THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNOR IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MATIU AND TE TIRARAU.

Maori Messenger : Te Karere Maori, Volume III, Issue 1, 12 February 1863, Page 4

THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNOR IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MATIU AND TE TIRARAU.

7th February, 1863. On Saturday the 7th February, 1863, the Governor met Te Hira and Te Tirarau with their people, to give his decision on the arbitration; the arbitrators being present: Te H emara and Eruena on Te Hira's side, and Mr. Walton and Mr= Heath on Tirarau's. The arbitrators explained their opinions to the Governor, and gave the reasons why they had not been able to come to an unanimous decision among themselves, but had been obliged to bring up the case to the Governor for final decision. The arbitrators named by Te Tirarau set forth the grounds on which they rested his right, namely:—-Ist. Descent from the same ancestor as Matiu. 2nd. A gift from Afatiu's ancestors. 3rd. Undisturbed possession during five generations. The arbitrators for Te Hira set forth the grounds of his claim to an equal partition of the land in dispute. They said that the title by ancestry vested in Matiu's side, but that in consequence of the long possession and occupation by Tirarau he ought not to be driven off. They therefore requested that the Governor should declare both sides to have been in the right, and divide the land as he thought

After various questions had been addressed by the Governor to the arbitrators as to maori usage, aud explanations given by him of the English custom as to ownership aud possession of land, His Excellency stated his decision to be as follows:Ist. That generations ago, .when the land of New Zealand was only inhabited by the raaoris, the only use to which land was put, was to grow rood: and if the ancestors of one tribe, had permitted the ancestors of another to occupy and possess a tract of country, there would have been no cause or pretext for an attempt to remove them afterwards by force, so long as they peaceably cultivated the land. 2nd. That in the same way as the English law recognised long possession as conferring a good tide, so it was admitted on all sides that according to maori law a body of Natives who, had been many generations in actual possession" of a tract of land could not be turned off. 3rd. That when Europeans came into this country, a new usage had sprung up unknown in former days, with respect to land, namely, selling it; that as this was not the use to which the original inhabitants would have put it, so when a tract of country had been by one tribe given to be occupied by another, and these, imported the new usage of selling land, the original owners were in justice entitled to share in the purchase money when the land was sold. Applying these rules then to the present quarrel, as Tirarau's ancestors had received part or the land as a gift from Matiu's ancestors, had gathered Karakas upon another part, and had for five generations been in occupation, he and his people could not now be turned off the disputed land so long as they occupied it for cultivation. But if they should wish to sell any of it in future, the descendants of "Matiu would be entitled to share in the payment. And in the case of any dispute arising out of the division of purchase money, the Government would itself step in and judge between the various claimants, and apportion the amount to each side. And in order to prevent difficulties arising again soon 7 none of the land in dispute would be bought except by the Government, nor by them till the ill-feelings arising out of the recent bloodshed had calmed down; nor would the actual, battle-field, where the blood of relations and friends had. been shed, be allowed to be sold at all. The Governor further promised that, as he had/stepped in between the. combatants-last year, and they had on both sides behaved mosT

hpriourably/tofoim and obeyed his word, so now he would continue to stand between ithem and aid them in the settlement of any difference that might arise hereafter.