GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 4, Issue 209, 20 September 1860, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

House of Representatives.

DB. FEATHERSTON’S SPEECH On the Native Offenders Bill.

Dr. Featherston said, —Sir, while I consider it incumbent upon every member of this house to express his calm and deliberate opiniou upon the most grave question that has ever come before it, the fact of ray representing a province in which a considerable number of natives reside, who both possess and exercise the elective franchise, who are deeply interested in the contest at present raging at Taranaki, being members of Wiremu King’s,tribe; atid who haveurged-meto make known their opinions to this* bouse; affords -an additional reason for my- not remaining silent. -1 confess, sir, that I have-listened to the .debate so far as it has gone, but . especially to ’the exI'lanKfioDs offered by ministers; wit-B rerr

siderable -disappointment. I' did js6pe that; minister s-wou hi h yen; e arer and more explicit exposition of the at present subsisting between them and the Governor in regard fb tive affairs than'.a mere. ta|tlfe memorandum of 1856, drawn up J>y- / tbe..lian. member for Christchurch. (Hear, hear.f We know, indeed, that under the terms of that memorandum th6active • -administration of Vaiive affairs was vested in-, the governor, and yet we find the ministers, jit an Executive council -on - the 25th January, advising his Excellency on this Taranaki question, recom-mending-the employment of troops to: protect the surveyors, the proclamation of martial law. aud the military occupation of therland in dispute j and, further, instructing the minister for Native affairs to carry out this decision, truly, sir, this house ought to be informed whether ministers gave that advice with or without responsibility ; : whethei'- r -they consider themselves responsible for the war. If they •ii u themselves responsible for it, then it will be for this house to consideHvhetlier they were justified in accepting shclv a responsibility without its consent, ahd : in violation of the terms of the memorandurn 0fT856 ; for on the solution given of this question will in a great measure depend the liability of the colony for the expences of the war. Ministers are bound therefore to declare to what extent they have committed themselves and attempted to pledge this house. I also expected that ministers would have taken the earliest oppor tumty of explaining the financial aspect of the wa [* l‘be provinces in this island know full wear tbe manner in which the war; should it ecome general, will affect them.;.for there is not one of us who fails to recognize that a general war would, entail iutt^sr.trtiiUpon the settlers of the island, and be? attended with a sacrifice of life fearful tb|eoftjes£platjs>’ '6ut it is impossible for the Middle island to ascertain what interest they have in the war -until the bill of costs is presented./i'Whemthe war bill is presented, / fear that my friends the members for tbe will find that they have a deeper interest' in the war than they -at present ah interest which will cripple their resbtirdes, and materially interfere with those grand schemes of internal improvement which some of them are contemplating! I- bop'e-arid-triist that this house- will insist upon a- financial: statement being given at once, and will refuse,.until it is given, to entertain a single measure; I further hoped that ministers would have openly declared whether the “new policy” recently adopted in the . purchase L of native lands, of which Wiremii’Kingi and. the. natives comr plain, the policy of “ recognizing individual native claims” and of.‘‘-ignoring.tribal.rights” is to be persisted in. This 'policy was, I believe, first broached, in a. memorial presented from the Provincial council of. Taranaki to this hoiisb iii 5 wlfrch I regret to ‘sßjr the; doctrine of spoliation, and confiscation, and repudiation bf dll; the -solemn obligations of'the treaty-of ftfaitangi; was most broadly advocated). It was next enunciated by his .Excellency the Governor at the meeting he had with the nativesiri>March, 1859, and was still more fully developed-, by my, hon. friend the member for the JFairau, in, the manifesto recently issued to "liis constituents. The principle was for the firstjtime applied in the purchase of the land at R'aitaraand considering the'disasters it has caused, that one province may be said ;fo be completely destroyed, and tnat the prospect of a general War is daily becoming more imminent, Ti do think that the colony has a right to know whether this hew policy, ofy; recognizing individual claims,” and ■* ignprii|g tribal rights” is henceforth to be the ..policy' of his. Excelßf '.jJFdrtif such il the decision of tlie governmen'C' this . “ now policy ” be not openlyand officially disavowed, I -do'not hesitate tq thgtt jjt-. wiil Be regarded by almost every, tribe' in New Zealand as a violation of the- rights guaranteed to them by the treaty ; ofiJTaitahgi; and that the disasters of Taranaki will be repeated in various parts of this island; but on a greater scale. Sir, I .also did most earnestly hope, that we should have found .in' the papers laid upon the table, a vindication at any mte of the justice, if not of the 'policy of the war, into which the colony has Been plunged. I have listened with the greatest attention to the explanations of ministers—to the speech of the hon. member for Wallace; to wJiose opinions in such matters I attach great weight, and I have perused all the , documentin'pur, hands ; bat

