Chapter XIII. of the Royal Instructions was devoted to placing into

legal phraseology the Minister's policy for "the Settlement of the waste lands of the Crown" and Clause 9 of that Chapter more particularly dealt with the method by which the native titles were to be ascertained and recognised.

(9) No claim shall be admitted in the said land Courts on behalf of the Aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand to any lands situate within the said islands, unless it shall be established, to the satisfaction of such Court, that either by some Act of the Executive Government of New Zealand as hitherto constituted, or by the adjudication of some Court of competent jurisdiction within New Zealand, the right of such aboriginal inhabitants to such lands has been acknowledged and ascertained, or those from whom they derived the title, have actually had the occupation of the lands so claimed, and have been accustomed to use and enjoy the same, either as places of abode or tillage, or for the growth of crops, or for the depasturing of cattle, or otherwise for the convenience and sustentation of life, by means of labour expended thereon.

The newspapers in England which supported the New Zealand Company published with undisguised exultation Earl Grey's Despatch, and hailed him as a Daniel come to judgment.[185] The Maoris regarded the matter in quite a different light. Here they were being asked to submit for ratification, by an extraneous authority, their lands which they and their forefathers had fought for, and which they had ever guarded with a jealous care that only death itself could terminate; lands which they had been told by Captain Hobson and the Missionaries were to be theirs to loose or to hold as they pleased; lands of which the Treaty of Waitangi had solemnly recognised them as already the indisputable owners. Was this then the much vaunted honour of the Queen? was this to be the unhappy end of all her high-sounding promises? The fire of indignation ran through the Maori veins as they contemplated the deception; the rumble of discontent grew as the tidings spread; the breath of battle was in the air.

The position of the Governor was delicate in the extreme, and probably only two things stood at this critical juncture between the colony and war--the Maori confidence in Grey, and Grey's confidence in himself. "What was I to do indeed?" he afterwards said. "My instruction was not alone that of the Colonial Office; but the Constitution had been sanctioned by Parliament. A man's responsibility in the larger sense is, after adequate deliberation, to proceed as he determines to be just and wise. If he has to decide, not for himself only but for others, unto future generations, there lies his course all the more. There was one clear line for me, simply to hang up the Constitution, and intimate to the Home authorities my ideas about it." In accordance with this decision he wrote on August 20 (1847) to his chief, describing with that directness of which his pen was capable the ferment into which this impossible statesmanship had thrown the country.

I have to state to Your Lordship that within the last few days I have received alarming accounts from various quarters of the island regarding the excitement created in portions of the country most densely inhabited by natives, upon the subject of the introduction of the new Constitution into this country, and the steps that may be taken regarding the registration of their lands. I am not yet in a position that would enable me to state whether actual insurrection, upon an extensive scale is to be immediately apprehended; but I cannot entertain any doubt that the country is in a very critical state. I will lose no time in taking such measures as are in my power to quiet the apprehensions which at present exist, and I will also delay for some time the introduction of the proposed Constitution, but I beg again earnestly to press upon your Lordship the advantages which would result from in so far modifying the proposed Constitution as to leave the Governor the power of being able certainly to promise the natives that he will enact any measures which they may request as essential to their interests, and which the Governor may also consider to be absolutely requisite to secure the tranquillity of the country.

A portion of the Governor's measures to "quiet the apprehensions" of the Maoris was to despatch Captain Sotheby, then in command of H.M.S. _Racehorse_, to visit the northern chiefs, and aided by the ever loyal Waaka Nene he assured them, "on the authority of His Excellency the Governor, that there was no truth in the report that the Government claimed all land not under tillage." Subsequently this officer invited Earl Grey to reflect upon the rapidity with which this report had spread through the North Island, and the dissatisfaction which it had excited, "even in the minds of those chiefs who had hitherto been friendly to the British and who had fought on our side."

From old Te Wherowhero, of the Waikato, came the following characteristic protest to the Queen, whose honour he would not impugn, whose word he would accept:

O Madam the Queen, hearken to our words, the words of all the chiefs of Waikato.

May God grant that you may hold fast our word, and we your word for ever. Madam listen, news are going about here that your Ministers are talking of taking away the land of the Native without cause, which makes our hearts dark. But we do not believe this news, because we heard from the first Governor that the disposal of the land was with ourselves. And from the second Governor we heard the same words, and from this Governor. They have all said the same. Therefore we write to you that you may be kind to us, to your friends that love you. Write your thoughts to us, that peace may prevail amongst the natives of these Islands.[186]

In this dignified appeal the chief was joined by Bishop Selwyn, Archdeacon Maunsell, and Chief Justice Martin in the colony, and by the Wesleyan Mission Committee in England, who employed the searching pen of Dr. Beecham to voice their protest.

How the Bishop regarded the proposals of the Chief Secretary may be judged from the following passage in a letter which he subsequently wrote to his friend, the Rev. E. Coleridge, in England: "If Lord Grey's principles had been avowed by the Governor as the rule of his policy, the safety of the English settlements could not have been guaranteed for a single day."

Archdeacon Maunsell, who in 1840 had informed Captain Hobson that the Missionaries had committed themselves to the promotion of the Treaty of Waitangi only because of their unshaken faith in the integrity of the British Government,[187] was at least entitled to point out that ever since the treaty was signed the conduct of the Maori towards the British had been marked by a spirit of chivalry, of friendship, and of good faith. "Why, then," he asked, "does the statesman of a mighty nation seek to confiscate the guaranteed possessions of our friends and allies?" If such should ever happen, his letter concluded, there could be no alternative but for the Missionaries in sorrow to leave the country, broken and discredited men.

Nor was the kindly, conscientious Martin less emphatic. In a pamphlet, "England and the New Zealanders," he discusses the danger of thus shattering the native confidence in Britain's honour. "In particular," he states, "those who have received Christianity are disposed to look up to us for guidance and government. But let the plan of confiscation or seizure be once acted on, and all this will be at an end. The worst surmises of the natives will have become realities. To them we will appear to be a nation of liars."

The Wesleyan Mission Society embodied their views in a memorial, which they subsequently deemed worthy of publication,[188] wherein they justified their right to question the propriety of Earl Grey's policy, not only because of the prestige and influence of their Mission, but because that prestige and influence had been solicited in the interests of the Treaty of Waitangi by Captain Hobson, at a time when his success without it was impossible. They explained that their solicitude upon the subject had been greatly increased, if not wholly produced by the flood of letters they had received from their Missionaries in New Zealand, expressing the state of alarm into which they had been thrown by the publication of his Lordship's Despatch and Instructions, and which in their opinion affixed a meaning to the Treaty of Waitangi very different from that in which it was understood by the parties principally concerned in its execution. Being apprehensive that any attempt to carry what they regarded as a new interpretation of the treaty into effect, would result in the most disastrous consequences, they were constrained to make such representations upon the subject as they had reason to hope would avert the evils which they feared. They then proceeded to set out that at the commencement of the proceedings adopted by Her Majesty's Government for founding a colony in New Zealand, they distinctly understood that the previous recognition of the independence of New Zealand by the British Government having taken the country out of the category of barbarous tribes and people without a national character or national rights, the ordinary course pursued in colonisation would not be adopted in its case, but that New Zealand would be negotiated with as an Independent State, and that the British Crown would not take anything from the Aboriginal proprietors which was not ceded on their part by fair and honourable treaty. In support of this view, they quoted at length from Lord Normanby's instructions to Captain Hobson, in 1839 and from the subsequent correspondence with him, when that officer sought a greater amplification of important points. On the authority, then, of the noble gentleman formerly at the head of the Colonial Department, they claimed that they were not deceived when they understood that the cession of sovereignty in New Zealand was not to involve the surrender of territory, either in whole or in part; that the cession to the Crown of such waste lands as might be progressively required for the use of the settlers should be subsequently obtained by fair and equal contracts with the natives, and that no lands were to be claimed for the Crown in New Zealand, except such as might be obtained by purchase from the natives, or by their own free consent. They detailed the overtures which Captain Hobson made to their Missionaries in 1840, when, "in accordance with instructions he had received from the highest authority in the realm," he requested their assistance in effecting the negotiation with which he had been entrusted. The Missionaries at this time, the Committee pointed out, had not read Captain Hobson's instructions, for they had not then been published, but they fully understood the claims of the natives upon the soil of New Zealand, and the point upon which they had to satisfy themselves was whether the proposed treaty was designed to admit and confirm those claims in the full and unqualified sense in which they were made. The Missionaries knew that the Maoris claimed the _entire_ soil of New Zealand.[189] They knew that the entire country was divided amongst the several tribes, that the boundaries of every property were accurately defined, and the proprietorship so vested in each tribe that all the members of the tribe had a beneficial interest therein. They therefore knew that at the time the Treaty of Waitangi was signed there was no land in New Zealand without an owner, and which would under the principles of public law, be automatically transferred to the Crown.

"In the view, therefore, of both the Missionaries and the natives," they said, "the sovereignty and the land were two entirely distinct things, and to preserve the latter intact, while they surrendered the former, was the great solicitude of the natives. From Captain Hobson the Missionaries received the most satisfactory explanation of the terms of the treaty. It dwelt explicitly on both the sovereignty and the land, and the interpretation which the Missionaries were authorised to give of it was that, while the _entire_ sovereignty should be transferred to the British Crown, the _entire_ land should be secured to the natives. Most certainly the Missionaries received the fullest assurance that, in surrendering the sovereignty, the natives would not by that act surrender their original claims upon any part of the soil. In this sense the chiefs themselves understood the treaty, as it was propounded to them. They clearly comprehended its two main features as explained in their own figurative style, that 'the shadow of the land,' by which they meant 'the sovereignty,' would pass to the Queen of England, but that the 'substance,' meaning the land itself, would remain with them."

But the Missionaries were not alone the source from which the Committee proved the correct interpretation of the treaty. The witnesses who had given evidence before Earl Grey's own Committee in 1844 were marshalled to their support, the official Despatches were quoted to the same end, even those of Lord John Russell being referred to as "warranting the conclusion that his Lordship designed the treaty should be faithfully observed, in the sense in which it was understood by the natives and Missionaries of both the Church and Wesleyan Societies." To these was added the invaluable testimony of Lieutenant Shortland, who had been in closest association with Captain Hobson during the treaty negotiations, who had been privileged to administer the affairs of the colony under it, and who from his close official connection with it was peculiarly the man able to say what it meant and what it did not mean. Shortly before his return to England, the Select Committee of the House of Commons had issued their report upon "the State of New Zealand and the proceedings of the New Zealand Company," and so completely did that report misrepresent, in Mr. Shortland's opinion, the true position of affairs, so harmful did he deem the resolutions which accompanied that report, that he felt in duty bound to protest to Lord Stanley against the needless perversion of the facts. During a lengthy and dispassionate statement of the circumstances surrounding the procuration of the treaty--than whom no one knew them better--Mr. Shortland, writing from his quiet retreat at Torquay, dealt with especial emphasis upon the relation of the sovereignty to the land:

Respecting the cession of the sovereignty to the Crown by the aborigines without a reciprocal guarantee to them of the perfect enjoyment of their territorial rights, I do not hesitate to say, such a proposition would not for a moment have been entertained by the natives, who, during the whole proceedings of the Government at the first establishment of the colony, manifested a feeling of great anxiety and mistrust in regard to the security of their lands. Of this I could produce many instances did space permit, but will content myself with noticing that the Church and Wesleyan Missionaries possessing, as they deservedly did before the assumption of sovereignty by Her Majesty, the unlimited confidence of the natives, incurred by their aiding the local Government to effect the peaceable establishment of the colony, the suspicion of the aborigines, who frequently upbraided the Missionaries with having deceived them, saying, "Your Queen will serve us as she has done the black fellows of New South Wales; our lands will be taken from us, and we shall become slaves." How then could the colony have been founded with the free and intelligent consent of the native owners of the soil, on any other terms than those laid down by the Treaty of Waitangi, viewed in the light in which it has always been understood and acted on by the local Government.

With these and many similar pieces of unimpeachable evidence did the Committee press upon the Colonial Secretary the conviction that their reading and understanding of the treaty was the only one which its "large words," as Lord Stanley had termed them, would bear. Earl Grey relied upon the astute pen of Mr. Herman Merivale, his new Under-Secretary to release him from the horns of the dilemma upon which the cold reasoning of the Committee had impaled him. This he did by referring the memorialists back to an obscure phrase in the Royal Instructions, which provided that no native claim to land would be recognised unless the title had previously been acknowledged and ascertained, "by some act of the Executive Government of New Zealand as then constituted or by the adjudication of some court of competent jurisdiction." The Treaty of Waitangi was now admitted, and even asserted by the Under-Secretary to be "unquestionably an act of the Executive Government," and therefore it followed that nothing that was guaranteed by the treaty was imperilled by the Instructions. With a wealth of argument upon phases of the issue which were not directly raised by the Memorial,[190] Mr. Merivale was at least able to assure the Committee that the Government intended and always had intended to recognise the treaty, as they believed, in the same sense in which the Committee recognised it. "They recognise it in both its essential stipulations, the one securing to those native tribes, of which the chiefs have signed the treaty, a title to those lands which they possess according to native usage (whether cultivated or not) at the time of the treaty, the other securing to the Crown the exclusive right of extinguishing such title by purchase." Considerable unction was claimed for his chief by the Under-Secretary, in that he had directed Governor Grey to proceed with all circumspection in giving effect to the instructions of the Department, but he failed to observe that even in his widened interpretation of the treaty, he still limited the rights in native lands to those tribes whose chiefs had signed the treaty. Those who like Te Heuheu, and Te Wherowhero had maintained their independence might still have been subject to spoliation had this view become the accepted interpretation of the Department, and those who were keenly interested in the fate of the colony were not slow to place this construction upon it. The immediate necessity for anxiety upon this point was, however, obviated by the prompt suspension of the Charter by Governor Grey, and upon the submission by him to Downing Street of a more liberal and flexible Constitution, drafted upon the slopes and amidst the snows of Ruapehu.

Ere the brewing storm in New Zealand had burst, the crisis had come in the life of Lord John Russell's Ministry, who were defeated on their Militia Bill. They were succeeded by the Stanley of old, who in the person of Lord Derby, became Premier, with Sir John Pakington as his Colonial Secretary. To him fell the duty of giving legislative effect to the more workable and equitable Constitution drafted by Governor Grey, and when the Wesleyan Committee again approached the Colonial Office with the regretful assurance that the reply vouchsafed to them by the noble gentleman who had just vacated the Chief Secretaryship "was less satisfactory to the people of New Zealand than it had appeared to themselves," Sir John was able to convey to them through the Earl of Desart the gratifying intelligence that in the Bill then before the House there was every provision for the full and complete recognition of the principles for which they had so resolutely contended.

Concerning the Third Clause of the treaty, little need be said. By this covenant the Queen undertook, in consideration of the cession of sovereignty and the granting of the pre-emptive right of purchase of land, to extend to the Maori race her Royal protection, and impart to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects. Of the manner in which this undertaking has been fulfilled, the Maoris have never complained, and they have never had just grounds for complaint. There is no colour line drawn against the New Zealander in New Zealand. Our courts are as open to him as to anyone, and whether he be plaintiff or defendant, the same even-handed justice is meted out to him. He travels upon our railways, he rides upon our cars, he sits in our theatres on equal terms with his _Pakeha_ friend. His children are educated in our schools and his sons are absorbed into our Civil Service, his chiefs sit at the Governor's table, and his elected representatives sit in Parliament, where their voice is respected and their vote is valued. The professions are open to him, and there is no position in Church or State which he may not fill. No more is demanded of a Maori than of a European. His passport to society is his good behaviour, his participation of civil rights is governed by his disposition to become a law-abiding citizen.

Only one question now remains to be discussed. In what relation did those chiefs stand to the Treaty of Waitangi who refused to sign it? It has never been contended that all the chiefs were invited to meet Captain Hobson at Waitangi, nor that all were solicited by his agents to sign the treaty, nor that all who were so solicited agreed to affix their signatures to the document. There was a residuum, which included some of the most powerful chiefs in the land, who either had no opportunity of subscribing their allegiance to the Crown, or who for reasons of their own held aloof. How were these non-participants affected by the compact?

This question was first raised in its practical application by Taraia, a Tauranga chief, who in December 1842 committed what is believed to have been the last act of cannibalism perpetrated in New Zealand. Taraia was not a signatory to the treaty, and the Government were sorely exercised as to whether they were justified in claiming jurisdiction over him. An effort had been made by the Aborigines' Protection Society in London to define the status of these independent chiefs, by submitting the question to Mr. Joseph Phillimore, an eminent English lawyer, and Mr. Phillimore had given them a qualified opinion that if there were any chiefs who had preserved their independence by refusing to become parties to the treaty, then such chiefs _may_ not be bound by its obligations, and _may_ be entitled to distinct and separate consideration. But clearly, in an abstract sense, there could be no such qualification to the unaltered status of these men. They were still chiefs of an Independent State so far as they were concerned, retaining inviolate their _mana_, and refusing to be compromised by the concessions made by their fellow chiefs.

