THE HISTORY OF THE CONFISCATED LAND.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5641, 29 April 1879, Page 3

THE HISTORY OF THE CONFISCATED LAND.

(From the Lyttelton Times.)

If we look at the early history of this confiscated block, we shall be better able to see the cause of - the present embroglio. And we are sorry to say that successive Governments are chiefly to blame for it. In 1866 a select committee of the House of Representatives on confiscated lands made a report, which is signed by the late Mr. Crosbie Ward. The part of it relating to the Taranaki consfication must have been written by him, with that keen sense of humorous raillery for which he was remarkable. We look upon it as a model of the art of saying nothing in official language, and recommend it to the use of , those who, in the composition of State papers have to make bricks without straw. After expressing their gratitude to Messrs. Parris and Carrington, “ who have supplied fuff and substantially accurate information respecting the land confiscated and the various claims upon it," the committee describe the results of their inquiry as generally reliable, except in the following respects :—“First, the total extent of land confiscated is estimated from a sketch map of the coast. Second, the extent of land which may be adjudged by the Compensation Court during its approaching sittings to be due to absentee or other claimants cannot be foretold. Thirdly, the area which it may be thought fitting to grant to rebels who may return and surrender is uncertain. And lastly, the extent of the land in the interior which may be available for settlement within a moderate period has been arrived at, in practical ignorance of the facts, by an approximate calculation.” These exceptions, made with such artful artlessness, make us wonder where and what are the results at which the committee arrived, and which they state “ may be relied on as substantially correct.” One conclusion, however,' may be inferred. It was intended that the Compensation Court should sit and ■make its report before the Government should deal with the land. A correspondence, to which before we conclude we shall specially refer, between Mr. H. R, Richmond, then Superintendent of Taranaki, and Mr. Stafford, then Premier of the colony, is published in the same appendix, 1866, to the Journals of the House of Representatives, and strongly corroborates that view. How is it, then, we ask, that the Compensation Court has never inquired and reported respecting this particular block before the Government assumed the responsibility of dealing with it. for the purpose of sale ? The special function of that Court was to smooth away the various difficulties arising in confiscated lands out of the claims of loyal natives and rsturned rebels. The proceedings of the Court were public, and if, as was probable, the natives generally agreed to the awards, no future obstacle to the disposal of the released Grown land was likely to occur. Private negotiations by this and that Government agent were sure to lead to misunderstandings, • uncertainties, dissatisfaction, and conflict. The painful position in which the colony is placed in the present conjecture is sufficient proof of that fact. Mr. H. R. Richmond, in a letter, dated 29th January, 1866, strongly urged that the sitting of the Compensation Court in Taranaki should not be delayed. He also stated, with reference to the confiscated lands in that province, that Major Atkinson, on examining into the subject of the liabilities an these lands, as far as he was in a position to do so, came to the conclusion that “little or no open land would be available for sale.” Mr. Stafford in his reply, 6th March, 1866, makes two important statements. He says that the Civil Commissioner, Mr. Parris, had been instructed to adjust the native claims on the confiscated blocks in Taranaki. .These instructions were given by the preceding Government, that of Mr. Weld, and Mr. Stafford encloses a copy of them ; but ;the enclosure, unfortunately, is not published. It is important that those instructions should be produced. If they were acted on at the time, they may be held to constitute an honorable colonial obligation. The second important statement of Mr. Stafford is, that the Government believe in the desirability of an early investigation by the Compensation Court, and that the senior Judge of the Court has been requested to take steps for that purpose. So far as we are aware, the Court has never inquired into the claims on the confiscated lands in South Taranaki. It sat for a few days at Waitara, and then, for some unexplained reasons, its proceedings there suddenly collapsed. In place of peaceful negotiations, the Stafford -Ministry unhappily took the combative advice of Mr. H. B. Richmond, who—there was always then a Richmond in the field—had come to the conclusion that “ before any settlers, whether called military or agricultural, are located on lands at points intermediate between Patea and Stoney River, it will be necessary either to reduce the natives of that district to submission and to acquiescence in the confiscation of the land, or to inflict so severe a chastisement on them that they practically abandon the contest.” Well, .we have had the Chute and Titokowaru campaigns. We have inflicted and received “chastisement we have spent another million pounds, and lost a few more hundred lives ; and what

ia the result ? Our title deeds to the Waimate Plains are bloodier and more torn ; and we now revert to that peaceful negotiation which we would not have twelve years ago. The colony is grown sadder and wiser by experience ; and we are sure that, before aggressive hostility on our part begins, Parliament will insist upon a thorough investigation, upon conclusive proof that we are in the right, and upon the exhaustion of every effort to maintain peace and honor.