[ regret to say (and I never made any declaration with .greater ;pain), that I can find nothing to, support the statenien^.contained in the speech with which' Excellency opened this se.ssion,.viz. that ..Uje cause of the disturbance of the publie peace "liis been an attempt on the part of a chief of ' the Ngatiawa to forbid,the sale to the.- Crown, and forcibly to prevent the survey of . a. piece of land, to which lie neither asserted, nor possessed any title.” r In order clearly to understand the proceedings of . the government at Taranaki, which have terminated in war, ami to decide upon their legality, justice and policy, it appears tome essential,that should ascertain ana bear in mind the laws and customs by which Maori titles f to land are governed and regulated. ,L ajppfehend that there are certain native titles which hre based upon well known customs, and,.have cerjtain incidents attached to them which no '"qiiestion—of no possible dispute;' Firi^ r let me remind; the .house thlj(% ifm !; ffeaty’of Waitangi ‘‘ the chiefs and tribes" Of Netf'VZealanll, and to the respective famiJiesaudThdi'viduals’thereof, the full, exclusive, and-undisturbed' possession of their: lands and fofests, fisheries, and other properties u \yhy may collectively

or individually possess, so long as it is their .wish ami desire to retain the same in their, possesion/’’ It follows,' that .whatever rights,! especially'' territorial, the natives possessed at the time the treaty was made, the government is bound . to respect and preserve inviolate. Now, there are two titles to land which are'so universally acknowledged, that they admit of no dispute, namely, by inheritance and by conquest. When land in possession of a tribe is inherited by them fiom their ancestors, it is, so far as uncultivated land is concerned, the property of the whole tribe. Lands actually cultivated by individuals are not absolutely, their own, but they are their own as against all individual claimants;, hut not as against the tribe. An absolute title does not exist, that is, no individual could sell without the consent of the- tribe. And the reason of this restriction upon the power to alienate is plain and obvious. If an individual possessed, such a power, he might have sold his land to a member of another tribe, and that possibly an enemy, and might thus at any time have embroiled his'tribe in war. The restriction was thus dictated by tire instinct of self-pre-servation ; it was therefore a universal law—a..law necessarily arising from, the division of the natives.into separate tribes, independent of each other. In the same way land, held' by conquest was the property, of the whole tribe, because it was obtained by the exertions and valour of the whole male population of the tribe. The leading chiefs bad the first choice, then the minor ones, and lastly their followers selected such land as they required. This restriction upon the power to alienate established a right of property in the whole tribe over the whole territory of the tribe ; in other words, a tribal right was created, of which the chief was the representative, the protector, and guardian. The minister for native affairs admitted. that the existence of this tribal right must be decided by authority ; but be failed to adduce any against it, because there never was a point upon which there existed sounanimous a concurrence of opinion. Thus, in the report of the Commissioners appointed by the Governor in 1856 to inquire into and report upon the state of native affairs, we find these statements, —“ That each native has a right, in common with the whole tribe, over the disposal of the land of the tribe, and has an individual right to such portions as he or his parent may have regularly had for cultivation, fur dwellings, &c.; but this individual claim does not amount to a right of disposal to Europeans as a general rule. Generally speaking, there is no such thing as an individual claim, clear and independent of the tribal right.” The chiefs exercise an influence in the disposal of the land, but have only an individual claim like the rest of the people to particular portions., “When natives first began selling land, they intended only to convey a title similar to that which they as individuals hold themselves—the - right of occupancy.” The following question was put to the .witnesses examined by the Commission -“//asa native a strictly individual right to any particular portion of land independent and clear of the tribal right ?” The negative opinions were : J. Thorp (mentions one instance to the contrary), Bolger, Serancke, Webster, Burrows, He mi Take (says lie is an individual owner, but would have to make- presents if he sold), Fenton, Black, the Bishop of New Zealand (he mentions an. instance to the contrary), Whiteley, Rogan, Rewai te Ahu, Wiremu Maehi, Marshall, Paora, Xepu, Johnson, Brown, Campbell, Tamati Ngaporo, W. White, Te Hira, Wilson, Davis (but mentions a few instances to the contrary), Busby in extraordinary cases), McLean, the Chief Land purchase commisbioner, J. White. The only affirmative opinions were: Porter mentions three cases (but states that the individual Maories merely acted as agents for the tribe), Graham. lit addition to these- authorities 1 may mention that the same law was laid down by Archdeacon Hadfiehl, than whom no higher authority on Maori questions exists, in some notes he prepared for Sir George Grey fifteen years ago. And I was shown only a day or two since a letter from Mr. G. Clarke, formerly Protector of Aborigines, in which he not only states that the natives hold their lands in common, and that no individual can alienate any portion without the consent of the chief, but also adds, that no Commissioner could be justified in effecting the purchase at JTaitara in opposition to such a chief as Wiremu Kingi. But this tribal right has been invariably acknowledged by the several governments of New Zealand.

