise for the earnestness of the co-operation which it has rendered to its worthy representatives in New Zealand. The Memorial which it has presented to the Duke of Newcastle states the facts of the case, and makes known the policy which should be adopted with a clearness and a force that leave nothing to be desired. The treaty of Waitangi must he sacredly maintained, otherwise a war of races will take place, the issue of which it is impossible to predict; and the British nation will be involved in a responsibility and an expense which Sir Cornewall Lewis, writing on their behalf, has distinctly repudiated "With reference to the war at Taranaki, the first thing that both justice and sound policy suggests is, to enter into a truce with Wiremu Kingi, of whose good feeling towards the English we have received many trustworthy assurances. The land question at Waitara must then be settled on strict principles of justice. If it should be ascertained—as we have no doubt will be the case—that the just authority of the chief has been trampled upon, and the rights of the real proprietors ignored, the false steps which have been taken must be retraced, and the land restored to those who alone are entitled to possess it A native chief, speaking on this subject at Waikato said—

"The Governor ought to have gone and inquired into the conduct of Te Rangitake (King), then returned, consulted Potatau, and formed a committee of missionaries, magistrates, and chiefs, to inquire into the matter, and if they found that Rangitake is wrong, settle the matter by giving the land to the Governor."