The Government, then controlled by Captain Hobson, did not share even the qualified view entertained by Mr. Phillimore and those who thought with him. They presumed all natives of New Zealand now to be British subjects and determined that Taraia must be punished. This valiant determination was not, however, given final effect, not because the authorities were dubious of its justice, but because they had become uncertain as to its practicability; so much so that they subsequently deemed it prudent to limit their interference to a warning to that chief, that he might expect to incur the anger of the Governor upon a repetition of his offence. In Taraia's case this reprimand was sufficient to quiet him, but only a few months later Tongoroa, another Tauranga chief, made war upon his neighbours, and the sore which looked as though it had healed was suddenly reopened. Lieutenant Shortland, who had now assumed the post of Acting-Governor, proceeded to Tauranga to arrest the disturber of the peace, but before the apprehension could be effected his accumulating difficulties were further increased by an unexpected communication from Mr. Clarke, the chief Protector of the Aborigines, and Mr. Swainson, the Attorney-General. Both these gentlemen had previously endorsed the contemplated arrest of Taraia, but to the amazement of the Acting-Governor they informed him that more mature reflection had caused them to reverse their opinion, and that they now considered the arrest of Tongoroa would be illegal.

Hurrying back to Auckland, Shortland called a meeting of his Council, and there sought some enlightenment as to this new view-point of the Maori status under the treaty. Amongst those consulted was necessarily Mr. Clarke, the erstwhile Missionary, and now Chief Protector of the Aborigines, whose close and constant intercourse with all the tribes gave him the most favourable facilities for gauging the strength and direction of the native aspirations. In the course of his examination Mr. Clarke was asked:

(1) Do the natives who signed the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledge themselves to be British subjects?

To which he replied:--The natives who signed the Treaty of Waitangi, having been solemnly assured by Her Majesty's representative, the late Captain Hobson, that they should in the fullest sense of the term be entitled to all the privileges of British subjects, consented to be considered as such, with a full understanding that their allegiance depended upon the British Government fulfilling their engagements in that treaty.

(2) How far, and to what extent, do the various tribes in New Zealand acknowledge the Queen's sovereignty?

To this Mr. Clarke's answer was:--The natives alone who signed the treaty acknowledge the Queen's sovereignty, and that only in a limited sense. The treaty guaranteeing their own customs to them, they acknowledge a right of interference only in grave cases, such as war and murder, and all disputes and offences between themselves and Europeans, and hitherto they have acted on this principle. The natives who have not signed the treaty consider that the British Government, in common with themselves, have a right to interfere in all cases of dispute between their tribes and Europeans, but limit British interference to European British subjects.

(3) In your communications with the natives, have you asserted that they are British subjects, and the right of the Government to interfere with them as such? and (4) On making that assertion how far has it been acquiesced in?:--In all my communications with the natives I have been instructed to assert, and have always asserted, that they are British subjects, and amenable to British authority, in which very few, even those who signed the treaty, would acquiesce, save in matters relating to disputes or depredations upon each other (viz. differences between Europeans and natives).

(5) If the Government were to admit that any tribe or tribes of New Zealanders were not British subjects, and were not amenable to the laws, what effect do you think that admission would have on the peace and future colonisation of the colony?:--The admission that the tribes of New Zealanders were not amenable to British law, would, I am apprehensive, be destructive to the interests of the natives and the prosperity of the colony. It would be made use of by designing men to embarrass the Government, to embroil the natives with each other and with the Government, which must be alike injurious to both. Her Majesty's Government having seen fit to colonise New Zealand, it is now an act of humanity to both natives and Europeans to consider the whole of the tribes of New Zealand as British subjects, and to use every honourable and humane means of getting the tribes universally to cede the sovereignty where it has not been ceded.

(6) Supposing that we should treat as British subjects, by force, those tribes, who have uniformly refused to cede the sovereignty to Great Britain, should we be keeping faith with the principles we professed when we originally negotiated for the cession of the sovereignty?:--In treating those tribes as British subjects by force who have refused to cede the sovereignty to Great Britain, would not only be considered by the natives as a breach of faith with the principles originally professed when negotiating for the sovereignty, but would, I am apprehensive, lead to a destructive war, and although the result would be destructive to the native race, it would be inglorious to the British Government, and at variance with the designs of Her Most Gracious Majesty in adding this interesting people and country to her Dominions.

From the Protector of the Aborigines who only pretended to interpret Maori opinion as he gleaned it in his progress through their _pas_ and settlements, the Executive turned to their Attorney-General, Mr. Swainson, for his more recent interpretation of the position as it appealed to the trained mind of a jurist, and Mr. Swainson only put into less direct language the pronouncement of Wiremu Tamihana, the King Maker, who during the hey-day of the King movement scorned the authority of the Queen over his land: "I am chief of Ngati-Haua, which is an independent tribe. My father, Te Waharoa, was chief before me. Neither he, I, or any of my people signed the treaty, therefore we are not bound by it." Mr. Swainson's opinion was as follows:

From the evidence given before the Council by the Protector of the Aborigines (Mr. Clarke), it appears that, as I have already stated, there are numerous tribes who have not ceded their sovereign rights to the Queen, and who do not yet acknowledge her sovereign authority. For the reasons already given, I think it would be consistent neither with justice nor with the principles we professed, viz. that we came here to treat for and not to assume sovereignty, to treat those tribes in all respects as British subjects, and to impose upon them our penal code; in this opinion, also, the Protector's opinion coincides. I am also of opinion that so numerous are these tribes, and many of them so distant, that were we disposed to do so we have not the power. At the same time, I am persuaded that the benefits of British protection, and the laws administered by British judges, would far more than compensate the natives for the sacrifice of their independence. These benefits, however, I am equally persuaded, can only be obtained on the voluntary surrender by them of their own sovereign rights, and on their "free and intelligent" submission to British authority. To subjugate them would require a large armed force; but by the employment of persuasion, the influence of example, and the general spread of civilisation among neighbouring tribes, there is ground to expect that they will gradually submit themselves to the operation of British laws. To constantly point out to them the benefits they will derive from doing so, and to impress upon them, to use the language of the Secretary of State, the impossibility of Her Majesty's extending to them an effectual protection unless the Queen be acknowledged as the Sovereign of their country, or at least of those districts within, or adjacent to which Her Majesty's subjects may acquire land or habitations "is the course, I believe, to be most calculated to effect the object of establishing an absolute sovereignty over the whole country."

Though doubtless giving to these expressions of opinion the respectful consideration which was their due, the Acting-Governor decided to assume the responsibility of setting them aside, and following the dictates of his own judgment. To him it seemed that it would be fatally weak to admit in the practical administration of the country the nice line of distinction drawn by the Attorney-General or subscribe to the opinion expressed by Mr. Clarke, "that every honourable and humane means should be used to prevail on tribes to cede the sovereignty where it has not been ceded," as in his judgment this would have been an over-ready admission that they were beyond the pale of the British Crown, and no more effectual means could have been adopted of disseminating the harmful acknowledgment. The troops were accordingly sent to Tauranga, but no arrests were made. Here prudence again prevailed and the officer in charge was instructed only to employ the soldiers "in the general preservation of peace." When these proceedings were reported in due course to Lord Stanley, he warmly endorsed the view adopted by Lieutenant Shortland[191] and as warmly censured Swainson, who was told in the plainest terms that he could not be permitted to entertain the views to which he had given expression, and hold a public office at the same time.

As a matter of abstract reasoning, Lord Stanley was probably wrong, as a matter of practical administration he was probably right, but the correctness of his attitude depended for its success upon the tactfulness of its application. Fortunately New Zealand has, in the main, been blessed with administrators of wide sympathies, and a paternal parliament has generally, though not always given the native race the most indulgent exposition of the treaty. Mistakes may have been made, misapprehensions may have occurred, even technical breaches of the treaty may have been committed, but since the administration of native affairs was handed over to the Colonial Government in 1863 there have been but few instances of flagrant violation of native rights. Prior to this date the care and control of the Maori still vested in the Imperial authorities, even after representative institutions had been granted to the country; and while that condition lasted there was, unhappily, an all too frequent clashing of the two races. With one or two exceptions these conflicts had a common origin in an over-anxious desire on the part of the Europeans to become possessed of native land, as opposed to the deep-founded pertinacity with which the chiefs clung to their ancestral domains. The first of these exceptions was the insurrection of Hone Heke in 1845, which was not in its inception a dispute regarding land, but an undisguised protest against the exercise of the Queen's sovereignty. Land did ultimately play its complicating part in the disruption, but in its initial stages it was the revolt of a volatile man who felt the treaty had carried him further than he intended it should lead him; it was the protest of an ambitious chief who loved notoriety as much as he loved his independence. Heke fell upon what now appears to have been the weak point in Hobson's negotiations; that while he may have, and doubtless did, convey to the natives a clear enough idea of what was meant by the sovereignty of the Queen, he does not appear to have taken sufficient care to explain with any detail what its possible effects might be. Assuredly he was not endowed with such a mental vision as to foresee all that was to happen, nor to conjure up within his mind all the changes that were inevitable in evolving a State from a condition of barbarism to one of civilisation. One thing, however, must have been obvious both to him and to those who were associated with him, that no government could be organised and carried on in a new country without a revenue adequate for all its varied purposes. Under Lord Normanby's instructions funds were to be temporarily provided from New South Wales, but the permanent revenue was to be raised within New Zealand itself, of which a large part, it was hoped, would be derived from the sale of land. Other sources of income in the way of customs duties and taxation in varied forms must also have been in contemplation, but we have no evidence that Captain Hobson ever took occasion to explain to the people that sovereignty would cost them something; that revenue which had been falling into the hands of the chiefs would be diverted into the coffers of the State, and that with the surrender of their independence they must also surrender the levies which they had been making upon the whalers.

It is conceivable that had this surrender of a means to opulence been clearly contemplated by the chiefs as a part of the colonising scheme those at the Bay of Islands would have been the more easily reconciled to it by the natural expectation that even larger sums would be flowing in to them from the sales of land. If these anticipations ever existed they were doomed to disappointment, for instead of entering upon an active campaign of land-buying the Governor suspended the purchases he should have made, and wasted his money on a site for a town, while the rigid enforcement of the pre-emptive right acquired by the Crown closed the market against the buyers of open country lands. This restriction was felt to be not without its element of injustice; for upon a more critical examination of the terms of the treaty it was found that though the Crown claimed the exclusive right to extinguish the native title, nothing had been determined as to the price to be paid or as to the time within which the purchase should be made. Thus, chiefs like Heke, who had been in receipt of substantial sums by way of anchorage money from the shipping found their perquisites appropriated by the State, while they derived no compensating benefit from the sale of land.

The first flush of disappointment which surged within the breast of Heke as he contemplated the unexpected effects of the new power was fed by the angry adventurers and thwarted speculators, who, in their chagrin at the interception of their schemes, had no compunction in inciting him to a course which ultimately led to a declaration of hostility against the Queen and to open war against the Crown.

Not so the Waitara war of 1860, which found its origin not so much in a desire to violate the treaty, as in a blundering endeavour to observe its most important provision. The taking up of arms by Wiremu Kingi was not in its spirit rebellion against the Queen's sovereignty, but a reply to the Governor's attempt to divest him of his rights by insisting upon purchasing land from one whom Wiremu contended could not by any application of native law be constituted the owner. There was on the part of the natives the greatest reluctance to resort to arms, their desire being to test the disputed point of ownership before a properly constituted Commission; but when these overtures were rejected and the Governor held on his headstrong way, they felt there was no course compatible with their high-strung sense of dignity, but to refer the momentous issue to the final arbitrament of war. The story of the Waitara campaign is too well known to need recapitulation here, but in the opinion of many of those skilled in the intricacies of Maori land tenure it was a blunder of the first magnitude, for which Governor Gore-Browne, and not the Colonial Parliament was wholly responsible. If, then, the war was unjust, the confiscation of native land which followed upon the suppression of what was called rebellion was branded with the same injustice.

And just as one wrong perpetuates itself in the form of others, this confiscation has ever since burned deep into the hearts of the Taranaki natives, and led in the early eighties to what is known as the Te Whiti movement. Like his predecessor, Wiremu Kingi, Te Whiti was a much-misunderstood man. For this state of misconception he may have himself been largely accountable, for as a concession to the Maori love of the mysterious he so combined religion with his politics, and dealt so freely in the mystic, that it was frequently difficult to separate intangible prophecy from the things that really mattered in his material policy. But shorn of all its grotesqueness the movement which centred round the Parihaka prophet and his uncle Tohu was not a repudiation of the Treaty of Waitangi, nor was it a revolt against the authority of the Queen. At its base lay the grievance, or the fancied grievance, which was before them every day in the shape of the confiscated lands. There upon the wide Waimate Plains they saw European homesteads whose occupancy was in their eyes a crime against Maori rights. Te Whiti felt he had two things to do. He had to assert his right to those lands, and he had to agitate for justice. He accordingly sent his faithfuls to plough up the fields of the farmers and the lawns of the settlers, in the mistaken hope that he would be able to force the issue before a competent tribunal and there determine who had broken the treaty--the Maori or the _Pakeha_.

The Government of that day saw things differently. They had no desire to exhume the remains of past mistakes with a possibility of being called upon to repair them at a cost of much treasure and more dignity. They preferred to stand upon the settled policy of their predecessors, and instead of sending a Commission to discover what was at the back of the prophet's mind, they sent troops and took him prisoner. Te Whiti may have been a dreamer, he may have been a babbler of vain things, but he was never a rebel, nor the maker of rebels; but for saying "I love my land" he was legislated into rebellion, and made to appear as a criminal.

In the same way the King movement of 1857 only became rebellion when the Crown made it so. Two primary causes operated to call into existence this political power, the creation of Wiremu Tamihana's[192] genius, which for over fifty years was a potent influence in the Maori life of the Waikato. For upwards of fifteen years the colony had been following with more or less exactitude the terms of the treaty, and during this time the State had exercised its power of pre-emption in a manner which the more enlightened Maoris now began to regard with disfavour. When Lord Normanby despatched Captain Hobson to found the colony he anticipated no opposition to the practice of buying land from the natives at a low price and selling it again to the colonists at a large advance on what the Crown had paid. For a time these anticipations were confirmed by results, but now the fathers of the race, jealous of the rapid increase of the Europeans, and alarmed at the equally rapid diminution of their lands, began to adopt a different view. Rather than part for a few shillings with property which they knew would be sold for as many pounds, they determined to exercise their right under the treaty, and refuse any longer to sanction the large transactions in which they had been engaged with the Crown.

Their eyes, too, had been opened by the Waitara war. Here a single individual had embroiled the whole of the Ngati-Awa tribe in a sanguinary conflict with the Government, by insisting upon selling land to which his title was contested. These unauthorised sales, said the chiefs, must cease, and no individual should, by his avarice, have the power to involve the people in war. To crystallise this determination into a practical act of statesmanship Wiremu Tamihana conceived the idea of a Maori King, who was to be, not antagonistic to, nor a substitute for the Queen, but the arbiter and judge in all internal disputes, as well as the mouthpiece as to land which the tribes as a whole were or were not prepared to sell. "I do not desire to cast the Queen from this Island, but from my piece of land. I am the person to overlook my piece" was how Wiremu Tamihana once publicly stated his attitude towards the Crown. The King movement was thus a Land League and not a rebellion, and as the Maoris had the right to withhold their land from sale if they so pleased, their adherence to this restrictive policy was no more illegal than the establishment of a Trades Union or a Political Association. The movement did not become militant until after the invasion of the Waitara by the British troops, when many of the Waikato natives rose in sympathy with Wiremu Kingi, and the battle followed them back to their gates. Then the authorities began to realise what a compelling truth there was in the maxim of Bishop Selwyn: "Nothing is easier than legally and peacefully to extinguish a native title; nothing is harder than to extinguish a native war."

Worsted, though not disgraced, in the field, the dissatisfied Maoris have since sought to secure the full measure of political justice to which they believe themselves entitled by more constitutional methods. Amongst their dreams has been a native Parliament sitting in the Treaty House, at Waitangi, to approve measures for the betterment of the race, which measures would be afterwards adopted by the Government and given the effect of law. This, however, has been nothing more than a dream. Little better was the _Kotahitanga_, or union, in 1892, of all the tribes in the north, exclusive of the Kingites who still remained loyal to their monarchal authority. The policy upon which this new union was founded was that of inducing the Government to cease purchasing native lands, and to set aside as a reserve for the benefit of the present and all future Maori generations the considerable areas of native land still unsold. Nor was this all. Legislation had been passed, not specially directed against, but not excepting the native race, placing restrictive conditions upon the oyster fisheries of the country, and this the leaders of the movement held to be a breach of the second clause of the treaty, which guaranteed to them not only the free use and control of their lands and their forests, but of their fisheries also. The deprivation of their right to freely gather food from the sea and the sea-shore was, together with other grievances, sufficient to galvanise them into political activity, and the _Kotahitanga_ was formed with the meteoric Hone Heke[193] at its head. The Native Rights Bill was introduced by him and rejected by Parliament, but the movement was not without its fruits, for in 1900 part of their purpose was achieved in the concessions made by the Government in the Native Land Administration Act and the Maori Councils Act.

With the accomplishment of these aims, and the early death of Heke, the _Kotahitanga_ has failed to preserve its former vitality; but brief as was its career, it must be recorded of it that in its inception and activities it was, as most Maori movements have been, not an organisation designed to aid in the evasion of the treaty, but rather to insist upon the due observance of its contracts.