. If, then, no question exists as to this tribal right, that is, a right of property in the whole tribe over the whole territory of the tribe, there can be still less donbt tlmt it \vas one of the rights guaranteed by the treaty of Waitangi; and that in ignoring it in the case of Wirerau Kingi the Governor has violated the treaty. So conscious are the government of the blunders they have committed that they have taken an immensity of trouble, and wasted considerable ingenuity in concocting a genealogical tree for Te Teira, their object being to make out Teira to be of higher birth , than if. Kingi, and therefore the real chief of Waitara, and as such the representative of the tribal right. Bnt neither Mr. McLean nor anybody else would seriously assert that W. King is not the admitted chief of Waitara. I come now to the assertion that W. King neither asserted nor possessed any claim to the land alleged to be purchased by the'government of Teira. First let me draw your attention to Mr. McLean’s instructions to Mr. Parris, in which he gives him this caution, ."'great care should be taken not to give too 1 much prominence to that class of-claimants, who are frequently the first to offer their lands for sale, from the fact of their (title being in i many instances very defective. The actual

owner, in contradistinction to..the...class to j which I have just referred, seldom makes a | noisy or boasting demonstration of what his clajin^really may; tlierefore, be-'iSi-ferfed,' from 'His silent Jan l iitfebmproni,ikiu^. demeanour, that his rights a e not to bo trifled with; and that without his acquiescence it will be impossible tb make a valid purchase.” One would alino-t iiiiagine that Mr. McLean foresaw everything that has occurred, since lie penned such a remarkable warning ; for it would be impossible for any one, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances, to draw a more graphic, a more faithful description of the conduct of the two parties in this case. When lie found Teira writing letter after letter to the Governor, urging him to “buy tho land,” “ to be stout-hearted aud to move quickly,” “ not to listen-to the words of tho others,” one cannot help having a suspicion , That lie is one of the class to which Mr. McLean ’referred. Then, how different the conduct of' theproud and haughty chief'of Waitara. He makes “ no noise, no. J*.a. ting demonstrations of his claims ;” but;, strong in the; nature' o£\ Hisr caus°,. he shows, hy his silence and his up -. compromising demeanour, that his' rights are; not/to’ be trifled w.ith, ; and that without his acquiescence a valid purchase is impossible.. The next proof til .t; W,. King asserted his claim, both proprietary and tribal, is found in-. Teirals.letter to the Governor of the 20th; March, L. 859, in which he. says,—“ Your, word advising them (W. King and party) to ; mark off their, .own pieces of land within our ; line (boundary of? the block offered by Teira) ; they have received, but. they do. not consent. I consent, because it is correct.” Here we. have a distiuct admission by Teira of W.. King's claim ; but the most emphatic assertion, of his claim is in /Tiriniu Kindi’s own letter to., the Governor of the 25th April, 1859, where,he writes, “ Salutations to you. Your letter, has reached me about Teira’s and /JetimanaV thought's. I will not agree to our bedroom, being sold (I mean Waitara here), fjr this bed, belongs to the w’ ole of us. . ... Ti.is is another word to you, 0 Governor. The land will n<wer, never be given to you, not till; death.” Then, in still further co;rob ration, we have W. King’s letter to Mr. .Hadfield,-in. which