SIR ARTHUR GORDON AND THE NATIVE QUESTION.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2553, 14 June 1882, Page 3

SIR ARTHUR GORDON AND THE NATIVE QUESTION.

JFBOM THB "PBBBa."l WELLINGTON, June 13

Rir Arthur Gordon's report to the Colonial Office on Weit Coast Native affairs was presented this evening. It is a very lengthy despatch, of which a large proportion is occupied with an historical summary of the events leading up to the rooent difficulty as presented to the Governor's point of view. It is dated February 26fch, 1881. His Exoellenoy states that the Native Minister had afforded him material assistance, and had shown no reluctance to place in his hands official documents in his possession, all papers in hi) office having been freely placed at his Excellency's disposal. The Waitara diffioul<y of 1860 and the successive troubles up to the last one are desoribed in succession ; considerable doubt boing cast by his Exoolloncy on the validity and efficacy of the alleged confiscation on whioh subsequent claims were founded by the Government. Te Whiti is alluded to by Sir Arthur in the following terms :—" Te Whiti, though himself a ohief, is not one of the highest rank, and owes his

power mainly to hii individual qualities. _ He was one of those who had declined to take part against the Government in 1865. though many, i' not most of his tribe, then d'd so. In 1868 he successfully used his already large iufluenoe to keep back those who were under his authority from joining the outbreak under Titokowaru, during the whole continuance of which ho and his people remained quiet at Parihaka. The next ten years witnessed the rapid growth and development of his influenoe. Educated by a Lutheran missionary, and deeply versed in the Christian faith, he preaohed a vague and mystical religion, of which he is himself the prophet Eloquent and subtle, and animated by an unquestionably earnest patriotism, he has for many years exercised a powerful, and for the most part beneficial sway over the hearts and lives, not only of his own tribe, but of a large section of the Maori population. Where his influence extends drunkenness is unknown, industry is exacted, and peace sedulously inculcated." After referonce to the interview between Te Whiti and Mackay and the supposed " overture" by the Premier, Sir Arthur says—" To this overture no reply was returned, and Te Whiti appears to have come to the conclusion that the attention of the Government would only soriously be attracted by a demonstration whioh could not be ignored or trifled with." Then came the ploughing, of which his Exoellenoy says, " These proceedings were certainly conduotod with Te Whiti's knowledge and approval, and probably by his direct order, though this has never been proved, and has by some been doubted." He adds, "The Government of Sir George Grey found itself placed in a situation of great difficulty by these proceedings. The settlers were naturally much excited and exaspßrated, and had made up their minds, though I believe mistakenly, that these acts of deliberate trespass were intended by the Maoris to proveke a fresh Native war." In arresting the Native ploughmen his Excellenoy is of opinion that " In these circumstances the Government of Sir George Grey aoted not injudiciously," but, he adds, "I have not been able clearly to ascertain why, having obtained a conviction and a sentence of a yoar's imprisonment against a considerable number of thsße men, the Government shrank from bringing the remainder to trial, nor (Sir George Grey's Government having left offics on the Bt,h October), is it now possible to say with confidence whether the allegation that all that was contemplated by the origiial Act was the postponement of the trials for a short period, and that they were then intended to take plaoe before the Supreme Court, in the ordinary manner, on the expiration of the Act, is well founded." His Excellency further says—" On the assembly of the new Parliament in Ootober, a change of Government took plaoe. The Maori Prisoners Act was allowed to expire, but the prisoners were not tried; and in December an Act, which was in fact two separate Aots, somewhat clumsily put together, passed the Legislature." The debate ou this Bill, and the provisions of the same, are described at considerable length, and the Maori Prisoners Act, 1880, is similarly treated. Of the West Coast Settlement Aot, his Excellenoy says—" The West Coast Settlement Act was introduced mainly for the purpose of enabling the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which had, in the meantime, made its report, and had oloarly shown that the grievances of the Natives were by no means visionary, but real and substantial. The remedies suggested by them required legislative sanction, and the Bill in question