Few Legislatures in the world have had a more difficult task than has fallen to the lot of that of New Zealand in legislating for the Maori so as to preserve his nationality, his rights, his liberties, and yet not bar the progress of the European state. That it has been embarrassed times without number by the treaty is undoubted, and therefore it is the more to its credit that the diplomatic bargain which has now held good for the better part of a century should have been so little violated. The treaty has been the broad foundation upon which the intricate structure of native legislation has been reared through all these years; and if there has ever been as there must have been under changing conditions trespass upon the strict letter of the compact, it is safe to assert that this variation has only occurred when Parliament has been honestly satisfied that the wider interests of the State as a whole demanded the departure. At no time has the Legislature been callously unmindful of the true spirit of the treaty, or careless of the great trust imposed upon it as the guardian of native rights.[194] This commendable endeavour to observe that "justice which is the paramount interest of all men and all Commonwealths" has finally led to a universal acceptance of the treaty by the native race as the basis of their civil and political privileges. So far is this the fact, that to-day the Maori is more insistent upon a due observance of its covenants than is the European. The present generation of natives accept it unquestioningly; and long before the "Old Guard" of objectors had passed away they, too, were beginning to realise that the sacrifice of their independence was more than compensated for by the protection of the British flag. They felt the irresistible sweep of the white tide that had surged upon their shores, and much as they might regret the passing of their ancient _mana_, they were compelled to acknowledge the force of truth in the figurative statement of their diminishing power once propounded to them by Mr. Busby: "How can the little pebble dam the stream? how can the single tree stand against the storm?"

[156] "One cannot but laud the moderation of the English Puritans who first established themselves in New England. Although provided with a charter from their Sovereign, they purchased of the savages the land they required to occupy. This praiseworthy example was followed by William Penn, and the colony of Quakers which he conducted into Pennsylvania."--Vattel.

[157] The real discoverer of New Zealand was probably a Polynesian.

[158] Stowell in his _Maori-English Tutor_ thus defines _mana_:

I speak of potency, the right To order things as I may deem; I, nothing wanting, have the might Which clothes authority supreme.

Surely as much power as is possessed by any crowned head, and more than is possessed by some.

[159] For some years after the treaty was signed the red blanket was considered amongst the Maoris the hall-mark of distinction, and no chief who had not received the "treaty blanket" was admitted to the select circle of their counsels.

[160] The Kohimarama Conference was summoned at Auckland in July 1860, by Governor Gore Browne, "to afford an opportunity of discussing with him various matters connected with the welfare and advancement of the two races dwelling in New Zealand." It was attended on the opening day by 112 chiefs from all parts of the country, and next to the meeting at Waitangi in 1840 is the most important native conference ever held.

[161] "When casuists afterwards strove to qualify the terms accorded to the Maoris, the words _tino rangatiratanga_ foiled them. _Tino_ is an intense expression of fulness, comprehension, and precision, and _rangatiratanga_ included all the rights of chieftainship."--Rusden.

[162] In 1841 a Mrs. Robertson, her two children, and a half-caste were murdered at the Bay of Islands by a native named Maketu. The case was heard at the first Criminal sitting of the Supreme Court in New Zealand, presided over by Chief-Justice Martin, and was watched with the keenest interest by the natives.

[163] Writing on this point to Lord Stanley in a letter dated Torquay, January 18, 1845, Lieutenant Shortland remarks: "I was present at the several meetings of the natives at Waitangi, Hokianga, and Kaitaia for the purpose of considering the treaty, and the impression on my mind at the time was, that the subject was fully understood by them, and they were quite aware of the nature of the transaction in which they were engaged. I was so impressed with this idea, and so struck with the shrewdness and intelligence of many of their remarks at the first meeting at Waitangi, that at the subsequent ones I noted down the speeches of the chiefs, which all serve to show that the natives not only understood the treaty, but that they were peculiarly sensitive with regard to every question affecting their lands."

[164] The question of the title to the lands claimed by the Nantes-Bordelaise Company was not dealt with by the New Zealand Land Claims Commissioners, and became the subject of protracted diplomatic negotiations with the French Government. Finally, in 1845, Lord Stanley directed the issue of a grant for 30,000 acres. This area was afterwards sold to the New Zealand Company, and on the surrender of its charter the unsold portion became the property of the Crown.

[165] These two vessels were crossing the line when Captain Hobson took possession of the North Island by virtue of the Treaty of Waitangi.

[166] _Vide_ his letter to Captain Lavaud, September 20, 1841.

[167] In his judgment in the case, Regina _v._ Symonds, delivered in 1847, the late Mr. Justice Chapman laid it down that the pre-emptive right to buy was not limited to the "first refusal," but consisted in the right to buy before all others: _i.e._ that the Crown enjoyed the exclusive right of extinguishing the native title.

[168] The Bill was passed on August 4. It enacted that all titles to land in New Zealand were to be absolutely null and void except such as were, or might be, allowed by the Queen. The Governor was to appoint commissioners to examine and report on all claims to grants of land which might be referred to them by him. They were to be guided by the real justice and good conscience of the case. Certain lands, those reserved for the site of a town or village, for purposes of defence, or any other public purpose, were not to be recommended by the Commissioners for grants, but compensation in the shape of other lands might be arranged. The claimant had to prove that he had made a purchase, and there was to be some relation between the quantity of land granted and the sum expended on its purchase, but as a general rule no claimant was to receive more than 2560 acres.

[169] Mr. Busby laid off a portion of his property on the bank of the Waitangi River as a township, which he dignified by the name of Victoria. Here he marked off streets, squares, and reserves for public buildings, the lots being sold to Sydney speculators and settlers at Kororareka at the rate of from £100 to £400 per acre. Over seventy years have elapsed since then, but the great city which was to be is still unsubstantial, rude boulders are its cathedrals, and the cabbage palms wave over its empty market-place.

[170] Despatch to Lord John Russell, August 16, 1840.

[171] Amongst these was Tu Hawaiki, the Otago chief, who afterwards signed the treaty at the request of Major Bunbury.

[172] "In consequence of the animadversions made by me in Council on this proceeding of Mr. Wentworth, and particularly of my having said that he had, in my opinion, exposed himself to a prosecution for a conspiracy, Mr. Wentworth has thought proper to resign his commission as a Magistrate, and (to use his own expression) to separate himself entirely from any official connection with my Government."--_Vide_ the above Despatch, August 16, 1840.

[173] "The more completely Lord Normanby admits the right of the chiefs to the sovereignty and soil of New Zealand the more fully must he rely on the third principle upon which I have said this Bill is founded, namely, that Englishmen cannot found colonies without the consent of the Crown, and can obtain no titles to lands in colonies but from the Crown."--Extract from Sir G. Gipps' speech.

[174] For a further exposition of this point the reader is referred to what has been called the "classic" judgment of the late Mr. Justice Chapman in Regina _v._ Symonds, 1847.

[175] In November 1840 Lord John Russell entered into an agreement with the Company, by which they were to become entitled to select out of the extensive domain claimed by them one acre for every 5s. they could prove they had expended upon colonisation in New Zealand. A Mr. Pennington, a London accountant, was appointed to discover what the Company's expenditure had been. He reported that they had expended, as far as could be ascertained, the sum of £200,000, which on the basis of the arrangement entered into would have entitled them to select, approximately, 1,000,000 acres. This the Company asserted to Lord Stanley was a final determination of their rights, and that they were _ipso facto_ entitled to the land. Lord Stanley, however, held that the Company still had to show that they had lawfully and equitably extinguished the native title over this area, and that for this purpose their land must come under investigation by the Commission. The correspondence is embodied in the Parliamentary papers of the period.

[176] Both sides of the Committee appear to have disregarded Major Bunbury's proceedings, not because they had no constitutional value, but probably because they were not sufficiently posted in the facts.

[177] In October 1845, Governor Fitzroy wrote to Lord Stanley: "I cannot believe that those most dangerous resolutions of the House of Commons (Committee) in 1844 respecting unoccupied land, can be adopted by Her Majesty's Government, but if such should be the fatal case, the native population will unite against the settlers and the destruction of the colony as a field for emigration must result."

[178] _Vide_ his letter to Archdeacon Henry Williams, November 11, 1845.

[179] Governor Hobson died at 12.15 A.M. on September 10, 1842, at Auckland. Amongst a large section of the Northern Maoris the belief was current that he had been _makutaed_ (bewitched) by an old _tohunga_ (priest) at a banquet, the _tohunga_ being instigated by the section of natives who were opposed to the treaty.

[180] In the previous debate Sir Robert had said: "If ever there was a case where the stronger party was obliged by its position to respect the demands of the weaker it was the engagements contracted under such circumstances with these native chiefs."

[181] _Vide_ his Ordinance of March 26, 1844. For an able justification of this measure the reader is referred to Mr. George Clarke's _Final Report_, 1846, the manuscript of which is in the Hocken Collection at Dunedin. The pre-emptive right was finally abrogated in the Native Land Act of 1862.

[182] _Vide_ his Despatch to Lord Stanley, December 10, 1845.

[183] In this he was further assisted by the fact that Mr. Hawes, who had been prominent with him in the interests of the New Zealand Company, became his Under-Secretary, and Mr. Buller became Lord-Advocate.

[184] For a critical analysis of Earl Grey's policy at this period, the reader is referred to L. A. Chamerovzow's work, _The New Zealand Question_, 1848.

[185] One writer declared that, "by Earl Grey's Constitution the humbug Treaty of Waitangi is very properly laid on the shelf." Another referred to it as "sweeping away all the Treaty of Waitangi nonsense."

[186] Te Wherowhero, who had refused to sign the Treaty of Waitangi, was greatly influenced by Governor Grey, and this petition is interesting as showing that the chief was beginning to recognise the sovereignty of the Queen as the accepted order of things.

[187] "As was anticipated, the chiefs would not enter into the treaty without the advice of their religious instructors. The Wesleyan chiefs said, in effect, to their Missionaries: 'We do not know the Queen of England, but we know you, and can trust you. If you say that the British Government speaks true about the land, we will believe you, for we know you will not deceive us.' The Society's Missionaries, understanding that the primary object of the British Government was to throw the shield of protection over the New Zealand people, and believing that the measure proposed was the best for preserving the natives from the evils by which they were threatened, could not hesitate to assure their people, that, when once the faith of the British Government was pledged, it would be maintained inviolate."--_Vide_ Wesleyan Mission Committee's Letter to Earl Grey, 1848.

[188] Correspondence between the Wesleyan Missionary Committee and the Right Hon. Earl Grey, 1848.

[189] In a letter received at the Mission House after the Committee's Memorial had been prepared, the Rev. Thomas Buddle, writing from Auckland, on July 3, 1847, remarked in reference to lands having no native claimants: "No such lands have yet been discovered in this Island. I question much whether there is an acre that has no owner." The testimony of other Missionaries in the same direction, was, the Committee asserted, "clear and express."

[190] It is instructive to observe that the treaty is no longer described as "what has been called the Treaty of Waitangi," as it was in Earl Grey's Despatch, but is now spoken of with respect by Mr. Merivale as "The Treaty of Waitangi."

[191] "I do not think it necessary or convenient to discuss with Mr. Swainson the justice or the policy of the course which the Queen has been advised to pursue. For the present purpose it is sufficient to say Her Majesty has pursued it. All the territories comprised within the Commissions for the Government of New Zealand, and all persons inhabiting those territories, are and must be considered as being to all intents and purposes within the dominions of the British Crown."--_Vide_ Lord Stanley's Despatch to Acting-Governor Shortland.

[192] William Thompson, son of Te Waharoa, known as the King-maker.

[193] A grand-nephew of the chief who led the war of 1845.

[194] The confiscation of Taranaki lands following upon the Waitara war might be held by some to be an exception to this rule, but that would depend upon the view taken of the justification for the war. The breaches of the treaty, real or alleged, which have occurred in connection with the Waitara war and since, have been vigorously stated by Mr. G. W. Rusden in his _Aureretanga_, published in 1888.

APPENDIX

The following petitions to the late Queen are interesting as being the more recent protests of the Maoris against what they regard as breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Memorandum and correspondence which follow may be taken as the official answers to the grievances as alleged in the petitions.

The subjoined judgment of the Chief Justice, and the extracts from the other judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal in the case of Tamihana Korokai, October 1912, are of value as affording us the most recent judicial interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi.

PETITION FROM MAORIS TO THE QUEEN

_The Earl of Kimberley to His Excellency Sir A. H. Gordon, G.C.M.G._

DOWNING STREET, _August 8, 1882_.

SIR--I have the honour to transmit to you, to be laid before your Government, a copy of a memorial to the Queen, which was handed to me by certain Maori chiefs, complaining of alleged breaches by the New Zealand Government of the Treaty of Waitangi, with a printed translation of the same, which I received in a letter from the Rev. P. Walsh of Parnell, Auckland. I also enclose a newspaper extract, which gives a brief but fairly accurate account of an interview which I held with these chiefs and several members of Parliament, and others who accompanied them on the occasion.

I request that you will lay these papers before your Government. You will invite them to favour me with any observations they may wish to make in regard to the memorial.--I have, etc.,

KIMBERLEY.

The Hon. Sir A. H. Gordon.

To Her Majesty VICTORIA, the Good Queen of England, and the Empress of India, Greeting.

Go forth, O our messenger, on the soft airs of affection to remote lands, across the ocean that was trodden by Tawhaki,[195] to Victoria, the Queen of England, whose fame for graciousness has extended to all the kingdoms of the world, including New Zealand. O Mother, the receiver of the sentiments of the great peoples and the small peoples under the shade of your authority, Salutations! May the Almighty preserve you on your Throne, and may men applaud you for your goodness to your peoples living in these Islands, who are continually directing their eyes toward you, the mother who is venerated by them.

O Mother, the Queen! on account of the desire to protect these Islands, your father sent hither, in 1840, Captain Hobson. At that time the enlightened administration of England was discovered by us, and the Maori chiefs came to the conclusion that England, in preference to other countries, should be the protector of New Zealand--to protect and cherish the Maori tribes of New Zealand. The conclusion brought about the treaty of Waitangi, and the appointment of the first Governor, Captain Hobson.

In consequence of the ignorance of some tribes, including Hone Heke, the flagstaff was cut down at Maiki, Bay of Islands, for the tribes in question imagined that the flag was the symbol of land confiscation. Nevertheless, there was no blood in the flagstaff which had been cut down, making it needful to raise armies to fight the Maoris. If the Native chiefs had been summoned to a conference at that time, and matters had been explained to them, there would have been no war; but the Europeans flew as birds to make war against Heke, which brought about the blood-shedding of both Europeans and Maoris.

In the year 1860 another evil was brought upon the Maori tribes by the Governor himself, who, without any grounds, drove Wiremu Kingi from his own lands at Waitara, and this war about land renewed the shedding of both European and Maori blood. On this occasion, O Mother, the Queen! the grievous lamentation of this Island was raised, and you recalled, in consequence, Governor Gore-Browne, whose administration closed here. It was said by the Europeans that William King did wrong in opposing the Governor; that if William King and party had appealed to the Supreme Court, the Government act in that case would have been condemned. Hence the knowledge of the Taranaki tribes taking up that opinion, and retaining it up to the capture of Te Whiti and others, who did not oppose in fight the Government when it went with an army to Parihaka, to enkindle Maori strife, thereby endeavouring to find a basis to make the Maoris do wrong, and then confiscate their lands.

In the year 1862, you, O Queen, sent hither Governor Grey to calm down the rain and the wind,[196] so that the sea of both races should be still. Governor Grey possessed much wisdom: he understands the Maori language, also the Maori customs. Notwithstanding, when he came the second time as Governor of these Islands, he rushed hastily away to Taranaki, and gave instructions for road-making on Maori territory, thereby bringing about a war and the slaying of many of both races. In the year 1863 the war was carried into Waikato, and the Maoris throughout the Island were unaware as to the reason why war had been made on the Waikato. Now, O Queen, the Waikatos had formed a land league, in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi, to preserve their native authority over the land, which principle is embodied in the treaty.

O, the Queen! you do not consider that act of retaining their land to be unjust; but the Government of New Zealand held it to be wrong, inasmuch as war was declared against the Waikatos, and the confiscation of their land followed, although the Waikatos had no desire to fight--the desire came from the Governor and his council. When the Waikatos were overpowered, armies of soldiers went forth to engender strife against the Maoris at Tauranga, at Te Awa-o-te Atua at Whakatana, at Ohiwa, at Opotiki, at Turanganui, at Ahuriri, at Whanganui, at Waimate, and various other places. The motive impelling the projectors of these deeds to execute this work was a desire to confiscate the Maori lands, and to trample under the soles of their feet the Treaty of Waitangi. While these proceedings were being carried out, the weeping people wept, the lamenting people lamented, the agonised people were in agony, the saddened people were in sadness, while they held the Treaty of Waitangi as a basis on which the voice of the Maoris could be made known to you, O Queen.

But the people of New Zealand declared that the fighting and the confiscation of land which brought calamity, and made your Maori children orphans, were sanctioned by you, O Queen. We did not believe the utterances of the Europeans as to the wrongs we suffered, that they were brought upon us by your queenly authority; but our decision was that such acts were not sanctioned by you, O Queen, whose benevolence towards the Maori people is well known. The disorderly work referred to has been carried into practice, so that a path might be opened up to Europeans to seize Maori lands.

In the year 1881, a new plan was devised by the Government to enkindle strife in respect to the Maoris. Armies were sent to Parihaka to capture innocent men that they might be lodged in prison; to seize their property and their money, to destroy their growing crops, to break down their houses, and commit other deeds of injustice. We pored over the Treaty of Waitangi to find the grounds on which these evil proceedings of the Government of New Zealand rested, but we could find none. Some of the European inhabitants of this Island disapproved of these injurious doings to Maori men; and it was vaguely rumoured that Sir Arthur Gordon, the Governor, refused to approve of these acts. Many other evils have been discovered by our hearts, therefore have we considered right, O Mother, the Queen, to pray that you will not permit increased evils to come upon your Maori children in New Zealand, but to graciously sanction the appointment of a Royal English Commission to abrogate the evil laws affecting the Maori people, and to establish a Maori Parliament, which shall hold in check the European authorities who are endeavouring to set aside the Treaty of Waitangi; to put a bridle also in the mouth of Ministers for Native Affairs who may act as Ministers have done at Parihaka, so that all may be brought back to obey your laws; and to prevent the continued wrongs of land matters which are troubling the Maori people through days and years; and to restore to the Maoris those lands which have been wrongfully confiscated according to the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi; and to draw forth from beneath the many unauthorized acts of the New Zealand Parliament the concealed treaty, that it may now assert its own dignity.

