The Meurant Case.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2864, 20 April 1878, Page 2

The Meurant Case.

The following letter appeared in the Weekly News of Saturday last. It is well authenticated by the signature of the writer; it discloses a case of great hardship, pressing upon members of the family residing in this district; therefore we give it insertion :—

TO THB SDITOB.

Sia,—Permit me to invite jour notice to a memorable oaie in the history of New Zealand—that of Meurant against the Government., You avow yourself to be as great an enemy to tyranny and oppression as I am myself and are bound' to thank me for affording you the chance of showing that your championship is in earnest, grappling with particulars, and not wasting itself upon vague general assurances, which pass for what they are worth, and for nothing more. On the eve of return to England, I leave the case (within the colony) as a legaoy to yourself, nothing doubting that your practice will correspond to your profesnion.

The old settlers are familiar with the main points and details of the case. But this may be recapitulated, in few words, for the information of newcomers. A Maori woman, Kenehuru, was lawfully married to a European named Meurant. Thirty acres of land at Semuera, now very valuable, were conveyed to her as a marriage portion, and for the support of her children, by certain natives at Orakei. These thirty acres were sailed by Governor Grey, who granted ten acres of the wife's land to the husband, by a grant in trust which is prefaced by a false recital, and sold the remaining twenty. Setting aside all question of the unjust and tyraanous appropriation, the land sale itself was absolutely illegal, the native title never having been extinguished. The Government was aware of the illegality/ having made an attempt to extinguish the native title by purchase from the original donors, who refuted the money. It is remarkable' that, although an order to make a Crown grant for the whole thirty acres remains among the Government papers, the subsequent order te diminish the amount has disappeared. There is something wrong about this; but there always was something wrong in those days. • It was urged at the time, (hat had the woman lived in concubinage with Meurant, and not in marriage, the Government would never have dated to touch the land.

The ease was referred to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but wu corned by a glaringly misleading dejpstoh, which beguiled Lord Gray. But reprMentatire in■litutions were granted, and the matter came before the House. It wu referred to the Gommifsioner of land Claims, but none of the successive occupants of that office could be induoed to gi?e a formal decision, one way or the other. Mr Commissioner Bell told me that he had found for plaintiff, but he had made no fornml record of the finding. Mr Commissioner Domett was engaged upon it, but did nothing. So, alno, Mr Moorhouse, Mr Williams (of Canterbury), and Mr O'Borke. But by the Government, of which the latter was a member, the Juestion was referred to Mr Fenton, Chief udge of the Native Lands Court. The award was, as a matter of course, in favour of-the plaintiff; it could not have been otherwise. The sole real questioa was the amount of compensation, which was settled at something over £8000. The award was made, there is not the shadow «f doubt about the facts, but the practical difficulty remains-—how to extract the money compensation from an unwilling Government. I have carried the natter to a successful issue so fir, after thirty years' persistence j but am about to take leave, and must remit the final winding-up to other bands. Will you not take it up yourself P We are just now being compelled to listen to much tirade about "-tyranny and oppression," manifestly with the object of setting class against class j we are invited to contend against imaginary grievances, but when a tang'.ble cast of oppression is brought up for cure, a remanet of those times when Governors were able to exercise arbitrary power, a courtly reticence is shown, through fear of seeming to pry too curiously into past mitdeedi. I admit that a half-hearted question was put about the matter in the House last session by one who can be plain-spoken enough when it suits him j but the honorable member was not so indiscreetly rude as to press it home.— I am, &c, Hitoh Cabibtov. Auciland, March 30,1878.