was prepared in order to confer the necessary power on the Exeoutive Government." The discussion of " the circumstances whioh led to the passing of the Maori Prisoners Detention Aot, 1880, and to the preparation of the penal olauses in tho West Coast Settlements Acts is thus introduced : —" After the cessation of the ploughing operations at the end of July, 1879, the survey of the Waimate Plains for sale and tho construction of the road through the Parihaka district were steadily prosecuted under the protection and with the labor of a party of Armed Constabulary. No event of importance occurred until May, 1880, when unwarned by previous experience, the road was taken through a fenced field in the occupatisn of Maoris." Tho fencing phase of the affair is then related, and the following telegram from Colonel Boberts to Mr Bryce, dated 28th June, 1880, is quoted in extenso, as indicating that the Maori fencing was only to protect their crops, and not for the purpose of obstruction:—"Te Whetu, Te Whiti's secretary, and another Native sent word that tbey wished to speak to me. I met them where the road is made through the fence. They asked me to put up a gate. I pointed out to them that a gate wonld not save the orops. Suggested they should fenoe the road off. They said that it was too much work, and they oonld not do it. I pointed out that it would not take long if they brought as strong a party as they had to-day. They replied that it would not take long if the soldiers would help. I agreed not to let the pigs into tho sown paddocks to-night, and to report to you. Te Whetn and party will teturn to-morrow for further talk. Please instruct me in the meantime. I am of opinion that the Natives would be willing to fence the road off if we assisted. Tho men seem to bo in a very reasonable and talkative mood, and if oarefully treated would be willing to come to reasonable terms. To Whetu informod me that they would be sowing wheat to-morrow in the pieo? of 1 »nd bounded by the fence, where tho Natives said ho would not put it up again. Te Whetu wanted me to meet him there to-morrow. I refused, and told him ho would have to come to me, to which ho agreed." The interview did not take placo, and on the 14th July Colonel Roberts expressed the opinion thata Bwing gate would satisfy the Natives, but said that on his telling them Mr Bryce would only approve of a gate as a temporary measure till they had formed the road, Te Whiti said it was for tho Government to fence, he would not. His Excellency next refers to the arrest of the fenoors and the final protection of the' crops by slip rails across the road. Having done this, his Excellency sums up tho casa as follows : " My stay in New Zealand has been of such duration that I hesitate to express or even to form any very confident opinion on tho questions I have dealt with. What was indeed in 1879 tho actual position of the lands within the confiscated territory, it would be very difficult to determine. Thatias regards the district between tho Waingongoro and Stoney River tho confiscation had for ten years beer, practically abandoned is a patent fact, but it had'not taohnically been so, and indeed there has for some years past existed no machinery by which such confiscation could be formally reversed. It, however, is most important to observe that whilst it is admitted that the confiscation did not touch the property of loyal Natives, no attempt had ever been rnado to dcCm the localities or limits of suoh property. That the Grown consequently—if the rights it had procured by confiscation were still insisted on —possessed land, and that the Natives also possessed land, within the district in question was cloar, but with regard to any particular spot, or area, exoept perhaps what was actually in use of ocoupants. it would have been difficult to say with confidence that it was the property of either. I have no doubt whatever that the Boyal Commissioners are correct in their conclusion that the ploughing of oonfisoated land was resorted to by the Maoris in order to foroe on the Government the consideration of their olaims. _ Such proceedings have not been unusual in a similar state of society from the earliest times, and it is far from improbable that the idea may have been suggested to Te Whiti, who is a most diligent student of the Bible, by the