In this year, 1881, we, O the Queen, built a House of Assembly at the Bay of Islands, and the great symbol therein is a stone memorial, on which has been engraved the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, so that eyes may look thereon from year to year. Two invitations were sent to the Governor, requesting him to unveil the stone Treaty Memorial. He did not accede to the request. Perhaps his disinclination arose from the fact that the Europeans had disregarded the principles embodied in the treaty, because in you, O Queen, is vested the sole authority affecting the Waitangi Treaty. Should you authorize, O Mother, the Queen, the appointment in England of a Royal English Commission, under your queenly seal, to investigate the wrongdoings of both races, then will you rightly be informed, O Mother, as to what is just and what is false.

It is believed by us, O Queen, that you have no knowledge as to the deeds of wrong that gave us so much pain, and which create lamentation among the tribes; but if, in your graciousness, a Maori Parliament is set up, you will, O Queen, be enabled clearly to determine what is right and what is wrong, what is evil and what is good, in the administrations of the two races in these Islands.

O Mother, the Queen, there are no expressions of disaffection towards you by the Maori tribes, including the tribes of the King; but they revere, only revere your Majesty; and the search after you, O Queen, has induced us to send this petition to England by the hands of the persons appointed by our Committee, who will see your very countenance and hear your words.

O Mother, the Queen, do not suppose that the sufferings under which we labour are light. Many wrongs are felt by various tribes, but the following are some which have come under our own notice:--(1) The fighting between the Maoris and the New Zealand Company in the year 1841-42 was brought about by land disputes, and Mr. Wakefield fell in the strife. (2) The war against Te Rangihaeata in the year 1842-1843: a land dispute also was the origin; and some of Rangihaeata's people were wrongly executed, their deaths being opposed to the English law, and contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. (3) The war against Heke and Kawiti in 1844-45, caused by land sales and the withholding of the anchorage money at Bay of Islands, was contrary to the second article of the Treaty of Waitangi. (4) The fighting between the chiefs Te Hapuku and Te Moananui in 1848-1849 brought about by land purchasing on behalf of the Government. (5) The war against Wiremu Kingi on account of the block of land named Waitara, at Taranaki. (6) The war against the Waikatos in 1863, extending to the year 1870. (7) The fight among the Ngatitautahi tribe in 1879, four Natives killed, the strife being occasioned by the land purchases of Government, a portion of £700,000 having been scattered over our lands by Government Agents in 1875. (8) The capture of two hundred innocent men of Te Whiti in 1879-81. (9) The incarceration of Te Whiti and his people in 1881-82, who were guiltless of any crime.

The following, O Queen, are references to New Zealand Ordinances put forth and said to be against the principles contained in the Treaty of Waitangi: (1) The making of unauthorized laws relating to Maori lands--namely, the Land Acts of 1862, 1865, 1873, 1880--which Acts were not assented to by the Native chiefs in all parts of the Island. Nor is there any basis in the Treaty of Waitangi for these laws, which continuously bring upon our lands and upon our persons great wrongs. (2) The Immigration and Public Works Act, and the borrowing of £700,000 expended here and there to confuse the Maoris and their titles to land.

O Mother, the Queen, these other things, and many of the laws that are being carried into effect are, according to Maori ideas, very unjust, creating disorder amongst us, giving us heart-pangs and sadness of spirit to your Maori children, who are ever looking towards you, most gracious Queen; and it is averred by men of wisdom that these matters which weigh so heavily upon us are in opposition to the great and excellent principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

May you be in health, O Mother, the Queen! May the Almighty bring down upon you, upon your family, and upon the whole of your people the exalted goodness of Heaven, even up to the termination of your sojourn in this world, and in your inheritance in the home of sacred rest!

May you live, is the prayer of your children in the Island of New Zealand.

PARORE TE AWHA, HARE HONGI HIKA, MAIHI PARAONE KAWITI, KINGI HORI KIRA, MANGONUI REWA, HIRINI TAIWHANGA, WIREMU PUHI TE HIHI, HAKENA PARORE.

For the Native people of New Zealand.

MAORI CHIEFS IN LONDON

Yesterday afternoon, a deputation of Maori chiefs, accompanied by numerous friends of the Aborigines' Protection Society, waited upon the Earl of Kimberley (Secretary of State for the Colonies) at the Colonial Office, for the purpose of seeking redress of grievances under which Native tribes, it is alleged, suffer in New Zealand. The Maori chiefs, three in number, were attired in English dress. They appeared intelligent men, one of them having his face much tattooed. Their names were Wiremu Puhi te Hihi, Hirini Taiwhanga, and Hakena Parore. There were present Sir T. Fowell Buxton; Mr. W. H. James, M.P.; Mr. T. Fry, M.P.; Sir Wilfred Lawson, M.P.; Sir D. Wedderburn, M.P.; Mr. W. Rathbone, M.P.; Mr. A. M'Arthur, M.P.; Mr. Alderman Fowler, M.P.; Mr. Brogden, M.P.; Mr. Cropper, M.P.; Mr. Thomasson, M.P.; the Bishop of Nelson, the Rev. T. Grace (late of New Zealand), Mr. Froome Talfourd, Mr. C. Hancock, Mr. W. Wilson, Mr. G. W. Rusden, Mr. Da Costa, Mr. F. W. Chesson (Secretary of the Aborigines' Protection Society).

Mr. F. W. Chesson read a letter from Bishop Abraham (the late Bishop of Wellington) in which he stated that in 1852, Sir John Packington, being the Colonial Minister, framed a Constitution for New Zealand absolutely ignoring the 60,000 Natives, who then outnumbered the English, and who were by the Treaty of Waitangi proclaimed to be as much subjects of the Queen as the English. No Native could vote unless he chanced to have a Crown grant, which only a very few had, and this was a direct violation of the treaty. It was not till about the year 1865 that four or five Natives were admitted into the Houses of Parliament.

The Bishop of Nelson then explained the objects the deputation had in view. He said the three Maori chiefs present had brought with them a petition to the Queen, signed by Native chiefs, asking for the investigation and redress of grievances under which they laboured, and they were desirous of presenting it to Her Majesty, at the same time requesting the acceptance of some presents, according to the Maori custom. They complained of the incarceration of Te Whiti and his people, who, it was alleged, were guiltless of any crime, and also that the reserve of land promised had not been properly secured to them. The treatment of Te Whiti was the more extraordinary considering how much had been condoned in the case of disloyal Natives, while throughout the whole of the disturbances he had never been in arms against the Government, but had prevented war, in the full confidence that his legal position and claim would be gone into.

The petition addressed to "The Good Queen of England and the Empress of India," and which saluted Her Majesty, "whose fame for graciousness had extended to all the nations of the world," as Mother of the Maori tribes, was then handed to Lord Kimberley.

Lord Kimberley asked whether the petition had been presented to the Governor or the Government of New Zealand.

The Bishop of Nelson--"I think it has not been so presented."

Lord Kimberley pointed out that the memorial ought to have been presented to the Governor and the Government of New Zealand in the first instance, in order to enable him to have their views on the question; and he remarked that under the present circumstances he could give no definite answer to the petition.

The three Maori chiefs then spoke in their own language, their statements being interpreted by the Rev. Mr. Grace. One of the chiefs (Hirini Taiwhanga) apparently understood a little English, although declining to converse in that tongue. Firstly, they complained that the Treaty of Waitangi had not been upheld, and urged that it should be maintained, and the English and Native races governed according to it; secondly, they desired that steps should be taken to unite more closely the English and the Native race, instead of the latter being treated by the former as a horse treated his enemy--kicking him away; and, thirdly, they were much concerned at the treatment to which their fellow-countryman, Te Whiti, was subjected, and they wished him to be set at liberty.

In reply to a question put by Lord Kimberley as to the reason why the petition had not been presented to the New Zealand Government--

Wiremu Puhi te Hihi said the omission was due to the haste the chiefs made to present the Petition to the Queen, as they had heard reports that her life had been attempted by assassins. He added that he was perfectly aware that Her Majesty had given the New Zealand Government power to deal with its domestic affairs, but he thought the Government at New Zealand had not acted as the Queen would have done under similar circumstances. He further stated that the Native grievances extended throughout the Island.

Lord Kimberley requested the interpreter to tell the chiefs that to pass over the Colonial Government, and to endeavour to induce the Imperial Government to act independently, would not tend to the union of the English and Native races.

One of the chiefs (Hakena Parore) said the chiefs had no wish to ignore the New Zealand Government, and they were doing their utmost to diminish drunkenness among the Native tribes by means of total abstinence societies.

Mr. Wilfrid Wilson (of New Zealand) said there was reason to believe that some of the Native chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi were not the owners of land, and there was a large number of chiefs who owned land that did not sign the treaty.

Sir T. Fowell Buxton, having observed that a good deal might turn on the question whether the treaty was obsolete or not--

Lord Kimberley said the treaty was very simple, and provided that the possession of land was to be respected. It was not the duty of the Colonial Office to advise the Queen in reference to local matters like the present. The management of the land of New Zealand was absolutely handed over to the New Zealand Government, and the Queen was advised by the Ministers of the colony with regard to these matters, and not by himself, as there could not be two governments for one country. It had been decided, as more likely to conduce to the peace of the country, that the affairs of New Zealand should be managed at the colony rather than in Downing Street. He had a strong conviction that the course was right. The question now raised by the deputation appeared to be connected with confiscations arising out of wars, and the treaty would not be concerned in such confiscations, but the point was whether they were just. Having received the petition, he should transmit it to the Colonial Government, and ask them to state their views with regard to it. It might be thought desirable to issue another Royal Commission, but that step rested with the Colonial Government.

At the request of His Lordship, the Interpreter told the chiefs that the Queen took a great interest in the welfare of the Native population of New Zealand, and it was a matter of great satisfaction to Her Majesty that of late years there had been no wars or bloodshed between the two races, which was a happy omen for the future.

The deputation then retired.

_The Premier to His Excellency the Administrator_

Ministers have had under consideration the despatch from the Secretary of State, dated the 8th August last, enclosing copy of a memorial to the Queen from certain Maori chiefs of New Zealand, and inviting this Government to favour him with any observations they may wish to make thereupon.

The memorial professes to be signed "For the Native people of New Zealand." After full enquiry, Ministers have ascertained that but few Maoris were aware that such a memorial was to be presented; and that several of those who knew what was intended have no sympathy with the proceedings of Hirini Taiwhanga, from whom the memorial emanated.

Taiwhanga belongs to Nga-Puhi, the principal tribe in the northern part of the North Island. He is not a man of any rank; and he has no importance beyond what he has gained in consequence of his abilities and education. As an intelligent boy, he was educated under the direction of the late Bishop Selwyn; and, subsequently it being desired to push forward Native youths of promise, he was after due instruction appointed by the Government a licensed surveyor. The appointment was not a success; and in June 1872, his license was revoked, in consequence of malpractices, reported by the Inspector of Surveys and two Judges of the Native Land Court.

The Government had for several years been making efforts to establish schools in Native districts for the education of Maori children, and in 1877 Taiwhanga was appointed master of such a school at his native settlement Kaikohe. His remuneration was a capitation allowance; but his conduct in this position was so bad that the school had to be broken up. He neglected his work, absented himself from the school and from the settlement, and, by rendering grossly false returns of the number of children attending the school, he obtained money not due to him for capitation. Taiwhanga's conduct in other transactions has been equally open to condemnation.

The other two members of the deputation also belong to Nga-Puhi. One is a grandson and the other a nephew of Parore, a Nga-Puhi chief of high family and of great respectability. He is upwards of ninety years of age, and was induced by Taiwhanga to provide the money to take his relatives as a deputation to England to see the Queen. The men themselves are respectable, but have not taken a leading position in their tribe.

The only object in giving these particulars is to enable the Secretary of State to form an opinion as to the weight that should attach to the statements and proceedings of the deputation.

With regard to the "wrongs" detailed in the memorial, Ministers desire to point out that the first six have reference to transactions during the time Native affairs in New Zealand were under the control and management of the Imperial Government, through their officer, the Governor of the colony. A full history of these transactions will no doubt be found in the Parliamentary papers, Imperial and Colonial, in the Colonial Office; and on reference to such papers, it will be seen how little reason the Maoris have to complain.

The "wrong" standing as No. 7 in the memorial, has relation to a dispute between two tribes in reference to land, with which the Government of the colony had no connection, and for which they were not in any way responsible.

Nos. 8 and 9 refer to recent transactions, for which the Colonial Government were entirely responsible. A full account, and the justification of the Government's conduct, will be found in the documents from time to time transmitted through the Governor to the Secretary of State.

The special legislation referred to in the memorial as "unauthorised laws relating to Maori lands ... not assented to by the Native chiefs in all parts of the Island," and as having no "basis in the Treaty of Waitangi," is not restrictive but enabling. The object of the Native Land Acts enumerated was to provide a special tribunal for the determination of Native title; to relieve the Maori owners from the monopoly held by the Government; and to enable them to sell their lands to whomsoever they pleased. In no way are the provisions of the Acts compulsory. The Maoris were and are at liberty to avail themselves of the powers conferred, or to abstain from doing so, at their pleasure.

It may be stated that, with the exception of lands confiscated for rebellion, no land whatever has been taken from the Maoris by the Government. With the exception stated, all lands acquired from Natives by Government have been acquired from willing sellers, and fully paid for. The £700,000 referred to has been paid to them, besides other large sums, for what was to them unprofitable waste.

The general legislation of the colony as to the Maoris has been more than just--it has been exceptionally favourable to them. When laws have been made applicable to the people of the colony, the object has in many instances been to except the Maoris from their stringency; and there is no instance in which they have been placed in a less favourable position than the European population. Of the many laws on the statute-book of the colony which bear out this statement, one illustration may be mentioned: the Maoris are specially exempted from all direct taxes on both real and personal property.

It may, indeed, with confidence be asserted generally that there is not, and has not been, anything on the statute-book of the colony, or in the conduct of the Colonial Legislature, as regards the Maoris, to which reasonable exception can be taken.

FRED WHITAKER.

WELLINGTON, _December 12, 1882._

_His Excellency the Administrator to the Secretary of State for the Colonies_

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, WELLINGTON, _December 16, 1882_.

MY LORD--With reference to Your Lordship's despatch, No. 33, of 8th August 1882, transmitting a copy of a memorial to the Queen from certain Maori chiefs of New Zealand, and enclosing a newspaper extract giving an account of an interview held by Your Lordship with those chiefs, and several Members of Parliament and others, I have the honour to enclose a memorial from the Prime Minister, Mr. Whitaker, which he has forwarded to me in consequence of the invitation to him to make observations on the memorial, which invitation was conveyed to him by Your Lordship's directions, as already stated in my despatch, No. 88, of November 5, 1882.--I have, etc.

JAMES PRENDERGAST.

The Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

_The Secretary of State for the Colonies to His Excellency the Governor_

COLONIAL OFFICE, DOWNING STREET, _February 17, 1883_.

SIR--I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 102, of the 16th December last, transmitting a memorandum from the Prime Minister, Mr. Whitaker, on the subject of a memorial placed in the hands of my predecessor, by certain Maori chiefs of New Zealand for presentation to the Queen, complaining of alleged breaches by the New Zealand Government of the Treaty of Waitangi, and praying for the appointment of a Royal Commission in connection with the laws of the colony affecting the Maoris, and for the establishment of a Maori Parliament.

Having given these papers my attentive consideration, I request that you will cause the petitioners to be informed that their petition, which has now been reported on by the Colonial Government, has been laid before the Queen, who was pleased to receive it very graciously; but that I have been unable to advise Her Majesty to give any directions for a compliance with the prayer of the memorialists.--I have, etc.

DERBY.

The Officer administering the Government of New Zealand.

_The Native Office to Parore te Awha and others_

(Translation)

NATIVE OFFICE, WELLINGTON, _April 17, 1883_.

FRIENDS--In reference to the petition which you and certain other Natives have addressed to Her Majesty the Queen, complaining of alleged breaches by the New Zealand Government of the Treaty of Waitangi, and praying for the appointment of a Royal Commission in connection with the laws of the colony affecting the Maoris, and for the establishment of a Maori Parliament, I am instructed to acquaint you that His Excellency the Governor has received a despatch, bearing date 17th February from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, upon the subject of your petition.

In his despatch, Lord Derby requests that you should be informed that the petition, which has been reported on by the Colonial Government, has been laid before the Queen, who was pleased to receive it very graciously. He further says that he has been unable to advise Her Majesty to give any directions for a compliance with the prayer of the memorialists.

From your friend, W. J. MORPETH (In the absence of Mr. Lewis).

To Parore te Awha and Hirini Taiwhanga, Kaihu, Kaipara.

_Parore te Awha to the Native Office_

(Translation)

HOUHANGA, DARGAVILLE, _April 25, 1883_.

