KAFIR TREATIES AT THE CAPE, TREATY OF WAITANGI, IN NEW ZEALAND. [From the Colonial Gazette, December 21.]

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume I, Issue 46, 23 August 1845, Page 4

KAFIR TREATIES AT THE CAPE, TREATY OF WAITANGI, IN NEW ZEALAND. [From the Colonial Gazette, December 21.]

The treaty between Sir Peregrine Maitland and the Kafir chiefs on the eastern frontier of the Cape colony, which supersedes the unworkable Stockenstrom treaties, we this day present to our readers. There are three important provisions in tliis new treaty. The predatory and wily chiefs have unequivocallybound themselves to submit to the jurisdiction of British Courts of justice in certain cases. They have conceded to the British Government authority to decide in their feuds which party is in the right, and actively assist that party. They have conceded to the British Government authority to protect the Christian converts among the lower orders of the Kafirs from the self-willed oppressions of their chiefs. The treaty, in short, establishes British authority in Kafirland, and lays the foundation of regular government there. This is the only way in which a civilized nation can benefit a savage one. It must have the power as well as the will to introduce wise laws, religious toleration, enlightenment, and security of person and property — for the poor and weak as well as for the rich and strong. The settlers in New Zealand, and the parties in this country interested in their fate, ought instantly to claim for that colony the justice so tardily done to the Cape of Good Hope. The treaty of Waitangi, in New Zealand, is what the Stockenstrom treaties in the Cape colony were — an insuperable obstacle to the progress of settlement, and a protection to barbarism. This is not denied by the present ministry and their supporters. They are willing enough to admit the folly and injustice of that mockery of a treaty, and to make it an article of inculpation against the Whig Ministers who sanctioned it. But they add that their hands are tied ; that the treaty of Waitangi is there, and they are bound by it. The treaty of Waitangi is like every other contract. It may be set aside by the mutual consent of the contracting parties on discovering that it is expedient ; it may be set aside ex parte by the renunciation of one of the parties who has entered into it in ignorance ; it may be set aside ex parte by one of the parties who can prove that the other has violated it. Ministers and their adherents, confessing that the arrangements of the treaty of Waitangi are unjust and mischievous, are bound in duty to undertake to persuade the natives who are parties to it to agree to substituted contract more beneficial for all parties, in this place. They are bound in duty to avail themselves of every violation of the treaty by the contracting chiefs, to urge the substitution of a new one in more authoritative terms. The treaty of Waitangi is an incubus on the prosperity of New Zea-

land ; every honourable means of getting rid of it must be resorted to. What we owe to the aborigines of New Zealand is just and humane treatment, not the perpetuation of the treaty of Waitangi, which in its operation is neither just nor humane. The Governor of New Zealand ought to do what the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope has done — take advantage of circumstances to supersede an unwise and oppressive treaty or contract by more equitable arrangements. The chiefs, Noble (north of the Bay of Islands), Taraia (in the Valley of the Thames), Te Whero Whero (in the Waikato district), Rauparaha and Ranghiaiata (on Cook's Straits), have all in turn violated the conditions of the treaty : they have forfeited thereby any claims they could once have rested upon it. The Attorney-General of New Zealand has gravely given an opinion that the two last-named chiefs, having entered into the treaty without thoroughly comprehending it, are not bound by it. Lord Stanley scouts this doctrine in theory, but Lord Stanley's Governor is allowed to act upon it. Is the treaty to be binding on us, and not on them ? These chiefs are put out of the field by their own misconduct — others by having usurped, in signing the treaty, an authority they did not possess. In broken and mixed tribes, like that over which Rauparaha exercises his influence, a man of talent does obtain authority to act in name of the whole. Among tribes differently circumstanced — which have not for the time any member of commanding talent — no one individual possesses this authority. Many have signed the treaty of Waitangi as chiefs in the name of tribes who had no right to do so. Let the Governor of New Zealand ascertain the facts in each case — by what parties the treaty has been signed without authority, and by what chief's it has been violated. Let him then appeal to the rest of the natives — offer them a new and more definite treaty, ensuring justice to all ; and, with their assent, force it on the turbulent and refractory chiefs. Let the foolish, sham treaty of Waitangi be superseded by a just and intelligible contract deliberately entered into with the aborigines of New Zealand ; and let a sufficient force be placed in the hands of the Governor to execute the new contract in spite of any opposition. The main points to be clearly settled by # new treaty are :—lst,: — 1st, The exclusive right of the Crown to dispose of all waste lands for the common good. The notions of the New Zealanders respecting land rights are vague in the extreme, but they approach to something like this: — Certain tribes or chiefs claim a vague right to certain districts, which appears to be limited to a right of excluding from it any settlers not belonging to their own tribe; any member of a tribe, or any individual to whom the tribe or chief (as the case may be) gives permission, may acquire a right of private property in a piece of ground by cultivating it. The chiefs and tribes may be made to understand that in future all ground already acquired by cultivation is to remain the property of those who have acquired it ; and that the right of giving or withholding consent to individuals to acquire waste lands by cultivation is henceforth to vest in the Crown. They may be brought to see the advantage of such an arrangement to themselves. After this had been deliberately explained to them, the first article of the new treaty ought to vest in the Crown the exclusive right to all waste lands ; these lands to be disposed of by sale for a sufficient price ; the proceeds of the sales of one-eleventh of the lands to be reserved for the uses of the natives ; the rest to be expended on surveys, roads, free passages to British labouring emigrants, &c. The second article of the new treaty ought to vest in the Crown authority to put a stop to all wars between chief and chief, or tribe and tribe — in the case of quarrels the Queen's representative to be appealed to as mediator, and his decision to be final. The third article ought to reserve to courts, to be established by the Crown, the exclusive right of deciding in all questions of disputed rights of property, and in all charges of crimes, both over aboriginal and European subjects. These broad outlines of a settled constitution conceded by the natives, and steadily and sternly enforced by the Government, would be sufficient to lay the foundation of peace, order, and prosperity in New Zealand. But such a treaty would require to be enforced as well as contracted ; and to that end, the civil and military force placed at the disposal of the Governor, and the means of supporting it, would need be on a liberal scale ; and the Governor himself would require to be a man of enlightened and extensive political views, imperturbable temper, and unwavering decision, with a practical knowledge of business and men's characters — in short, in everything but his honorable disposition and wish to do good, the very reverse of the present Governor of New Zealand.