example of the mode employed by Samson to compel the attention of the Philistines to his grievances. It may also be remarked that if f this was their object it was oompletely , oucoessful. The proceedings of the ploughmen undoubtedly led to the appointment of the Boyal Commission, and the Commission at once recognised the existence- of the grievances which had been derided as imaginary and unreal, which had remained for so many years unnoticed, and whioh exoept for that Commission probably be yet undealt with, but which now in the course of rapid and satisfactory adjustment. Bat whilst the Maoris would have been amply justified in taking such steps as might have raised an issue as to the ownership of the land in a form which could not be overlooked, the persistence of their proceedings, the shape they took, and the alarming excitement created by them, rendered the forcible aotion of the Government imperatively necessary, and I believe a disastrous war to have been escaped through ita means. In the subsequent dispute with respect to the fences, a dispute whioh I cannot dignify by the name of "disturbance," and whioh was in fact a quiet persistence in tho assertion of the rights of occupation, the Maoiis appear to me to have been substantially in the right, although undoubtedly wrong in the mode they took to assert their pretensions. Te Whiti, as I have before remarked, has never borne arms against the Crown, and he and others in the like situation are undoubtedly entitled to the full enjoyment and poesession of their lands, even if situated in oonfisc&ted territory. The surveyors Jappear to have aßsumed that the land was altogether in the hands of the Crown, and to have acted on that assumption with somewhat unnecessary rigidity. Te Whiti, on the othor har.d, seems to have had no objection to the construction of the road, but to have been zealously apprehensive of claims whioh might be pushed to such an exient as to leave him landless and powerless. It is difficult to believe that a conciliatory temper and a little common sense would not hive easily arranged the difference at its commencement, either by then adopting the arrangement ultimately effected or by direofing the Armed Constabulary to fence the sides of the road when it passed through cultivations —a concession which, it seems to me, would have been only reasonable, and which was is the first instance recommended by tho late Native Minister to Colonel Roberts. This course was not adopted, apparently owing to a reluctanoe to watte the labor of the force employed, but the amount of time consumed in pulling down the fence erected by the Natives some forty or fifty times, in effecting arrests and conveying prisoners to gaol must have been far greater than that which would have been lost had the constabulary in the first instance \ performed this labor. But while I lament the occurrence of a misunderstanding which might I think have been avoided, I am not prepared to oondemn the legislation of whioh it has been the cause. When onco these men had been arrested, it is undeniable that their immediate release would have been attended with oonsequenccs fraught with danger. The Maoris would have been enoouraped to attempt more questionable acts of resistance, and the irritation of the white settlers would have rendered it diffioult for the Government to resist the adoption] of measures, pressed upon them with doubtless the best intentions, but certain to imperil, and almost certain to moke impossible the continuance of peace. I am therefore inolined to think that in taking authority from the Legislature to detain the prisoners for a short period the Government of New Zealand adopted the best course open to it. The actual framing of the various enactments however appears to me to be open to much criticism, and the inflioLionfof a penalty of two years' imprisonment for the offenoe of being suepeotod of an intention to commit any of the numerous acts made illegal by the West Coast Settlement Aot, is a provision which has few precedents, and those precedents of an objectionable character. A considerable number of the prisoners arre3ted under these Aots have already bsen released, and I have reason to hope that the greater part of tho remainder will be so at no distant date. I have already once extended the operation of the Maori Pritonecs Act, 1874 as odvisad by tfce Cabinet, and I shall be prepared to do so once again, so as to continue it in force until the meeting of the Colonial Parliament, but I should experience considerable reluotance in prolonging its operation after that time without a fresh expression of opinion and fresh aotion on the part of the Legislature, and it will be with regret that I shall witness the renewal for a longer period of legislation of so exceptional ajoharacter, end whioh, even if it be admitted to be in this instance needful, affords a dangerous example; for the precedent thus set may be hereafter far more easily followed with lees reason, and it? abuse affords a cloak to acts of grave oppression. "I have, &3., *' Aethub Qoedos. " The Bight Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies."

The following is a precis of the memoranda relating to Governor's despatch re Native affairs:— 1. Premier to tho Governor.