TO MR. MORPETH--Friend, greeting! I have received your letter acquainting me with the result of the petition taken by Wiremu Reweti te Puhi, Hihi Parore, Hirini Rawiri Taiwhanga, and Hakena te Parore to England. I myself sent those persons to England to lay our grievances before the Queen--that is, before all her governing power--because all the grievances that we, the Maoris, suffer from arise from the colony of New Zealand; hence our petition for the establishment of a Native Parliament in New Zealand. It was not done with the object of trampling on the authority of the Government of New Zealand. No! but we think that the Queen's authority should be exercised directly over us. We, the Maori people, are entirely subject to the authority of our most gracious Queen Victoria. The leading people in England say that it is the Europeans of New Zealand who oppress the Maori people. Well then, friend, do you write to me on the receipt of this letter. May God protect us both.--From your sincere Friend,

PARORE TE AWHA.

MEMORIAL OF TAWHIAO AND OTHERS TO THE QUEEN

_The Right Hon. the Earl of Derby to Sir W. F. D. Jervois_

DOWNING STREET, _August 9, 1884_.

SIR--I have the honour to transmit to you a copy of the memorial which has been presented to me by the Maori chiefs now in this country.

I understand that it is contended, in support of the action taken by the Maori chiefs in making this appeal to the Imperial Government, that the powers granted to the Queen by section 71 of the New Zealand Constitution Act, 15 and 16 Vict. cap. 72, are still in full force, and that Her Majesty may properly be invited to provide by letters patent that the laws enacted by the Legislature of the colony should not extend to the Native territory; and that the Native laws, customs, and usages, modified as might be thought desirable, should prevail therein, to the exclusion of all other laws.

I shall be glad to receive the observations of your Government on this point, and also any statements which they may desire to make respecting the matters referred to in the memorial.--I have, etc.

DERBY.

Governor Sir W. Jervois, G.C.M.G., C.B., etc.

ENCLOSURE (Confidential)

Salutations!--May the Queen and her family long live! May her Government and the people of England live! May God protect you!

This is an address from the Maori chiefs to the people of England. Strangers landed on a strange land:

We, the Maori chiefs of New Zealand, have come to this distant land into your presence, on account of the great disaster which has overtaken your Maori race, which is beloved by the Queen and the people of England. Accordingly we have now swum the Ocean of Kiwa, which lies between us, and have reached England in safety, the source and fountain of authority, to the place where the Queen lives, that she may redress the ills of the Maori race inflicted on them by the Government of New Zealand, who have not directed their attention to right those wrongs up to the present time, and those wrongs are still being committed; nor is it because the Maoris are adhering to evil practices, and so causing trouble between the two races; and therefore, owing to this continued inattention of the Government, this is presented as an appeal to the highest authority. And because there was a tender regard displayed by the Queen to her Maori race, as shown in the Treaty of Waitangi, therefore it is well that those contracts and these ills should be brought before you for your consideration.

Firstly, the words of the Queen were, that Victoria, Queen of England, in her kind regard to the chiefs and the tribes of New Zealand, secured that their rights of chieftainship and their lands should be established to them, and that peace should be made with them.

Secondly, that the Queen of England shall order and consent that the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand preserve their chieftainships, their lands, their villages, their forests, and their fisheries.

Thirdly, that the Government of the Queen shall consent and order that the Queen shall protect the Maoris of New Zealand, and shall give them her laws in like manner as they are given to the people of England.

But these contracts have been trampled upon by the Government without exception. The first case of the Government purchasing land was in the year 1855. They paid a deposit for lands to some tribes without knowing whether the lands belonged to them, and much land in the Waikato, Hawke's Bay, and other places was bought in this manner; and in consequence the Maoris drew a boundary at the Mangatawhiri River, to separate the ground still held by the Maoris, and set up a head, namely, Potatau[197]--of the Maori people, who should prevent disputes between the Natives who sold and those who retained their lands, always acknowledging the supremacy of the Queen; and this provision was made over all lands throughout Taranaki, Taupo, and other parts.

In the year 1858 the Government purchased Waitara from Te Teira, Wiremu Kingi, the paramount chief of that tribe, prohibiting the sale; but the Government sanctioned the purchase from Te Teira. Wiremu Kingi drove off the surveyors, and the Government waged war throughout Taranaki and confiscated the land.

In the year 1863 a proclamation was issued by the Government that all the Natives adhering to the resolve not to part with their lands should retire across the boundary-line at Mangatawhiri; they went and the Government followed them across the boundary and fought them. Another Proclamation from the Government declared that the Waikato chiefs adhering to the Queen should aid General Cameron, and that the Government would protect their persons, their lands, and their property. Te Wheoro and his tribe aided General Cameron up to the very last, but their lands (amounting to about 200,000 acres) and property were confiscated, and a very little portion of the land was returned; the bulk was sold by the Government to the English, and up to the present day no compensation has been made. For the property destroyed the Court ordered compensation to be made; but the Government refused to comply.

The question of the lands thus seized was laid before the Committee of Maori Affairs of the House of Parliament in the year 1879, and again in the years 1880 and 1881, and the unanimous reply was made that the Government should specially appoint a Commission to investigate that seizure; but the Government refused to accede to this proposal.

On the seizure of the lands at Taranaki in the year 1863, a law was made that seven years were to be allowed for the Government to place settlers on the land, but failing to do so within that time, that the land should revert to the Maoris. The year 1870 arrived, and the Government had failed to settle the land, and the land was returned by the Native Minister, Donald M'Lean, who said that the Government should purchase the land at 5s. or 7s. per acre; but the Government did not purchase it.

In the year 1879 the Government began to seize the land without any pretext, arrested Te Whiti and party in their homes, destroyed their houses, rooted up their crops, and removed their goods, surveyed the land, put it into the market, and it was bought by the English, and very small portions were returned to the Natives. For twelve months Te Whiti and party were imprisoned and were never tried; they were then released, but are still under some restraining law of the Government.

When the lands in the South Island were bought by a Commission from the Queen the Commission stipulated that, on the Maoris consenting to the conditions, the villages, the fisheries, and one acre in every ten should be reserved to the Maoris, and to this the Maoris agreed; but on the completion of the sale the conditions were and have been disallowed down to the present time. A Commission was instituted in the year 1879; but the Government was not pleased to give effect to its awards.

Respecting the land at Kawhia. Before the establishment of the Government some Europeans resided at Kawhia; the Maoris allowed their residence for the purpose of trade, and rent was paid to the Natives by these Europeans; the Maoris in ignorance signed their names, and, as they paid for the goods received, were unaware that their names were obtained for a purpose. On arrival of fresh Europeans the lands were sold to the new arrivals, and these demanded a Crown grant from the Government, which was granted, though the Maoris were kept in ignorance of the transaction: and thus the Government dealt with the ground and ultimately bought it for themselves, and not until it was being surveyed were the Maoris aware that their land was alienated. Nor did the Government enquire of the Maoris whether the claims of the Europeans were just, and the Maoris condemned the transaction.

The Government submitted a Bill to Parliament to authorise them to put the land into the market, and the Bill was passed by the Parliament, the Maori members dissenting, and submitting a letter to the Governor, asking him to withhold his consent to the Bill, and the letter was forwarded to the Queen. In the year 1883 the land was thrown into the market by the Government, and the Kawhia River was buoyed; the Maoris then gathered together to prevent this, and Tawhiao[198] said to the Government, through the Native Minister, Mr. Bryce, "Let the staking of the river be done by him." But Mr. Bryce refused, and all the land was surveyed by the Government, and soldiers were placed on the land of the King, and works were pushed forward on the King's land, and the Government said that they, acting with Rewi and party, should decide the boundary of the King's land, to which Rewi and party agreed. When that was settled the Government commenced operations, not confining themselves to what was agreed upon, at which Rewi severed himself from any further connection with the operations of the Government, when he saw that the King party suffered loss; and this is an example of the conduct of the Government in all their transactions in Maori matters.

The Native Land Court was instituted in the year 1866 by the Government, and that measure for dealing with Maori lands was adopted in order to destroy the rights of the Maoris over their own land, rights secured to them by the Queen in the Treaty of Waitangi.

A fresh rule was thus established, by which the Court had full powers, its authority was entirely in European hands, and the Maoris were denied all authority. It was established that ten persons were to be allowed claims over any section of ground, the majority were to rest satisfied with no land to live on, and the lands were ultimately alienated by purchase. Another rule was set up by the Court, that if the claimants failed to present themselves to the Court the land should be handed over to others, and thus the lands were sold, including the lands, the homesteads, and the plantations, and the real owners of the land were left destitute. When the Maori race asked that they might be allowed to deal with their own lands by means of their own committees, the Government declined. In cases where Europeans purchased land from Maoris who received money for lands not theirs, the purchase thus made was established to the purchasers. Assessors were, indeed, appointed for the Court, but they had no power to say anything with regard to the lands dealt with by the Court. Te Wheoro was the first Assessor thus summoned in the year 1866; but when he saw these faults he left it in the year 1872.

The rights of the chiefs over their own lands were disallowed by the Government, and the positions of the chiefs, in accordance with their Maori customs, was swept away; for the chiefs had the power to secure the land for themselves and their tribes, lest the land and the persons should be lost (by other tribes seizing it) and their rights were reduced to an equality with ordinary persons, and their words were allowed no weight in retaining their land or in directing the affairs of their own tribes: but the Government gave the rights of ruling to all kinds of persons, and the ruling of these persons, possessing no tribal rights in the eyes of the race itself, was authorised, the Government merely regarding their own appointments in respect to these lands; and thus the Government were able to set aside and ignore the chiefs.

Maori Assessors were appointed by the Government to rule their own Maori race; only they had no powers. All powers of establishing and directing were retained by the Government, and even this is now being set aside.

Maori representatives were established by the Government, but a prohibitive rule was made by which the number of members were limited to four, and, though the Maoris demanded a representation proportionate to their numbers, this has been refused by the Government up to the present time; and these members have only nominal power and are unable to redress the Maori wrongs, and yet the Europeans have only an equal status with the Maoris. The commission charged by the Government on the monies paid for Maori lands, whether sold or leased, exceeds 25 per cent.

The payments arising from gold-bearing lands--_i.e._ 10s. per miner's right, and duties on goods--are taken by the Government, and none are returned to the Maori race, nor are the Maoris allowed any voice in directing these taxes; all are taken by the Government for the benefit of the Europeans, and the Maoris are left out of all consideration; and the result of all this is that the Government have taken the lands, the persons, and the rights of the Maori; the Maoris still lay claim to their rights, and this has been a cause of trouble, and troubles have also come on other Europeans, as happened at Marunui and other places throughout the whole Island, all from these acts of the Government. A Commission sat to investigate these wrongs at Napier. Te Wheoro, another Maori, and two Europeans sat, but the Europeans and the Maoris failed to agree, no decision was arrived at, and the lands were lost, and the Maoris, frightened at such dealings, retired to a remnant of the land of their ancestors in the King Country, and yet they are being even now pursued.

Te Wheoro rose in the Parliament of 1880, and, addressing the Government, asked them to give to the Maoris the office of Minister of Maori Affairs, then filled by Mr. Bryce, inasmuch as it was a post for the Maoris, and yet Europeans alone filled the office, though Maori names were mentioned for the office; and this is a wrong done to the Maoris, inasmuch as the Queen had given them rights. Mr. Bryce replied that the office should never belong to the Maoris.

Therefore we and our race have determined, and to us, the representatives of the tribes of New Zealand, has been assigned the work of crossing the ocean and of bringing our wrongs to the Queen and people of England, in whose hands lay the words of life and death, that they should send and give to the Maori race laws whereby they may live, like as our friends the Europeans who sent and asked to have a Parliament of their own, and which was agreed to by the Queen; the Maoris remaining in ignorance that their friends (the Europeans) had asked for a Parliament subsequent to the Treaty of Waitangi.

Therefore we pray for our Maori race that our Queen may cherish us, that she may accede to this our prayer, and grant to us, her Maori race, these humble requests. And firstly, that you will resolutely consent to grant a Government to your Maori subjects, to those who are living on their own lands or those of their ancestors, and within the limits of Maori territory, that they may have power to make laws regarding their own lands and race, lest they perish by the ills which have come upon them; that they may be empowered so to direct themselves and their own lands lest they be altogether destroyed by the practices of the Government, unknown and not evident to the Maoris; and that also the Maoris possessing lands contiguous to the Europeans should have those lands brought under the direction of the said Maori Government, for there are many tribes who thus own land, and which they will not long hold unless thus brought under Maori Government; and these Maoris are those who are suffering most at the present time, and they will be unable to save themselves unless some such means are taken for their preservation.

Secondly, that the Queen and her Government consent to the appointment of a Maori Commissioner, appointed by the Queen, one of the Maori race, one adhering to the Queen, an upright man, who shall act as mediator between the Maori and European races in matters touching the leasing and selling of the lands of your Maori subjects, who shall investigate the laws made by the Maori Government, make them feasible, and to write his opinion to your Governor and to you also for your confirmation, lest the Maori legislation be at variance with that of the Government, and lest the Maori should fail to carry out the laws of the Government respecting them.

Thirdly, that the greater portion of the taxes levied on your Maori subjects be returned to them, to enable them to carry on their Government, granted by you to your Maori subjects, in those parts which are Maori territory.

Fourthly, that the European Judges in the Native Land Court be superseded, and that your Maori race be then permitted to direct their own affairs in that Court; that they may be empowered to appoint their own Judges over their own lands, lest they be all lost by the present doings of the Court; that they may be able to deal with these lands in accordance with their own customs, apportioning to each tribe their share, and, having made all ready for leasing or selling, to submit all rulings to the Commissioner appointed by you, that he may look into the whole affair and see that no injurious effects come upon the Maori, and then he is to submit all to your Governor for confirmation.

Fifthly, that the lands wrongly obtained by the Government be returned to us. That all may be in accordance with the concessions made in the Waitangi Treaty and all other contracts made with your Maori subjects. That the Queen and her Government also appoint some person from England--a person independent of the Government of New Zealand--who shall carefully investigate those wrongs, and if he finds them in accordance with what we have now presented before you, that then he should decide whether the lands of your wronged subjects be returned or a compensation be made for part of it.

We, your Maori race, confidently rely on the Treaty of Waitangi, on its provisions and force, and we will be led by those provisions in these matters for which we have now swum the ocean of Kiwa, and we pray in the presence of the Queen that she will confirm her words given in that treaty, that it may not be trampled upon by the Government of New Zealand in anything they may do to annul that treaty.

Let the Queen live! Here we conclude. May God preserve you!

TAWHIAO, WIREMU TE WHEORO, PATARA TE TUHI, TOPIA TUROA, HORI ROPIHANA.

I hereby certify that the above is a true translation of the petition, made by me this 15th day of July 1884.

FRED H. SPENCER, Clerk in Holy Orders.

_Sir W. F. D. Jervois to the Right Hon. the Earl of Derby_

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, WELLINGTON, _March 28, 1885_.

MY LORD--With reference to Your Lordship's Despatch, No. 46, dated the 9th August last, concerning a memorial from Maori chiefs, I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of a memorandum from my Ministers. I also enclose copies of the Acts of the Colonial Parliament referred to therein.

I regret that I have been unable to send Your Lordship an earlier reply. The delay, however, has been caused by the fact that the Native Minister desired to visit the Maori districts before my Government furnished me with a memorandum on the subject. Full reports of the several meetings held by him with the Natives will be forwarded by the next mail.

I beg to refer Your Lordship to my Despatch, No. 9, dated the 1st March 1884, in which I have stated my own views with regard to the position of the Native race in this colony.--I have, etc.

WM. F. DRUMMOND JERVOIS.

The Right Hon. the Earl of Derby.

MEMORANDUM FOR HIS EXCELLENCY

Ministers present their respectful compliments to the Governor, and beg to inform His Excellency that they have considered the memorial from Maori chiefs referred to in the despatch from Lord Derby, No. 46, of 9th August 1884.

Ministers are of opinion that they would least embarrass Her Majesty's Government by referring only to the period since 1865, when Her Majesty's troops were removed, when for the first time the colony was left to manage the Natives without interference by the representatives of Her Majesty in the colony. It is quite certain that since that period there has been no infraction of the Treaty of Waitangi. As it is clear that if there was an infraction previously Her Majesty's Government and Imperial funds would be liable for the same, Ministers deem it more respectful not to express an opinion on the subject, but to leave Her Majesty's Advisers in Great Britain to arrive at their own conclusions.

As to the provisions of section 71 of the Constitution Act (15 and 16 Vict. cap. 72), Ministers would remark that it appears from the very terms of the section that the Imperial Parliament contemplated that that section should only be used for a short time and under the then special circumstances of the colony. The words used in the section are, "It may be expedient," "Should for the present be maintained." So far as allowing the laws, customs, and usages of the Natives in all their relations to and dealings with each other to be maintained, Ministers would point out that this has been the policy of all the Native Land Acts. The Courts that have to deal with Native land--and it is the land that to the Natives seems the most important--decide according to Native customs or usages (_vide_ "Native Land Courts Act, 1880," section 24; see also sections 5 and 6 of "The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1881," and section 6 of "The Native Land Laws Amendment Act, 1883").

Regarding the proclamation of Native districts the County of Waipa is practically a Native district, and if the Natives desired such a form of local government as the Counties Act affords, there would be no difficulty in granting their request by the Colonial Parliament. What, however, the petitioners desire is really the setting-up of a Parliament in certain parts of the North Island which would not be under the control of the General Assembly of New Zealand. Seeing that in the Legislative Council and the House of Representatives the Natives are represented by able chiefs, and that they have practically no local affairs to look after that cannot be done by their Committees--local bodies recognised by the Government--Ministers do not deem it necessary to point out the unreasonableness and absurdity of such a request.

