THE KING MOVEMENT.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1353, 15 June 1878, Page 3

THE KING MOVEMENT.

The Auckland “ Herald” publishes the following, respecting the early history of the King movement in the North : When the King movement first began there was great diversity of opinion amongst the Europeans as to what it was designed to accomplish. Some of the best friends of the Maori race thought that it was a good thing ; that it would unite the people in all good works ; that it would put an end to wars amongst the tribes (wliich the European Government were unable to do) ; and that, instead of opposing it, wo ought to encourage and aid it. The Rev. Mr Buddie, in a letter to the Wesleyan Missionary Committee, in Sydney, in 1857, said : “It would be well for the country if his Excellency and his advisers could take advantage of the prevailing feeling, and assist them (the natives) in this most desirable work. . . . They arc looking for

some better moans than they now possess of punishing and preventing crime amongst themselves, and of otherwise improving their social condition.” Archdeacon Maunsell, when examined before the Waikato Committee in 1860, in reference to the King movement, was asked, “ Do you consider, then, it would have been a wise policy to have encouraged and directed that movement, or to have permitted it to have died away ?’ Anewer—“ I myself earnestly encourage the natives to proceed in it.” The Bishop of New Zealand when asked. “What do you know of the King movement, and to what doy u attribute its origin?” replied, ‘ My knowledge of the King movement is simply derived from the tl e conversations I have had with the natives in various parts of the country, and I regard it as an indication of a desire for a better kind of government than they had.” Question — “ Do you think that the movement might have been directed into useful channels ?” Answer—“ I think so, most decidedly ; I never knew or read of any people so entirely desirous of law as the New Zealanders.” The Rev. J. Morgan, one of the early missionaries in Waikato, in 1860 made the following statement as to the origin of the King movement: —“ Ist, A land league to prevent the sale of land by aboriginal tribes or owners to the (government, or the private sale of such lands to individuals of the European or pakeha race. 2nd, A desire to stop the rapid advance of European colonisation. 3rd, A desire to introduce a code of laws suited to their own state and requirements. 4th, And chiefly, a desire to establish, firs; in the Waikato, and afterwards gradually in all Maori districts, an independent sovereignty over all Maori and European residents in such districts. Many of the aborigines saw with fear the rapid advance of European colonisation, and the earnest desire of the pakeha to obtain possession of their lands. They also noticed what they considered the confined bounds to which some tribes who had sold land were reduced. As the promoters of this league knew, there were many tribes favourably disposed to the sale of land and European colonisation; they felt that their league would be powerless unless they could unite the various tribes of Waikato, and afterwards other districts, under one chief or king, whose flag, when received —even by the minority of any tribe in any district, should cover and prohibit the sale to Europeans of all lands in such district.” Mr Morgan’s statement enters fully into the subject, and we think it must bo confessed, that of all those who spoke and wrote on the King movement, he best foresaw its objects and tendencies. Turning to statements made by Maoris, we may cite what was said by Takerei te Ran, the chief who died lately in Waikato, and whose tangi was the occasion of the first visit of Sir George Grey to the Kingitos since the wax’. Takerei said— “ Formerly, we were not possessed of knowledge. The Gospel came, and we sought out precepts in the Scriptures. The people then sought a Protector for themselves similar to yours. You have a Protector. They proposed to elect a King for themselves, to protect them, to bo a mana over them, and over the land, over the portions in their possession. Their idea was this —the Queen should be a mana over the pakeha, and over the land which you have acquired. The same with respect to the Maori King. There should be no interference with the portions of land which had been acquired by the Queen; but only with the land which was under the Maoris of New Zealand, A single individual should not presume to sell land, whether in the west or in the east, in the north or in the south. It should not be yielded to the control of one man. But if the great runanga of all the tribes consented, then only would it be right; but for one man to