May 19th, 1881. The Premier feels it hi« duty to state that in the opinion of Ministers portions of the dcapatoh are calculated So convey a wrong impression respeoliDg the transactions relating to Native affairs to which it refers, Ministers will with as little delay as poseible forward to his Excellency a memorandum explanatory of points in question. 2. Premier to Governor. June 15th, 1881. In the opinion of Ministers portions of his Excellency's dospntoh were calculated to lead to an erroneous conclusion as to the transactions connected with Nativo matters on the West Ooaot, which were the subject of that As to some matters, his Kxcalleuey has evidently fallen into error, and that the omiesion of fuels in some instances, and tho manner in which they have been stated in others, will givo to persons in England a wrong impression. Ministers regret very much that when his .Excellency requested to be supplied by them with information on the subject, they were cot asked for details and explanations upen ill points respecting which his Exoellenoy felt it to be his duty to express disapproval or doubt. Such aids would have been readily given. Without them, as Ministers believe, the most labored study of official documents could not enable just conclusions en so complicated a matter to be formed by any oue recently arrived in New Zealand. After dealing with the merit* of the confiscation question and other preliminary matters, Ministers submit "that portions of the ds opatoh oonvey aD altogether wrong impression of the attitude of tho settlers', under great and continued provocation, through the pretence of tho Maori ploughmen on their farms and homesteads, and under what, in the circumstances, was a natural fear for the safety of their wives and families. At the outset individual settlers may have used strong language, but Ministers must repeat that official records prove settlers as a body showed great forbearance and self-restraint; that their conduct under conditions that wore most irritating and trying was recognised by Sir George Grey's Government as proper, and as helpful to the authorities, and that, that conduct deserves in truth the highest praisa." The Premier thon replies on the fencing question as viewed by the Governor, and remarks —" Ministers regret that his Excellency should have come to the conclusion stated in paragraph 56, that in the dispute as to the fenoes the Maoris wore substantially in the right. Ministers are unable to discover the ground for suoo a conclusion. It cannot be doubted that Te Whili was aware of the readiness of the Government to make ample provision for fcim end for his followers. There is abundant evidence that he rejected all overtures on the part of the Government, as he has since rejected an] invitation from the Governor to meet his Excellency for the purpose of discussing grievances, and the action as to the fenoes taken by hio direction must be regarded as only an additional assertion of bis independence of the Government of the calony. Ministers believe it was the imperative duty oi the Government to resist suoh assertion." The memorandum concludes os follows — " Ministers repeat that they are unable to gather from events and recorded opinions that there was any desire on the j art of the settlers to urge the adoption of measures which would have imperilled the peace of the oountry. The opinion of Ministers is that the settlers were prepared to accept and ready to assist the Government in carrying out such measures as were fairly likely to secure to them the quiet possession of their properties purohased from the Crown and the safety of their wives and children. The release of the

I Maori prisoners, which has now been effected, renders it unnecessary to discuss the course which Ministers would have felt ifetheir duty to advise in circumstances whioh no longer exist. In recommending the release of these prisoners, Ministers have followed the course they laid down for themselves after anxious consideration of what would be best in the interests of the country. When Ministers believed that the action of the Maoris threatened disturbance to settlers in the quiet possession of their homesteads and the possible slaughter of their families, Ministers did not hesitate to adrise exceptional treatment of those whose acts made such consequences possible. Ministers will not entertain a doubt that had they felt it their duty iu the interest of New Zealand to advise a continuanoo of such exceptional treatment of wholly exceptional offender! aa was authorised by law, they would have received sympathy and cordial co-operation from his Excellency the Governor. Minister! are confident that his Excellency has been desirous of conveying to the Secietary of S:ate an impartial account of tbe transactions referred to in his despatch, but they trust that the explanations which t l ay have now given, anl which might have been largely added to, will satisfy his Excellency that in some material particulars his account is calculated to conrey very erroneous imp'essior.s, and that he will endeavor to secure that such publicity as may have been given to tho despatch shall be given to this memorandum." 3, Governor to Premier. 