Ministers have not deemed it necessary to go seriatim through the allegations of the petition and show their unsubstantiality. A former Premier, Sir Frederick Whitaker, specially dealt with a petition very similar to the one now under consideration (see memorandum, 12th December 1882, addressed to His Excellency the Governor, in Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, A-6, page 5); and a former Native Minister, Mr. Bryce, wrote a memorandum referring to the alleged ill-treatment of the Maoris (see memorandum for His Excellency, 11th January 1884, A-1, page 11, in Appendix, vol. i., 1884). The despatch of Your Excellency, No. 9, of the 1st March 1884, forwarding the memorandum of Mr. Bryce, also combated the statements of the Maori chiefs who had petitioned.

Ministers do not consider that there is any allegation in this petition that has not been before the Imperial Government, replied to by the colony, and dealt with before.

ROBERT STOUT.

WELLINGTON, _March 12, 1885_.

_The Right Hon. the Earl of Derby to Sir W. F. D. Jervois_

DOWNING STREET, _June 23, 1885_.

SIR--I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Despatch, No. 39, of the 28th of March, transmitting a memorandum from your Ministers in reference to the memorial of the Maori chiefs, which was presented on the occasion of the interview which took place at this office on the 23rd July 1884.

I request that you will inform Tawhiao and the other chiefs who signed the memorial that, as stated in the letter to them of the 13th August last, the attention of the Government of New Zealand was called to the representations which it contains, and that the reply of your Advisers--a copy of which I request you to transmit to them at the same time--has been received and considered by Her Majesty's Government.

The questions to which the memorial relates have also been discussed in the House of Commons with many expressions of sympathy for the Maori race, and of belief that their interests and their customs would be guarded and respected by the Government of New Zealand. The feeling, at the same time, appeared to be general that while the Government of the Queen in this country has no longer its former power and responsibility in regard to the internal affairs of New Zealand, it should use its good offices with the Colonial Government with the view of obtaining for the Natives all the consideration which can be given to them.

I trust that all who sympathise with and wish well to the Maoris will agree that it is most important for them to understand clearly that under the present Constitution of New Zealand the government of all Her Majesty's subjects in the islands is controlled by Ministers responsible to the General Assembly, in which the Natives are efficiently represented by persons of their own race, and that it is no longer possible to advise the Queen to interfere actively in the administration of Native affairs any more than in connection with other questions of internal government. I observe, however, with satisfaction that it is in contemplation to increase the number of the Native representatives.

Although, therefore, Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake to give you specific instructions as to the applicability at the present time of any particular stipulations of a treaty which it no longer rests with them to carry into effect, they are confident--as I request that you will intimate to your Ministers--that the Government of New Zealand will not fail to protect and to promote the welfare of the Natives by a just administration of the law, and by a generous consideration of all their reasonable representations. I cannot doubt that means will be found of maintaining to a sufficient extent the rights and institutions of the Maoris without injury to those other great interests which have grown up in the land, and of securing to them a fair share of that prosperity which has of necessity affected in many ways the conditions of their existence.--I have, etc.,

DERBY.

Governor Sir W. F. D. Jervois, G.C.M.G., C.B., etc.

_Sir W. F. D. Jervois to Tawhiao_

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, WELLINGTON, _August 27, 1885_.

To Tawhiao.

The Petition which was signed by you, Major Te Wheoro, Patara te Tuhi, Topia Turoa, and Hori Ropihana, and presented to the Secretary of State when you were in England was forwarded by him to me, accompanied by a letter asking for any statements which the Government of New Zealand might desire to make respecting the matter. I wrote back to the Secretary of State, and enclosed a memorandum from the Government of New Zealand. The Secretary of State has again written to me, and requested me to send to you copies of these letters. I therefore enclose translations.

You will see from the last letter of the Secretary of State that he says that the Government of all Her Majesty's subjects in New Zealand, Maori as well as European, is controlled by Ministers responsible to the Parliament at Wellington, in which there are Maori representatives, and that the Government in London cannot interfere in the internal affairs of the colony.--From your Friend,

WM. F. DRUMMOND JERVOIS.

_The Right Hon. the Earl of Derby to Sir W. F. D. Jervois_

DOWNING STREET, _September 11, 1884_.

SIR--I have the honour to submit to you a copy of a letter addressed to me by Tawhiao, the Maori King, on his departure for New Zealand after his recent visit to this country.

You will be so good as to inform Tawhiao that I duly received and that I appreciate his friendly farewell salutations.--I have, etc.,

DERBY.

Governor Sir W. F. D. Jervois, G.C.M.G., C.B., etc.

_Tawhiao to the Right Hon. the Earl of Derby_

STEAMER "POTOSI," _August 20, 1884_.

FRIEND--Salutations! Abide there with your friends, your fellow-nobles, your race, your land: I am returning to my people under the blessing of God.--From

TAWHIAO.

Lord Derby.

_The Right Hon. the Earl of Derby to Sir W. F. D. Jervois_

DOWNING STREET, _February 3, 1885_.

SIR--I have the honour to inform you that I have received from the chief Hori Ropiha a letter dated the 3rd December, expressing the satisfaction of his tribe--the Ngatikahungunu--at the principles laid down on the occasion of the interview between the chiefs and myself at this office, more especially in regard to uniformity of legislation.

I request that you will cause Hori Ropiha to be informed that his statements have given pleasure, and that I do not doubt that any well-founded complaints on the part of the Maoris will be dealt with fairly by the Government to which Her Majesty has given over the whole question.--I have, etc.,

DERBY.

Governor Sir W. F. D. Jervois, G.C.M.G., C.B., etc.

_The Under-Secretary, Native Department, to Hori Ropiha_

WELLINGTON, _April 27, 1885_.

To Hori Ropiha.

GREETING!--Lord Derby has written a despatch to the Governor of New Zealand acknowledging the receipt of your letter expressing the satisfaction of Ngatikahungunu at the principles laid down by you and Lord Derby in England. Lord Derby also says in his despatch that your statements have given pleasure, and he feels that the Government of New Zealand will deal fairly with the most important matters affecting the Maoris which Her Majesty has given to this Government to administer. Sufficient.--From

T. W. LEWIS.

_Hori Ropiha to the Under-Secretary, Native Department_

WAIPAWA, _July 8, 1885_.

FRIEND--Greeting! Greeting to you, and all the honourable members of the Parliament of the colony!

You have written to inform me of the receipt by the Government of New Zealand of a despatch from Lord Derby, in which he acknowledges the receipt of the letter expressing the satisfaction of the Ngatikahungunu at the principles laid down by us and Lord Derby in England.

Friend, I did send such a letter to Lord Derby, and the information contained in Lord Derby's despatch to you is correct--namely, that he does not doubt that any well-founded complaints on the part of the Maoris will be dealt with fairly by the Government of New Zealand, to which Her Majesty has given over the whole question.

Friend, I am greatly pleased at the receipt of your letter. I was absent at Mohaka, the Wairoa, and the Mahia, where I went to make known the principles laid down by us and Lord Derby, in order that my Maori tribes might hear my report of my visit to England. On my return from England I addressed the Maoris, and the people of my district were greatly pleased with what I told them. It is true that they have joined the Blue Ribbon Army,[199] and keep it faithfully.

Friend, continue to carry out a policy that will benefit the Maoris in accordance with what Lord Derby said--namely, that any well-founded complaints on the part of the Maoris will be dealt with fairly by the Government of New Zealand--and justify Her Majesty's action in giving over the whole question to be dealt fairly with by the Government.

I know what course of policy would be beneficial to the Maori people and establish friendly relations. Sufficient.--From your loving Friend,

HORI ROPIHA.

To Mr. Lewis.

_Tawhiao to Sir W. F. D. Jervois_

(Translation)

WHATIWHATIHOE, _September 21, 1885_.

FRIEND--Greeting. I have received your letter of the 27th of August, with the copies of communications from yourself, your Ministers, and Her Majesty's Government relative to the subject-matter of the petition from the Maori people that I and my fellow Native chiefs took to lay before Her Majesty's Government and the people of England. In your letter you inform us of one only of the words of Her Majesty's Government--namely, that the government of all Her Majesty's subjects in New Zealand is controlled by Ministers responsible to the Parliament. Your so informing us is well. But you did not also inform us of another important word of the Government of England with reference to the Maori people--namely, that you should intimate to your Government that they should protect and promote the welfare of the Natives by a generous consideration of all their reasonable representations. Well, we see that these directions from the Government of England are no mere random words, but have a bearing upon the petition, which petition your Ministers said had no significance, and that England would not interfere. Your communications and those of the Government of England have been circulated among the Maori people of this Island.

However, with reference to the statement made by your Ministers that they do not consider that there is any allegation in this petition that they have not answered before, I and my fellow Native chiefs would say, Where are the replies taking exception to those petitions? And why are they not quoted in connection with this petition for the consideration of the Native people? And who is it that can say that the complaints raised in those petitions are similar to those made in this?

And, further, with reference to the statement that since 1865 England ceased to interfere in the management of affairs in New Zealand, and left them to be managed by the Government of New Zealand, it may be so. But the Maori people are not aware of the reasons that led their _Pakeha_ friends to apply to have the sole management of affairs in New Zealand; and the assent thereto of the Queen's Government was given without considering the Maori people, or making any inquiries of them. Because the right of governing and the occupation of the Island by Europeans dates from the Treaty of Waitangi; and it was left to the chiefs, the _hapus_ of the Native people, and Her Majesty to carry out the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, which became a covenant on the descendants.

And, further, with reference to the statement made by your Ministers that "there has been no infraction of the Treaty of Waitangi," we would ask what portion of the Treaty of Waitangi, what _hapus_, or what chiefs placed the authority over the Native lands under the Native Land Court, or gave the Europeans the sole power to deal with Maori lands in that Court, as stated in the paragraph respecting the Native Land Court in that petition.

And, further, with reference to the statement respecting the presence of Native members in the Legislature, the status of those members was pointed out in the petition: Taking the basis of population, one Native member is returned for more than twenty thousand persons, whereas one European member is returned for every five thousand. When, indeed, have the applications of those members for increased representation been acceded to by that Parliament? When, indeed, have the applications of those members to have the grievances of the Native people redressed been acceded to by that Parliament? When, indeed, have the applications of those members asking that the Natives should have the power of administering their own lands been acceded to by that Parliament? Well, it is seen that the reason why the Government admitted Natives there (into Parliament) as members was merely in order that it could be said that Natives dealt with the wrongs now practised on the Maori people, and in order, too, that such wrongs should not be looked into, and finally to abolish those members.

And, further, with reference to the statement made by the Minister that Kawhia is a Native district: Well, if the Government really considered it to be such, why, then, did they assume to themselves the right to do certain acts in that district, such as establishing a military post on Native lands, which was a menace to the Maori people?

When, indeed, have the Government paid any heed to the application of Tawhiao and the people of that district desiring that Tawhiao should have the management of matters in that district?

Do you forward a copy of this letter to Her Majesty's Government. Sufficient.

KING TAWHIAO.

His Excellency the Governor.

_Sir W. F. D. Jervois to the Right Hon. Colonel Stanley_

CHRISTCHURCH, _December 16, 1885_.

SIR--I have the honour to state that I duly forwarded to Tawhiao, a copy of your Despatch No. 39, of the 23rd June last, concerning the Maori chiefs' memorial, presented by them to Her Majesty's Government whilst in England.

I have received from him in reply a letter, a translation of which, in accordance with the request contained in the last paragraph, I transmit herewith. I have, on the advice of my Ministers, informed him that there is nothing to add to the communications that have already been made.

It is the desire and practice of the Government of this colony to treat the Native population with the most perfect justice, and, as far as possible, in the same manner as the other subjects of Her Majesty in New Zealand. I submit that no good end can be served by prolonging this correspondence.--I have, etc.,

WM. F. DRUMMOND JERVOIS.

The Right Hon. Colonel Stanley, M.P.

_Sir W. F. D. Jervois to Tawhiao_

CHRISTCHURCH, _December 16, 1885_.

SIR--I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21st September last with reference to your petition to Her Majesty. I do not think there is anything to add to the communications that have already been made. I have, as you requested, forwarded a copy of your letter to Her Majesty's Government.--I have, etc.,

WM. F. DRUMMOND JERVOIS.

To Tawhiao, etc.

_Tawhiao to Sir W. F. D. Jervois_

WHATIWHATIHOE, _December 22, 1885_.

To the Governor of New Zealand.

GREETING!--I am not quite certain about the copies of the letters from your Government and Her Majesty's Government that you forwarded to me on the 27th day of August 1885, in Maori only. I am very desirous that you should send me copies of the same in English, which would be right. Sufficient.--From your friend,

KING TAWHIAO.

The Governor, Wellington.

_The Under-Secretary, Native Department, to Tawhiao_

WELLINGTON, _January 29, 1886_.

FRIEND TAWHIAO--Greeting. His Excellency the Governor has forwarded to Mr. Ballance the letter you wrote to him on the 22nd December, in which you asked that copies in English of the despatches from Lord Derby, the Governor, and the Government of the colony might be supplied to you, and by direction of Mr. Ballance, I forward copies of those despatches by the mail.--From your friend,

T. W. LEWIS.

Tawhiao, Whatiwhatihoe, _via_ Alexandra, Waikato.

_The Right Hon. Colonel Stanley to Sir W. F. D. Jervois_

DOWNING STREET, _February 2, 1886_.

SIR--I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Despatch No. 127, of the 16th December, forwarding a translation of a letter which you had received from Tawhiao in reply to one founded on my predecessor's Despatch No. 39, of the 23rd June, in connection with the memorial of the Maori chiefs. I request that your Government will cause Tawhiao to be informed that I have read his letter in accordance with his desire.--I have, etc.,

FRED STANLEY.

Governor Sir W. F. D. Jervois, G.C.M.G., G.C.B., etc.

_The Hon. the Native Minister to Tawhiao_

(Translation)

WELLINGTON, _May 6, 1886_.

FRIEND TAWHIAO--I have been requested by His Excellency the Governor to transmit for your information copy of a despatch he has received from the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies in reference to a letter from yourself. Enough.--From your loving friend,

JOHN BALLANCE.

Enclosure.--Despatch No. 7, of the 2nd February 1886.

COPY OF RESOLUTIONS

The Resolutions herein written were confirmed by the chiefs and _hapus_ assembled at Whatiwhatihoe on this 4th day of April, in the year 1886.

1. That the Treaty of Waitangi shall continue in force, by which the authority (_mana_) of the chiefs of the Maori people was assured to them, and which also confirms and guarantees Maori people the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession and control of their lands, and declares that the Maori people shall be maintained in their rights.

2. That the powers conferred by the Act of the year 1852 should be maintained--viz. that a council or councils should be set up, and invested with power and full authority, and that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to authorise such councils.

3. That the Maori people of Ao-tea-roa (New Zealand) shall act together under the law above mentioned.

4. That the Maori committees, authorised by the laws above referred to, shall be zealous in the performance of their duties.

5. That no wrong proceedings or operations of the Government towards the Maori people shall be sanctioned.

6. That the Native Land Courts Act should be repealed, and that it be left to the Maoris themselves to adjudicate on their own lands.

7. That this _runanga_ (council) shall persist in its efforts to have the directions given by the Government of the Queen to the Government of New Zealand carried out--viz. that the rights and interests of the Maori people shall be guarded and respected. (This resolution was unanimously carried by the _runanga_: "Although the Government of England has nothing to do with the affairs of New Zealand, still the Government of the Queen will instruct the Government of New Zealand to devise some measures whereby justice may be done to the Maori people and their interests promoted, and that the Governor should be questioned concerning these instructions from England.")

8. That the chiefs attending this meeting be deputed to put the question to the Governor.

9. That each tribe should subscribe money for the purchase of a press to print for circulation reports of what are done and said by the Maori people.

10. That power be given to each committee to deal with lands in its own district.

These are the Resolutions that were carried.

King Tawhiao's reply in reference to the Resolutions was: "I thank you for an assent to the resolutions. I thank you, every one of you, for your discussions upon those resolutions which have been formed by you in accordance with your own wishes. I have carefully watched your discussions. There was but one tendency of all your discussions, which corresponds exactly with the object I had in view in inviting you to this meeting. Be zealous in lifting up and in sustaining (measures for the benefit) of both these islands. Hearken ye! The views held by the English people in England are precisely the same as those held by the Maori people in New Zealand."

_The Hon. the Native Minister to Tawhiao_

(Translation)

AUCKLAND, _April 17, 1886_.

FRIEND--I have the honour to enclose you the reply of the Governor to the resolutions presented by the deputation (sent by you) to His Excellency on the 9th instant. There is one point in the resolutions on which I desire to offer an explanation. In the translation of Lord Derby's despatch made in the Native Department in Wellington some of the terms are incorrectly rendered. A correct translation has been made and handed to Major Te Wheoro. The despatch itself is in your possession, and there can be no doubt of its meaning, which is fully explained in the memorandum of His Excellency.--From your friend,

J. BALLANCE.

To Tawhiao.

_Memorandum from Sir W. F. D. Jervois to the Hon. the Minister for Native Affairs_

The enclosed replies to certain questions submitted to me in a memorandum from several Maori chiefs who waited upon me on the 9th instant with a view of laying before me resolutions passed at a Native meeting previously held at Whatiwhatihoe are transmitted to the Minister for Native Affairs for communication to the chiefs concerned.