sell his land would not be right. The reason for this was, lest trouble shoixld arise in the midst of us Maoris and the pakehas. This is the law that has been laid down for the land held by the Maoris of New Zealand. This, that I now make known to you, is the thought of the people, that of all the chiefs of Waikato, of Ngatihaua [naming several other tribes.] This was the cause of the Maori King being set up ; it was for a mam over the people and the land.” From a native report of a large mecling which was held at Paetai, Waikato, in May, 1857, we make the following extract: —“ Paora said : —God is good ; Israel were his people j they had q king. I see no reason why any nation should not have a king if they wish for one. The Gospel does not say that we are not to have a king. It says, ‘Honor the king; love the brotherhood.’ Why should the Queen bo angry ? We shall bo in alliance with her, and friendship will be preserved. The Governor does not stop murders and fighjs amongst us. A King will bo able to do that. Lotus have order, so that wo may grow as the pakehas grow. Why should we disappear from the country ?” William Thompson said—“ I love New Zealand. I want order and laws. The King could give ys these better than the Governor ; for the Governor has never done anything except when a pakeha is killed ; ho jots us kill each other and fight. A King would stop these evds. However, if you don’t like the King, pull down the flag. Let Rcwi pull it down, if you wish it.” Upon this, Rewi stepped forward, said nothing, but in anger took the King’s flag and thi’ew it down at the foot of the Union Jack, and sat down without speaking. He intended, apparently, to show the Maoris the state of utter subjugation to which they were consenting. [lt must be remembered that Wircmu To Wheoro and others had been opposing the ci’ection of the flag.] To Seuheu, of Taupo, who was one of the first, if not the very first, to suggest the King movement, was far more pronounced in his views than Thompson. The report states that he spoke violently, stating the causes of quarrel the Maoris have with tfiie Europeans; the indignities shown to the chiefs by the lower oydex' of Europeans when they visited the town; their women debauched ■ the nun made drunk; the chiefs called ‘ bloody Maoris,’ &c. He advocated the total separation of x’uces, and the ultimate expulsion by force of the Europeans.” In several letters which he wrote to the Govei’nor William Thompson narrated how it was that he came to set up the King, Wo make a few extracts: —“ Thj? great name of God, which, is spoken of to me, why is this free to'me, while of this name of ying, it is [said, it is not light (to mention it) ; it is a sacred thing This is it, O friend, look you at Deut. xvii., 15—[Thou shalt in anywise set him king over thee who the Lord thy God shalt choose : one from among thy brethren shaft then sot king over thee. Thou mayest not sot a stranger over thee which is not thy brother.] If all kings of the different countries were from Rome only, from thence also might come ..Iso one for here. But is not the Queen a native of England; Nicholas, of Russia; Buonaparte, of Franco; and To mare, of Tahitieach from his own people ? Then why am 1,

of these tribes, rebuked by you, and told that we and you must unite together under the Q.ueen? How was it that the Americans were permitted to separate themselves; why are not they brought under the sovereignty of the Queen, for that people are of the same race as the English, whereas I, of this island, am of a different race, not nearly connected. The only connection with you is through Christ Ephesians ii., 13. [But now in Christ Jesus, wo who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”] In another letter Thompson pointed out how the Maoris had suffered from tribal quarrels, and that the setting up of the King had prevented these, and contended that the proceedings of the Governor at Waitara had been hasty and ill-advised. We have heard that when Thompson was at Wellington a member of the committee before which he was being examined, was uncourteous enough to express a doubt as to whether any Maori could produce the elaborate arguments set before them. Thompson would not condescend to discuss the point of literary capacity, but said, “ The real question is, gentlemen, are the arguments good ?—can you answer them ?” The truth is, that amongst the natives who set up the King, there was considerable diversity of opinion. One party looked at it as a means of restraining bloodshed and disorder among themselves, while another parl y looked to it chielly as a means of resisting the advance of the Europeans. Wo shall again return to this subject, for the purpose of dealing with the history of the movement.