12th July. The Governor does not deem it neoessaijr or desirable in tbe present memorandum to enter into any argument to show why, in Ms opinion, the observations made by Mr Hall do not offset the general accuracy of the statement contained io. his despatch, or the correctness of the views which he his himself exprefsed. Hia Excellency has, to the best of his ability, discharged a duty imposed upon him by her Majesty's Government, for the performance of which he ii personally responsible. He has done so with the de sire above all things to render a judicially impartial account of tho transaction, on which he was directed to report, and he perceives with pleasure that the existence of that dt't.ire is fully recognised by Mr Hall. It his Excellency has in the composition of his despatch been influenced and biassed, it haß been oaused by an anxiety to find in the acts of those public men, of all parties alike, to whom the administration of the affairs of the colony has from time to time been successively entrusted, evidence of that calm and large-minded statesmanship, which it is of so great moment to the welfare of the colony that those who obtain tbe confidence of the Legislature of New Zealand should possess. Having in this spirit prepared the raport which he was directed to furnish, and being aware that Mr Hall's remarks will be considered by her Majesty's Government as carefully as the despatch to which they relate, it is the Governor's intention to abstain from all controversy with the members of the Executive Council as to the opinions which he and they may [respeetively have formed. His Esoellency regret* that his own views on the subject and those of Mr Hall should not in all points coincide, but ho cannot deem it to be a matter for surprise. It is only natural that events should bear to the actors in them a somewhat' different aspect from that which they present to l dispassionate and uninterested spectator. It could hardly bo expeotcd tli3t the Governor*! present advisers and those who preceded them in crSi;e should take precisely the same views of any complicated series of political transactions, or that tho Governor, by whom these transactions are necessarily regarded in a purely historical light, should agree wholly with either. Hi* Excellency has not sought to obtrude his views upon the notice of others, nor was he by any means desirous of giving utterance to them at all; but when called upon to do so by those who have a right to require it of him, he cannot assign as his opinions any but those which he in truth holds, or narrate facts otherwise than as they appear to him to have occurred. His Excellency does not presume to say that the opinions expressed in his despatch are in all cases well founded, or that his judgment as to facts may not be in more instances mistaken, but, after full consideration of the points urged in Mr Hall's memorandum, and a very careful reperusal of the documentary evidence relating to them ha sees no reason in any important particular to alter or modify the conclusion at whioh he had previously arrived. 4. Premier to the Governor. July 13th. Ministers are of opinion that the publication of the despatch from his Excellency to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, respecting Native matters on the West Coast of this island, would injuriously interfere with the oottlement of any existing difficnltie* with the Natives in that part of the colony. For this roason Ministers request that the despatch may not be published at present:, and hope that any intended publication of the document will be so made known to them that their opinion as to such publication may reaoh and be considered by the Imperial Government. 5. Governor to Premier. Governor accedes to request. 6. Governor to Lor3 Kimberley, July 16 h, 1881. Sir A. Gordon, in to Mr Hall'i memo, eays— ■" I pointed out to Mr Hall that the words employed by him in it must necessarily be understood by all who saw them as implying that I had not made application to Ministers for information in the preparation of the report in question, and that they were i ignorant of my intention to write. That it was not intended to convey suoh a meaning, I of a »urse felt assured, as Mr Hall well knew that I had mode no secret of the order* I had received to prepare auoh a report, that I had requested Ministers to supply me with all possible material for its composition, and that I hud conversed rep'attdly with him and other members of the Cabinet on tho subject. Tho doubt really meant was to express regret that I had not on all subjects touched on in that despatch sought for oral explanation from Minister? —r very different matter, but the inference to bo drawn from the word uccd was not the less inevitable, because unintended. Mr Hull, I am happy to say; v recognises the justice of my observations, and has modified his memo, accordingly. Oa thi* paragraph cf the memo, aa it now stands, I h.-.vo only to remark that it was my desire to obtain every possible information and to hear all opinions disouseed before j writing my rcporb, and that I am not conscious of haviug failed in this respect. When the dispatch was finally sent off, both Mr Hall and Mr Bolleiton, the Native Minister, wnre absent from Wellington, and in their absence I submitted the narrative portion of it to tho Under Secretary for Native Affaire, an officer of long experience in the department, who, after a careful examination, pronounced it to be correct; and I have declined to enter into any controversy with my Ministers respecting the contents of my report, nor am I desirouß of doing so in an indirect manner, by addressing a despatch to your Lordship, whioh, when oommunioated to them, may appear to invito a further discussion of controverted details. Except in a few m iimportantroints, I see no cause to withdraw anything that I have written in my despatch of tho 26th February. Mr Hall seeks to show that I have in some instances unintentionally mi 3 stated matters of foot and I have in others drawn erroneous deductions from ciroutne'ancoß. The questions *>f actual fact, distinguished from the appreciation of the significance of factp, iu which Mr Hail consider* me to be in error, are comparatively few,and with respect to some of these few points he hat mieundcrstood me, but certain errors of detail tho memo, dees r,o doubt point out. It was uardiy to be expected thct in a narrative dealing with transactions so complicated and extending over so long a period, I should altoge'.hor escape them, but they are for the most part of little importance, and in some other CiSf s the Euppositicn that I have made erroneous Dtatemonts seems to be due to this fact. X K o writer of the memo has failed to appreciate tho exact weight cf the words üßed by ate, which were net carelessly ohoaou." This concludes the coriespondence.