In forwarding the paper to the chiefs, I request that you will inform them that I was greatly pleased at the loyal sentiments expressed by them at their interview with me towards Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen, as well as the confidence they exhibited towards myself as her representative. I also beg that you will convey to Tawhiao, and all the chiefs concerned, how much I rejoice at the cordial feeling they exhibit towards the Government of New Zealand.

W. F. DRUMMOND JERVOIS.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, AUCKLAND, _April 14, 1886_.

MEMORANDUM RELATING TO RESOLUTIONS PASSED AT A NATIVE MEETING HELD AT WHATIWHATIHOE ON THE 4TH APRIL 1886.

Referring to the Resolutions in the order submitted in a paper laid before His Excellency the Governor by a deputation of Maori chiefs on the 9th April: 1. The Treaty of Waitangi vested the _mana_ in Her Majesty the Queen, and secures to the Natives their land. That treaty, in its essential elements, has been faithfully kept by the colony. A modification was made in it by which the Natives obtained the right of selling their lands to persons outside the Government, whereas under the treaty the Government had the sole right of purchasing Native lands. This modification, the only one made in the treaty, was, however, introduced at the request of the Maoris themselves. The rights of the Maori people have been carefully preserved.

2. This appears to refer to section 71 of the Constitution Act, where reference is made to Native councils. It must be observed, however, that the section is not mandatory, as will be seen from the clause itself, and from such terms as, "it may be expedient," and "should for the present be maintained." Local self-government has been extended to the Native people in the form of Committees under the Act of 1883. These Committees have power to ascertain titles to Native lands, and to hear and decide civil cases by agreement, and, in fact, may be said to be Courts of Arbitration. Their usefulness is being proved, and a large majority of the Native people appreciate them and are using them. It has been found by experience, however, with regard to titles to land, that there is often great jealousy of the committees, and that the Natives prefer to have the land adjudicated on by the Land Courts. (This remark applies also to Resolution 6.) If any other form of Maori council than that which now exists is desired under the clause of the Constitution Act referred to, it can only be obtained by Act of Parliament of New Zealand.

No observations are necessary to Resolutions 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9.

7. This Resolution apparently refers to Lord Derby's despatch of the 23rd June 1885, but does not convey a correct impression of the terms of that document. No directions are contained in the despatch. Lord Derby expressly says that "under the present Constitution of New Zealand the government of all Her Majesty's subjects in the islands is controlled by Ministers responsible to the General Assembly, in which the Natives are efficiently represented by persons of their own race, and that it is no longer possible to advise the Queen to interfere actively in the administration of Native affairs, any more than in connection with other questions of internal government." The resolution states that there is an "instruction" contained in the despatch; but there is none. On the contrary, Lord Derby expressly recognises the right of the New Zealand Government to deal with the internal affairs of the colony without interference. The words of Lord Derby, where he refers to the Native people, are as follows: "It (the Imperial Government) should use its good offices with the Colonial Government with the view of obtaining for the Natives all the consideration which can be given to them." The particular request that Lord Derby makes, and it is only in the nature of a request, is "that the Government of New Zealand will not fail to protect and to promote the welfare of the Natives by a just administration of the law, and by a generous consideration of all their reasonable representations." He adds, "I cannot doubt that means will be found of maintaining to a sufficient extent the rights and institutions of the Maoris without injury to those other great interests which have grown up in the land, and of securing to them a fair share of that prosperity which has of necessity affected in many ways the conditions of their existence." The policy advocated by Lord Derby has been and is being carried out. A proof of this is to be found in the fact that an overwhelming majority of the Natives are satisfied with the administration of their affairs by the Government of New Zealand.

JOHN JERVOIS, Private Secretary.

Signed by order of His Excellency the Governor. Government House, Auckland, 14th April 1886.

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.

TAMIHANA KOROKAI AND OTHERS _v._ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL

1912. July 23, 24, 25. Oct. 7.

C.A.

Coram. Stout, C.-J. Williams, J. Edwards, J. Cooper, J. Chapman, J.

Skerrett, K.C., Morison and Fell for the plaintiffs. Solicitor-General (Salmond) and Ostler for the defendant.

STOUT, C.-J.--This is a special case stated pursuant to Rule 245 of our Code of Civil Procedure. Neither party, however, asks that all the questions framed in the case should be answered. Indeed both ask that some of the questions should not be answered. The point in dispute between the parties is a narrow one. The plaintiff contends that he has a statutory right to go to the Native Land Court claiming under the Native Land Act a freehold title. The Solicitor-General contends that if he, as Solicitor-General, says the land, that is the bed of Lake Rotorua, is Crown land that concludes the matter, and the Native Land Court cannot proceed to make any inquiries as to whether the land is native customary land. That is the matter in contention, and it appears to me that it is the only question that this Court has at present to decide.

It may be necessary to refer very shortly as to how the question has arisen. In 1835 there were many English people settled in the most northerly part of New Zealand. English Church Missionaries had been there for some years, they landed first in 1814; and there were traders and whalers and others that had made New Zealand their home. One called Charles Baron de Thierry, in Marquesas, claimed that he was sovereign chief of New Zealand. He so informed Mr. James Busby, who had been appointed British Resident in New Zealand, and Mr. Busby thereupon took steps to deny any such sovereignty. He and other English residents saw the Native chiefs and they formed what was called a Confederation. The thirty-five head chiefs or heads of tribes in the most northern parts of New Zealand, that is all the country lying north of the Firth of Thames, joined in a declaration that New Zealand was an independent state under the name of the "United Tribes of New Zealand." Mr. Busby sent a copy of this declaration to the Under-Secretary of State in London, and Lord Glenelg, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, wrote to the Governor of New South Wales regarding the declaration. The Governor was directed to inform the chiefs "With reference to the desire which the chiefs have expressed on this occasion to maintain a good understanding with His Majesty's subjects, it will be proper that they should be assured in His Majesty's name that he will not fail to avail himself of every opportunity of showing his goodwill and of affording to those chiefs such support and protection as may be consistent with a due regard to the just rights of others, and to the interests of His Majesty's subjects."

Meantime the eligibility of New Zealand as a colony was being discussed both in New South Wales and in England, and ultimately in 1840 Captain Hobson, R.N., was despatched to New Zealand with two commissions, one as British Consul, and the other as Lieutenant-Governor. He reached the Bay of Islands on the 29th of January 1840, and on the 5th and 6th of February the Treaty of Waitangi was signed by many chiefs, then assembled at Waitangi in the Bay of Islands. The treaty states, _inter alia_: "Her Majesty, therefore, being desirous to establish a settled form of civil government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary laws and institutions alike to the native population and to her subjects, has been graciously pleased to empower and authorise me, William Hobson, a Captain in Her Majesty's Royal Navy, Consul and Lieutenant-Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may be or hereafter shall be ceded to Her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following articles and conditions."

Then follow three articles. The first article deals with the cession. It is as follows: "The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand, and the separate and independent chiefs who have not become members of the confederation, cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England, absolutely and without reservation, all the rights and powers of sovereignty which the said confederation or individual chiefs respectively exercise or possess or may be supposed to exercise or possess over their respective territories as the sole sovereigns thereof."

The second and the third articles are as follows: "Her Majesty the Queen of England 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, and fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession: but the chiefs of the united tribes and the individual chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate, at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf." The third is as follows: "(3) In consideration thereof, Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the natives of New Zealand her royal protection, and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects."

Copies of the treaty were taken to various parts of both islands, and the chiefs throughout New Zealand signed it, and to the present day the treaty is regarded as their Magna Charta. The Lieutenant-Governor on the 21st May 1840 issued a proclamation, proclaiming and declaring that after the date of the treaty the full sovereignty of the North Island of New Zealand vested in Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors for ever.

A further proclamation was issued on the same day proclaiming and declaring that all the Islands of New Zealand vested in Her Majesty, that is, including all country between 34° 30´ north to 47° 10´ south latitude and between 166° 5´ to 179° east longitude. A mistake was made in this proclamation in that it proclaimed from 34° 30´ north instead of as was intended 34° 30´ south. The ground of the proclamation over the South Island was that of discovery. Since then it has been recognised that the lands in the islands not sold by the natives belonged to the natives. All the old authorities are agreed that for every part of land there was a native owner. Two authorities may be cited. Bishop Selwyn said as follows: "Three points then seem to be clear on this subject: (1) That there was originally a distinct owner for every habitable spot in the Northern Island: (2) That these claims have been complicated by the obvious causes of inheritance and marriage without forms of conveyance or bequest: (3) That the rights of ownership whether in one or many joint proprietors were not alienable without the consent of the tribe."

The late Sir William Martin, formerly Chief-Justice of New Zealand, said: "So far as yet appears the whole surface of the islands, or as much of it as is of any value to man, has been appropriated by the natives, and, with the exception of the part they have sold, is held by them as property. Nowhere was any piece of land discovered or heard of (by the commissioners) which was not owned by some person or set of persons.... There might be several conflicting claimants of the same land: but however the natives might be divided amongst themselves as to the validity of any one of the several claims, still no man doubted that there was in every case a right of property subsisting in some one of the claimants. In this Northern Island at least it may now be regarded as absolutely certain that, with the exception of lands already purchased from the Natives, there is not an acre of land available for purposes of colonisation, but has an owner amongst the Natives according to their own customs."

The Governor and the Legislature of New Zealand accepted this position, and numerous ordinances and acts of Parliament have been passed to enable the Maoris to transmute their customary title into freehold. The position all along assumed has been that the lands are vested in the Crown, and until the Crown issues a freehold title the customary titles cannot be recognised; but that the Crown will give to all who prove that the land was theirs a freehold title. The Crown has not assumed that land could be taken or kept by the Crown from the Natives, unless the natives ceded their rights to the Crown. Thousands of purchases in both islands have been made by the Crown, and thousands of deeds of cession are in existence. The reason why the Crown did not recognise any title in the land till a grant from the Crown had issued is dealt with in the classic judgment of the late Mr. Justice H. S. Chapman, delivered in 1847 in the case of Reg. _v._ Symonds, and in the judgment of the then Chief-Justice Sir William Martin, who agreed with the judgment of Mr. Justice Chapman. After their judgments, the Imperial Parliament in the New Zealand Constitution Act (15 and 16 Vict. c. 72, sec. 73) recognised the native title. Section 73 of that Act is as follows: "It shall not be lawful for any person other than Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, to purchase or in any wise acquire or accept from the aboriginal Natives land of or belonging to, or used or occupied by them in common as tribes or communities, or to accept any release or extinguishment of the rights of such aboriginal Natives in any such land as aforesaid: and no conveyance or transfer, or agreement for the conveyance or transfer of any such land, either in perpetuity or for any term or period, either absolutely or conditionally, and either in property or by way of lease or occupancy, and no such release or extinguishment as aforesaid, shall be of any validity or effect, unless the same be made to, or entered into with and accepted by Her Majesty, her heirs or successors. Provided always that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, by instructions under the signet and royal sign manual, or signified through one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State to delegate her powers of accepting such conveyances or agreements, releases, or relinquishments, to the Governor of New Zealand, or the superintendent of any province within the limits of such colony, and to prescribe or regulate the terms of such conveyances or agreements, releases or extinguishments shall be accepted."

That the Crown in New Zealand recognised that it could not treat the Native land--that is, the land over which the Natives had not given up their rights of cession--as Crown in the fullest sense is plain from various things done: (1) In 1862 the first Act to provide for the ascertainment of the ownership of Native lands, and for granting certificates of title therein, and for regulating the disposal of Native lands was passed. The preamble is as follows: "Whereas by the Treaty of Waitangi entered into by and between Her Majesty and the chiefs of New Zealand, it was among other things declared that Her Majesty confirmed and guaranteed to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand and the respective families and individuals thereof the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, which they collectively or individually held so long as it should be their desire to retain the same: And it was further declared that the chiefs yielded to Her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof might be disposed to alienate: And whereas it would greatly promote the peaceful settlement of the colony and the advancement and the civilisation of the Natives if their rights to land were ascertained, defined, and declared, and if the ownership of such lands when so ascertained, defined, and declared were assimilated as nearly as possible to the ownership of land according to British law: And whereas with a view to the foregoing objects, Her Majesty may be pleased to waive in favour of the Natives so much of the said Treaty of Waitangi as reserves to Her Majesty the right of pre-emption of their lands, and to establish Courts and to make other provision for ascertaining and defining the rights of the Natives to their lands, and for otherwise giving effect to the provisions of the Act: And it is expedient that the General Assembly of New Zealand should facilitate the said objects by enacting such provisions as are hereinafter contained."

(2) When the natives committed rebellion or were guilty of insurrection, a special Act was passed allowing the Governor in Council to take their lands. See _inter alia_ the New Zealand Settlements Act, 1863. A few of the sections may be cited: "2. Whenever the Governor in Council shall be satisfied that any Native tribe or section of a tribe or any considerable number thereof has since the first day of January 1863 been engaged in rebellion against Her Majesty's authority, it shall be lawful for the Governor in Council to declare that the district within which any land being the property or being in the possession of such tribe or section or considerable number thereof shall be situate, shall be a district within the provisions of this Act, and the boundaries of such district in like manner to define and vary as he shall think fit."

"3. It shall be lawful for the Governor in Council from time to time to set apart within any such district eligible sites for settlements for colonisation, and the boundaries of such settlements to define and vary."

"4. For the purposes of such settlements the Governor in Council may from time to time reserve or take any land within such district, and such land shall be deemed to be Crown land, freed and discharged from all title interest, or claim of any person whomsoever as soon as the Governor in Council shall have declared that such land is required for the purposes of this Act, and is subject to the provisions thereof."

Section 5 provided for compensation to persons whose land has been taken, provided that they had not been in rebellion.

(3) Before Native land was treated as Crown land, open for sale and settlement, proclamations were generally made so declaring the land open. See, for example, section 6 of the Immigration and Public Works Act, 1873, and section 247 of the Land Act, 1885.

It is not necessary to point out that if the Crown in New Zealand had not conserved the Native rights and carried out the treaty a gross wrong would have been perpetrated. Since the recognition of the Native rights so often made, there may have been interference by legislation with Native land, both before and after the ascertainment of title. If, however, there were such interferences, they have been based on the theory of eminent domain. There have been statutes passed providing how Native lands may be leased, but a similar kind of interference has been witnessed in the United Kingdom in the case of the Irish Land Acts and the Scottish Crofters' Statutes. Such interferences did not destroy the title of Natives. Native lands and freehold lands belonging to persons of the white race have also been taken under such a theory when it appeared it was for the interest of the State to do so. In such cases compensation has been awarded. To interfere with Native lands, merely because they are Native lands, and without compensation, would of course be such an act of spoliation and tyranny that this Court ought not to assume it to be possible in any civilised community.

The decision of _Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington_, 3 J.R., N.S., S.C. 72, does not derogate from that position. It only emphasised the decision in _Reg. v. Symonds_, that the Supreme Court could take no cognisance of treaty rights not embodied in a statute, and that Native Customary Title was a kind of tenure that the Court could not deal with. In the case of _Tamaki v. Baker_ (1901), A.C. 561, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council recognised, however, that the Natives had rights under our statute law to their customary lands.

The Native Land Act, 1909, has various sections dealing with the customary land of the Maoris (sections 84, 85, 86, and 87). What was the need of such sections if a declaration by a law officer of the Crown was all that was necessary to say that the land claimed as Customary Native Land was Crown Land? Section 88 is significant in this connection. It states "(1) for the purpose of recovering possession of customary land from any person in wrongful occupation thereof, and for the purpose of preventing any trespass or other injury thereto, or of recovering damages for any such trespass or injury, all such land shall be deemed to be Crown Lands within the meaning of the Land Act, 1908. (2) No action or other proceeding, other than a proceeding by or on behalf of the Crown under the last preceding subsection, shall be brought in any Court by any person for the recovery of the possession of customary land, or for damages or an injunction in respect of any trespass, or injury to such land." Sections 90 and 91 show that the customary titles are recognised: section 90 reads: "The Native Land Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to investigate the title to customary land, and to determine the relative interests of the owners thereof." Section 91 is as follows: "Every title to and interest in customary land shall be determined according to the ancient custom and usage of the Maori people, so far as the same can be ascertained." Section 92 shows the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court. Formerly there was something more required than an order of a Native Land Court to make an effective title. At one time His Excellency the Governor had to sign a Crown grant and at another time a certificate of title.

I am of opinion that the Native Land Act recognises that the Natives have a right to their customary titles. There are in my opinion only three things that can prevent the Native Land Court entering on an enquiry as to such customary title.

(1) A proclamation of the Governor under a statute, such as has been provided in many Acts, and is so provided in section 85 of the Native Land Act, 1909.

(2) A prohibition by the Governor under section 100 of the Native Land Act, 1909.

(3) Proof that the land has been ceded by the true owners or that a Crown grant has been issued.

I know of no statutory authority that the Attorney-General as Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General as Solicitor-General has to declare that the land is Crown land. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are both high officers of State. They are legal officers, and they can appear as solicitors or counsel for the Crown, but there their functions and powers end. Their statement as to what is Crown property unless made in accordance with some statutory power, is of no avail. If in an action they put in a plea to that effect, it would have to be proved like any other pleading of a party to the action. The Solicitor-General has failed to cite any authority that the mere statement of the legal adviser of the Crown, or the Crown's Attorney or Solicitor-General, was to be taken as a true averment without proof.

