XIV. Mr. John White, Interpreter in the Native Office.—1859.

In order to be better understood, before speaking of the tenure, a glance may be given at the manner in which the migrations took possession of and portioned out their newly discovered country. It is generally admitted among the Natives of New Zealand that the chief Kupe, who came in the canoe "Matahourua," was the first. He took possession of the country from Whanganui to Patea. Turi, in the canoe "Aotea," came next; he took from Patea to Aotea. Next were the canoes "Te Arawa" and "Tainui;" they took the land from East Cape to Cape Colville, where Tamatekapua, chief of the "Arawa" canoe, died. The chiefs Ruauru and Toroa came next in the canoe "Matatua," and took Rotorua Lakes. The "Tainui" canoe, commanded by Hoturoa, came on from Cape Colville to Tamaki and took all the country east from Cape Colville to Mangawhai, west from Manukau to Whaingaroa. The Ngapuhi canoes were next—"Mamari," "Riukakara." and "Mahuhu." The first went to Hokianga River, and took the land from Maunganui to Ahipara. The Riukakara went to Whangaroa, and took the land from Mangomui to the Bay of Islands. Mahuhu (Ngatiwhatua) took the country from Mangonui, round the North Cape, to Ahipara. The "Wakatuwhenua " canoe came next and took Cape Rodney. The chief Manaia, in the "Tokomaru" canoe, took Taranaki; the ancestor of the Ngatiawa came in this canoe. The canoe "Kurahaupo," commanded by Ruatea, landed near East Cape and took all the land from the point taken by Arawa round the East Coast to Port Nicholson. The canoe "Takitumu" (or "Horouta"—fast sailer), commanded by Tata, first landed at Turanga, but proceeded southwards, crossed Cook Strait, and took possession of the whole of the Middle Island. Thus all the lands in the North and Middle Island were taken possession of on the arrival of the canoes. The boundaries claimed by this right of discovery did not long remain. Some time after the Arawa and Tainui migrations had settled, a chief of the Tainui went overland to the Bay of Plenty and burnt the canoe "Te Arawa." This was the cause of the first Maori war.

Most of the tribal boundaries lay along the highest ridges; and, as these were the resort of the rat, every chief became acquainted with the exact boundary of his lands. Where a creek was the dividing boundary this was occupied with eel-dams, not made of wickerwork that might be carried away by a flood, but of such construction that generations might pass and each put the eel-baskets down by the carved and red-ochred totara-post which its ancestors had placed there. Where the dividing boundary between two tribes ran along a valley, landmarks were erected, generally of cairns, to which names were given.

There is not an inch of land in the Islands which is not claimed, nor a hill nor valley, stream nor forest, which has not a name. The boundary was liable to be altered, as when land was taken by conquest or was given by a chief for assistance rendered by another tribe in war; or when land, given to the female branch of a family, reverted to the male branch; or where land was ceded to a tribe for a specific purpose, and with certain restrictions, the tenure being conditional on the terms being fulfilled.

Hereditary tenure was thus: The claim was grounded on the right of the grandfather or grandmother, not of the father, mother, brother, or other immediate kindred. There have been cases where a chief, on his, death-bed, portioned out his land to each of his children. The sons' claim is, in all instances, derived from the grandfather. The eldest son of the senior branch in the male line is chief of the tribe and exercises sole authority as guardian for his people against the encroachments of other tribes; but all the offspring, descendants from the male branch, have an equal right in the lands of their progenitors. No matter how distant the relationship, they all, so long as they can trace their origin up to the same ancestor—provided a family war has not occurred and thereby divided the tribe—claim an equal right to the lands owned by that ancestor. The title in the female line does not expand to the same extent: the granddaughter of a chief has an equal claim to the lands of her grandfather with that of her male cousins, and the claim continues good to her grandchild; but, on the death of that grandchild, the land reverts to the male line. This custom holds good for the following reason, which is assigned as its origin—namely, that were it not upheld the intermarriage of chiefs' daughters with members of other tribes would soon so complicate and curtail the tribal claims that an invitation would be held out to adjoining tribes to attempt by conquest to despoil them of their territory.

If a family war takes place in which a tribe becomes divided (which has frequently occurred) a division of the tribal lands takes place. The lands of a tribe were portioned out according to the number of families of which it consisted, and were claimed by each family as its own; nor did any one meddle with it or occupy the land of another family unless by express permission. Still, those portions were not the exclusive property of each family. But this only applies to the lands originally settled by the first migrations, not to lands which have been acquired by conquest, gift, or utu for curses or other injuries. Land is claimed by families, and the object of the chiefs in pointing them out was to prevent tribal disputes, and to allow each part of the tribe to have a portion of land over which it could exercise the exclusive right of cultivation, fishing, snaring birds, catching rats, or obtaining fern root. Moreover, this portioning-out of the tribal lands caused emulation in the different families as to the produce gained by each for the use of the tribe. The individual claim to land, therefore, does not exist among the New Zealanders, according to our acceptation of the term. The right to land taken by conquest rests solely on the conquering party actually occupying the taken district, to the utter exclusion of its original owners or other tribes. If a portion of the conquered page 26tribe escaped, the claim held good to as great an extent as they had courage to occupy; and if they could manage to keep within their own tribal boundary, and elude the enemy, their right to the whole of the land held good: hence the meaning of a sentence so often used by old chiefs in their land disputes, I ka tonu taku ahi i runga i toku whenua—My fire has ever been kept alight upon my land. Again, if a tribe was conquered and became extinct, with the exception of slaves taken by the conquerors, these slaves might by purchase recover their tribal lands, or they could if liberated return to them on condition of allegiance to the conquerors, rendering them assistance in war, and paying a tribute, for a time, of their produce. [Here follow numerous instances of other complicated claims:] When land was given by one tribe to the leader of another tribe for assistance in war, it did not vest in that leader: the relatives of chiefs killed in the war had a claim. It was also necessary that the land should be occupied and possession retained.

The war in the Bay of Plenty, which has been continued to the present time between certain chiefs, also originated in a like cause (disputes of title). The contending parties are all of one tribe and spring from one ancestor, but by intermarriage some have a more direct claim than others; the descendants who by intermarriage are related to other tribes have made an equal claim to lands over which they have but a partial claim, and resistance to this has been the cause of the war. Disputes of this kind are not easily unravelled. I believe that, were it possible to teach the Maoris the English language, and then bring them into some Court, allowing each contending party to plead his cause in such a dispute as I have mentioned, not according to English law but Maori customs, both sides would, according to Native genealogy and laws, make out their respective cases so clearly that it would take a Judge and jury possessed of more than human attainments to decide the ownership of the land.— [Lecture at the Mechanics' Institute: written in August, 1859.]