lie u es the remarkable words, —“ Carefully listen to my fault, and to the fault of all the Europeans, of Pairis, of Whit ly, and of the Governor. They say that Teira also owns ids block of land ; no, that piece of 'and belongs to us all; it bclmgs to the orphans*it belongs to the widows.” (Strange, that, a Maori chief sh- uld c >me forth as the protector of the widow and orphan , against tl e represen--tative of her Majesty. The minister of Native affairs, however, refers to Wi Tako’s letter, which he says carries great weight in proof; that Wiremu King? had no right to interfere in the sale, lam sorry to say my hon. friend, is labouring under a great delusion, —-that he, in; common with most others, has put an interpre- - tation upon the expression in Wi 2'altq’s letter, “ the wrong is W. King’s,” wliich is the very reverse of what he intended. Shortly after. •VVi Tuko’s return to the Hutt from Waikato, and Taranaki, I paid him a visit, in company, with you, sir, the member far. the Hutt, and; several settlers. During the interview, which lasted a considerable time, you will remember,. sir, that 1 asked Wi Tako, “ What, did ycu s mean by saying, * this wrong is W. King’s ?’ ” “ I will tell you,” replied Wi Tako. “W. King wrote to the Waikitos, telling them that lie had recreated to the mountains ; but shortly, afterwards he returned to the disputed land,, and thus the fighting began. This? is what I meant by saying, ‘ this wrong is W. King’s.’ ” ' “ W’hat, did you not mean to admit that W. King had no title to the laud, no right to forbid, the sale ? ’ The words were scarcely out of my mouth before Wi Tako, Te Puni, and other chiefs cried out, “ Kaln re, kahore, the Governor is in the wrong. . W. King has laud in the block, his wife has land, his son also, Te Puni, and others (mentioning a great number of names), all own portions of the land sold by Terra.” Wi Tako and Te Puni then explained that the land was divided info small allotments, that; these allotments were marked i out by stones, that many of them had names,. and said that, if we would accompany them to . Waitara they would point out the allotments ■ of each individual. Wi - Tako added, that “ Teira had no more right ,to sell the; 600 * acres, than a man owning one acre in Wei--lington would have a right to sell the whole town.” I will now read an exceedingly in- - teresting leter from Rev. Riwai Te Ahu, the native minister at Otaki, in which he relates the whole trans :ction It will be observed -. that lie ac ually gives the names of some of; the allotments owned by W. King, his wife;, and son.

[This letter, dated Otaki, 23rd June, is too long for insertion. He complains that inquiries ha 1 no- been m ide as to the ownership of the land of both parties; that the Land Commissioner misinterpreted the stat raent of King, w’ho plainly claimed the own ership of part of the land sold; that the proceedings of ; the Governor had greatly perplexed the other owners; that they had no desire to cause a. disturbance, but that the proposal to collect among themselves the money given to Teira. for the land, and give it to Gcvor-rment so as , to prevent any possibility of dispute, had been, mooted among King's people; and. that Kinghad refused to have any connection with theMaori king movement until the commencerneut of hostilities at Waitara.] Keferring now to the , public statement of the Government, we find it admitted that, at. the meeting with the Governor in March,. 1859. W. Kiug said—" Listen Governor I Notwithstanding Teira’s'offer, ./willnot permit the sale of Waitara to the pakeha'. Waitara is in my hand, I will not. give it. up. I,