What the customary title to the bed of Lake Rotorua may be must be considered and determined by the only Court in New Zealand that has jurisdiction to deal with Native titles--the Native Land Court. At common law there may be an ownership of the bed of navigable rivers or lakes that are non-tidal. See Kent's _Commentaries_, vol. iii. p. 427, note (_d_). The case of _Mueller v. Taupiri Coal Mines, Ltd._, 20 N.Z.L.R. 89, turned on the effect of a grant under the Land Acts.

I am of opinion that it is not necessary specifically to answer the questions put, but only to say that the plaintiff and his people have a right to go to the Native Land Court to have their title investigated, and that the Native Land Court can only be prevented from performing its statutory duty, first, under the Native Land Act, secondly, on proof in that Court that the lands are Crown Lands freed from the customary title of the Natives, or, thirdly that there is a Crown title to the bed of the lake.

WILLIAMS, J.--The contention of the Solicitor-General is that in all cases where land is claimed by natives to be held by them under their customs and usages, and they seek to have their titles ascertained by the Native Land Court, and a title in fee simple granted to them, the Solicitor-General, by virtue of the prerogative right of the Crown, and apart from any statutory authority, could at any time step in and prevent proceedings being taken or continued. The arguments in support of this contention are that when New Zealand was annexed to Great Britain all the land in New Zealand became vested in the Crown, by virtue of its prerogative; that the Treaty of Waitangi is binding only upon the honour of the Crown, and can be disregarded at the discretion of the Crown; and that, although there may be a statutory recognition of the Native title, there is no such statutory recognition as would operate as against the Crown. Even if these arguments were sound it by no means follows that the contention of the Solicitor-General can be supported.... There is nothing in the Governor's commission or in the Royal instructions which expressly authorises him to interfere on behalf of the Crown to prevent the exercise of rights given to natives by the statute law of the Dominion. Has he then, by virtue of his commission, an implied power so to interfere?... There is a special reason why the power now claimed should not be implied. The power now claimed is by an act of state to disregard rights given by statutes which have been passed to carry out treaty obligations binding upon the honour of the Crown. If the Crown has this power, it is exercised on the advice of the responsible Minister of the Crown. Whether it should be so exercised or not is a matter affecting the honour of the Crown, not merely as the Sovereign of this Dominion, but as the Sovereign of the British Empire. It was with the Sovereign of the British Empire that the Treaty of Waitangi was entered into. Whether Imperial obligations should or should not be observed is a matter of Imperial concern for the responsible advisers of the Crown in Great Britain to decide upon and not for the advisers of the Governor here, unless the power of deciding has been expressly delegated to the Governor. Even if the power had been so delegated the Court would properly require some evidence beyond the mere statement of the Attorney- or Solicitor-General that the authority of the Crown was being exercised.... I agree with the conclusion arrived at by His Honour, that rights given to natives by statute to have their customary titles determined can only be divested in the manner prescribed by statute. The rights given to natives by sections 90 to 93 inclusive of "The Native Land Act, 1909," to have a legal estate in fee simple in possession vested in the persons found to be entitled are rights expressly given against the Crown. If these sections do not bind the Crown they are meaningless and inoperative. The Crown is a party to the statute. It is difficult to see how, when rights which expressly affect pre-existing rights of the Crown are created by statute, the Crown upon the passing of the statute can disregard the rights so created, and exercise its pre-existing rights as if the statute had not been passed.

EDWARDS, J.--In support of his contention that the bed of the lake cannot be the subject of a Native title under Maori customs and usages, the Solicitor-General relies upon the inherent improbability that there was any intention, either by the Treaty of Waitangi or by the statutes relating to native lands, to recognise any such right. To hold that there is such a right would be, the Solicitor-General contends, to destroy the right of navigation in all non-tidal waters to the great detriment of the public. Such considerations might well have induced those responsible for the Treaty of Waitangi to have so framed that document as to preclude any claim by natives to the exclusive possession of land covered by navigable non-tidal waters. It may even be suggested that the words of the treaty, which guarantee to the Maoris "the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties," were intended to reserve to the natives merely the right to fish in non-tidal waters, without recognising in them any property in the land covered by such waters. It is quite possible--indeed not improbable--that there never was any Maori custom or usage which recognised any greater right in land covered by navigable non-tidal waters than this. That is a question which neither the Supreme Court nor this Court can determine. If there never was any such custom or usage prior to the Treaty of Waitangi, then the Crown will get the advantage of that when that question has been determined by the Native Land Court, or in the last resort by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But if there was such a custom or usage, the treaty, so far as it is effective, is sufficient to preserve it. The treaty, like every other instrument, must be construed in accordance with the plain legal significance of the words used, and the Courts cannot speculate as to whether or not those words were used in another sense not apparent upon the face of the instrument, or necessarily to be inferred from the subject with reference to which they are used. A lake, in contemplation of the English law, is merely land covered by water, and will pass by the description of land. _Bristow v. Cormican_ (3 A.C. 641); _Johnston v. O'Neill_ (1911, A.C. 552). Whatever rights were conserved to the Maoris by the Treaty of Waitangi were fully recognised by "The Native Lands Act, 1862," which recited the treaty, and was enacted with the declared object of giving effect to it.... In my opinion it is clear that if the Crown desires to set up its title, as a bar to the investigation by the Native Land Court in its ordinary jurisdiction of claims by natives, it must either be prepared to prove its title, or it must be able to rely upon a proclamation in accordance with the terms of the 85th section of "The Native Land Act, 1909."

COOPER, J.--I have had the advantage of reading and considering the judgment of His Honour, the Chief Justice, and, upon substantially the same grounds as are expressed by His Honour in that judgment, I have arrived at the same conclusion.

I have very little to add.

"The Land Act, 1908," contains the statutory provisions regulating the administration of Crown lands in New Zealand. In respect of Native lands, section 2 brings within the category of Crown lands only those "Native lands which have been ceded to His Majesty by the Natives on behalf of His Majesty, or otherwise acquired in freehold from the Natives on behalf of His Majesty, or have become vested in His Majesty by right of his prerogative."

Customary lands owned by natives, which have not been ceded to His Majesty or acquired from the native owners on behalf of His Majesty, cannot in my opinion be said to be land vested in His Majesty by right of his prerogative. It is true that, technically, the legal estate is in His Majesty, but this legal estate is held subject to the right of the natives, recognised by the Crown to the possession and ownership of the customary lands, which they have not ceded to the King, and which His Majesty has not acquired from them.

Section 338 of the Act draws a clear distinction between Native lands and Crown lands. Under subsection (1) of that section, where the Governor is satisfied that Native lands have been acquired by the Crown, he shall by proclamation declare such lands to be Crown lands, and under subsection (2), when such lands have been so acquired, he may give effect to any stipulation in the instrument of sale or transfer to His Majesty for the reservation to the natives of any part of such lands, and may reserve or grant such portions in manner required by the natives.

Section 88 of "The Native Land Act, 1909," which has been referred to by His Honour also, recognises that these lands are not "Crown lands." They are only deemed to be Crown lands for the one purpose, namely, that if any person is in possession of or trespassing upon, or injuring the lands against the interest of the Native owners, then, for the purpose of protecting the Native owners the Crown may under the Land Act take proceedings against such wrongdoers. Even this provision is a guarded one, for subsection (3) of that section expressly provides that nothing in it contained shall take away or affect any jurisdiction conferred upon the Native Land Court.

CHAPMAN, J.--I agree with the judgments which have been read. It has been argued that the Treaty of Waitangi was an international treaty entered into with chiefs having the sovereignty. The contrary opinion was pronounced by the Supreme Court in _Wi Parata v. The Bishop of Wellington_ (3 N.Z. Jur. N.S. 72). The terms employed and the mode of execution of the treaty leave it at least an open question whether it was so regarded at the time. It professes to be made with certain federated chiefs and certain chiefs who are not federated, but it does not state over what territories they exercised authority, though the text of the treaty seems to suggest that it was contemplated that it should be made with several chiefs who might possibly be regarded, and were provisionally and hypothetically treated as sovereigns of their respective territories. Later it became a matter of general knowledge, derived, I presume, from maps prepared pursuant to section 21 of "The Native Land Act, 1873," that there are eighteen or twenty tribes in New Zealand. If that be so the numerous signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi can hardly be described as sovereign chiefs. I agree that if they had been explicitly so declared by Her Majesty's government, or had been so treated in a course of political transactions that would have been sufficient to make them so, and that their numbers and their individual unimportance would not have rendered this impossible, provided that in each case there was a sovereign to a territory. _Hemchand Devchand v. Azam Sakaral Chhotamlal_ (1906, A.C. 212). The whole current of authorities shows, however, that the question of the origin of the sovereignty is immaterial in connection with the rights of private persons professing to claim under the provisions of the treaty of cession. _Cook v. Sprigg_ (1899, A.C. 572). Such a treaty only becomes enforceable as part of the municipal law if and when it is made so by legislative authority. That has not been done. The sense in which the treaty has received legislative recognition I will refer to later.... From the earliest period of our history, the rights of the natives have been conserved by numerous legislative enactments. Section 10 of 9 and 10 Vict. cap. 103, called an Act to make further provision for the Government of the New Zealand Islands (Imperial, 1846), recognises the laws, customs, and usages of the natives which necessarily include their customs respecting the holding of land. Section 1 of 10 and 11 Vict. cap. 112, called an Act to promote colonisation in New Zealand and to authorise a loan to the New Zealand Company (Imperial, 1847), recognises the claims of the aboriginal inhabitants to the land. To the same effect is the whole body of colonial legislation. The expressions "land over which the Native title has not been extinguished" and "land over which the Native title has been extinguished" (familiar expressions in colonial legislation), are both pregnant with the same declaration. In the judgment of the Privy Council in _Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker_ (1901, A.C. 561), importance is attached to these and similar declarations in considering the effect of colonial legislation. There the whole of the legislation from the date of the constitution is summarised. This summary includes the principal colonial Acts. Referring to section 5 of "The Native Rights Act, 1865," their Lordships say: "The Legislation, both of the Imperial Parliament and of the Colonial Legislature is consistent with this view of the construction of 'The Native Rights Act,' and one is rather at a loss to know what is meant by such expressions as 'Native title,' 'Native lands,' 'owners,' and 'proprietors,' or the careful provision against sale of Crown lands until the Native title has been extinguished, if there be no such title cognizable by the law, and no title therefore to be extinguished." I might refer further to less precise but equally important expressions, such as "tribal lands," in "The Native Land Act, 1873," section 21. The various statutory recognitions of the Treaty of Waitangi mean no more, but they certainly mean no less than these recognitions of native rights.

[195] Tawhaki, the God-man, whose name frequently occurs in all the ancient mythology of the Maori race.

[196] Rain and wind--figurative expressions denoting wars and tumults.

[197] Te Wherowhero Potatau, the first Maori king.

[198] Tawhiao, the second Maori king.

[199] A Total Abstinence organisation.

THIS RELIC OF THE TREATY CAME INTO THE AUTHOR'S POSSESSION AFTER THE VOLUME WAS PRINTED AND IS NOW INSERTED AS A SUPPLEMENT.

_No te 30 o nga ra o Hanuere, 1840_

_E taku hoa aroha,_

_Tenei ano taku ki a koe; na, tenei ano tetahi kaipuke manawa kua u mai nei, me tetahi Rangatira ano kei runga, no te Kuini o Ingarani ia, hei Kawana hoki mo tatou. Na, e mea ana ia, kia huihuia katoatia mai nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga o Nu Tireni, a te Wenerei i tenei wiki tapu e haere ake nei, kia kitekite ratou i a ia. Koia ahau ka mea atu nei ki a koe, e hoa, kia haere mai koe ki konei ki Waitangi, ki taku kainga ano, ki tenei huihuinga. He Rangatira hoki koe no taua Wakaminenga tahi. Heoi ano, ka mutu taku._

_Naku,_

_Na tou hoa aroha,_

_Na te PUHIPI._

_KI A TAMATI WAKA NENE._

TEXT OF THE INVITATION SENT TO TAMATI WAKA NENE TO ATTEND THE MEETING OF CHIEFS AT WAITANGI, 5TH FEBRUARY, 1840.

(ORIGINAL IN THE AUCKLAND MUSEUM).

TRANSLATION

(By H. M. STOWELL).

_Of the 3Oth day of January, 1840._

_O my dear friend._

_Herewith something special from me to you. A Man-o-war vessel has called here particularly, with a certain Chief on board. He is sent by the Queen of England, as a Governor for us._

_Now, he desires that as many representative New Zealand chiefs as possible be gathered together by Wednesday of next week to see him._

_I now therefore say unto you, O friend, make your arrangements to come along here to Waitangi, to my home here, to this gathering and meeting. For you yourself are a typical representative chief and will be welcomed to the meeting as such._

_That is all, mine ends here,_

_From your sincere friend,_

_From Te PUHIPI (Mr. Busby)_

_To Tamati Waka Nene._

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following authorities have been consulted during the compilation of this work, and will serve as a useful bibliography of the treaty:--

A Chapter in the History of New Zealand. Sir W. Fox. 1883. Adventure in New Zealand. E. J. Wakefield. 1845. An Appeal on Behalf of the Ngatiraukawa Tribe. T. C. Williams. 1873. Ao Tea Roa (Long White Cloud). W. P. Reeves. 1898. Appendix to Twelfth Report of New Zealand Company. 1844. Aureretanga. G. W. Rusden. 1888. Australia and New Zealand. A. Trollope. 1873. Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing. Rev. W. Colenso. 1890. Britain of the South. C. Hursthouse. 1857. British Colonisation of New Zealand. Aborigines Protection Society. 1846. Christian Mission to the Aborigines of New Zealand. Rev. J. Warren. 1863. Correspondence with Earl Grey. Wesleyan Mission Committee. 1848. Early History of New Zealand. Brett Publishing Co. 1890. Early History of the Catholic Church in Oceania. Bishop Pompallier. 1888. England and the New Zealanders. Sir W. Martin. 1847. Extracts from Final Report. G. Clarke. 1846. Facsimiles of Treaty of Waitangi. H. H. Turton. 1877. Forty Years in New Zealand. Rev. J. Buller. 1878. Governor Gordon and the Maori. Sir R. Stout. 1883. Handbook for Emigrants. Dr. J. Bright. 1841. Handbook to New Zealand. E. J. Wakefield. 1848. Heke's War. Rev. R. Burrows. 1886. History of Early Colonising of New Zealand. H. T. Kemp. 1901. History of New Zealand. Alfred Saunders. 1896. History of New Zealand. G. W. Rusden. 1883. Judgments of Court of Appeal in re _Tamihana Korokai v. The Solicitor-General_. 1912. Judgments of Mr. Justice Chapman and Sir William Martin, C. J., in re _Regina v. Symonds_. 1847. King Country, The. J. H. Kerry-Nicholls. 1884. Kohimarama Conference, Proceedings of. 1860. Letters from New Zealand. Dr. Martin. 1845. Life and Times of Patuone. C. O. Davis. 1876. Life of Archdeacon Henry Williams. H. Carleton. 1874. Life of Rev. J. H. Bumby. Rev. A. Barrett. 1852. Life of Bishop Selwyn. Rev. H. W. Tucker. 1879. Life of Captain James Cook. Rev. A. Kippis. 1788. Life of Lord John Russell. J. Reid-Stuart. Life of Rev. Samuel Leigh. Rev. A. Strachan. 1863. Life of Sir George Grey. W. L. and L. Rees. 1892. Manawatu Purchase Completed. T. C. Williams. 1867. Maori English Tutor. H. M. Stowell. 1913. Maori History. Lieut.-Col. M'Donnell. 1887. Maori King, The. Sir John Gorst. 1864. Maori Record (Newspaper). 1906. Memoir of Rev. R. Davis. Rev. J. D. Coleman. 1865. Narrative of United States Exploring Expedition. Commander Wilkes. 1845. New Zealand. Alexander Kennedy. 1873. New Zealand. Charles Terry. 1842. New Zealand. Dr. R. G. Jameson. 1841. New Zealand and its Aborigines. W. Brown. 1845. New Zealand and its Colonisation. W. Swainson. 1859. New Zealand and the War. W. Swainson. 1867. New Zealand Gazette (Newspaper). 1840. New Zealand Journal. 1840-1848. New Zealand Revisited. Sir John Gorst. 1908. New Zealand Year Book. 1912. Notes on Early Life in New Zealand. Rev. G. Clarke. 1903. Notes on Maori Matters. Mr. Justice Johnston. 1860. Old New Zealand. F. E. Manning. 1863. Parliamentary Debates (English), vols. 81-82. 1845. Parliamentary Papers (English). 1839-1848. Personal Narrative of Visits to New Zealand. Dr. Marshall. 1836. Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute. January 1883. Remarks on New Zealand. Captain R. Fitzroy. 1846. Remarks on New Zealand. W. Brodie. 1845. Reminiscences of a Veteran. Col. T. Bunbury. 1861. Reminiscences of the War in New Zealand. Lieut. Gudgeon. 1879. Romance of a Pro-Consul. James Milne. 1899. Sketches in New Zealand. James Cowan. 1901. Story of New Zealand. Dr. A. S. Thompson. 1859. Te Ika a Maui. Rev. Richard Taylor. 1855. The Aborigines' Friend, pp. 139-157. The New Zealanders and their Lands. D. Coates. 1844. The New Zealand Question. L. A. Chamerovzow. 1848. The War in New Zealand. Sir W. Fox. 1860. Voyage to the South Pole, vols. viii. and ix. Dumont D'Urville. Waitara War--Numerous Pamphlets relating thereto.

_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.

End of Project Gutenberg's The Treaty of Waitangi, by T. Lindsay Buick