will not, I will not, I will not. I have! spoken and turning to his tribe, added “ A'ow let us go.” Whereupon he and his followers abruptly withdrew. It is difficult to conceive in what stronger terms, in what more complete manner, W. Xing could have denied 2 eira’s right to sell, or asserted both the individual claims of himself and his people, and the tribal right, of which he was the representative and protector. Again, at the meeting in December, when Mr. Parris paid an instalment, W. King is reported to have said, in answer to the question, “ Does this land belong to T’eira and party ?” “ Yes, the land is their’s, but I will not let them sell it.” On this admission the government lays great stress. But any one acquainted with the idiom of their language, ami the habits of thought of the natives will tell you that Wm. King simply meant —“ Yes, some of the land belongs to T’eira and his party, for the occupancy, but he has no right to alienate either that or the lands belonging to others,whether ■with or without their consent.” This view is confirmed by his letters, in which he says, *■* Waitara belongs to the whole of us.” It is simply absurd to suppose that after having so repeatedly and distinctly asserted his claims he should deny and repudiate them in December. Against this mass of evidence that Wm. King has individual claims to portions of 600 acres, and was besides the representative of the tribal right, you have really nothing but the bare and unsupported assertions of Mr, Parris, upon whose statements, having regard to' their meagreness, and the glaring discrepances in the two accounts of the interview between the Governor and Wm, King in March, 1859, /, for one, cannot place the slightest reliance. But the question jit issue is, not merely whether Wiremu Kingi, in virtue of ljis chieftainship, possessing the tribal right, and from having individual claims to some portions of the land offered by T’eira, was justified in forbidding its sale, but the simple question is—Was the government justified in ejecting vi et armls certain chiefs and their people from lands of which they are the rightful owners, and which they have inherited from a long line of ancestors ? In reference to this purchase, I venture very confidently to assert that there are at least fifty claimants resident at Waikanae, Otaki, and the Hufct, and Queen Cbarlott’s Sound, who are prepared to prove (before any impartial tribunal) their title to allotments within this block of 6,00 acres, and who have either protested against the sale, or have never been consulted in the matter. Not only have W. Kingi, his wife, and his son, lands within this block (the names of the allotments being well known) hut the chief Patunahao, is one of the largest owners. He is the chief of the Ngatiunga hapu, and is next in rank to TV. Kingi: lie has bn all occasions protested against the sale, and has long been fighting with W. Kingi. ?’he hoi}, member than read a letter from another chief confirming the repeated protests given at the sale by W. Kingi, Patuhahauo, and others, and showing that at a meeting amongst themselves Teira offered to give lands (outside the boundary of this block) in exchange for those he was offering to the Government —thus publicly acknowledging he was attempting to sell lands to the. Government to which he had not the shadow of a claim. To show how completely the claims ofj actual owners have been set aside, I will now read a letter addressed to m,e from some native claimants residing at Waikanae, Otaki, &c. [ln this letter a claim is made by the natives, 11 of the Ngatiawa, to portions of the land sold —and a complaint that Mr. Parris took no means to, ascertain what claimants there were, and the first they heard of the matter, was the payment of the mpney to T’eira ; and next the survey and the arrival of troops to take possession, They ask what they are to do when the government takes away their lands. To whom were they to look for protection ?. They were wholly at a loss.] I also have a list continued, the hon. member, given me by Te Puni, of several claimants residing at or near Wellington, and 1 hold ip. my hands a map, shewing the allot- j jpaents, with the names of the owners, some; fifty or sixty in number, most of whose rights have been ignored., This. plan was drawn by a native of. Wakanae, about 70 years old, who lived some 40 years at Waitara. It has been asserted that the natives of the tribe living at Queen Charlott’s Sound have affirmed Teira’s title, but. in, a, letter read, by me from, a, natiye a,t Queen Charlotte’s Sound, Ptopoama Te Ori is-accused of having signed the names of many of those whose sig.natures. were attached to the letter without their consent, and. that, these bavq since repudiated, haying affirmed. Teira’s •title. The lion, member read a. translation of the, letter.

Surely, /Sir, I have now adduced more than sufficient grounds for a committee of inquiry, if I, have not proved that, in forcibly ejecting certain chiefs and their people, we have committed a great, wrong. I must now refer to. the charge brought against the government by ray hon. friend, the member for the City of Anckland. I allude to fhe Proclamation of Martial Law, but which is really a declaration of, war, I will giye a literal translation of the proclamation : PROCLAMATION By the Governor Thomas Goi*e Bowne, Principal Chief, C.BL, &c., &c., this Proclamation is by the Governor of this. Colony of New Because soon will be commenced the worl of the soldiers of the Queen against the natives nt Taranaki, whp, are. naughty, (rebellious) fighting against the authority of the Queen jfow, I, the Governor do openly publish an t

proclaim this word, that the fighting law will extend at tins time to Taranaki a* a fixed law until the time when it shall he revoked by Proclamation. Here you have a declaration not of martial law hut a positive declaration of war against all the natives in the province of Taranaki, who are declared to be fighting against the authority of the Queen, although, up to that time, not only had no fighting taken place, but no overt act whatever had been co mmitted. The proclamation of war is dated the 25th January, and was published at Taranaki, by the officer in command, on the 20th of February. Now, Sir, seeing that the Governor declared war, not against the natives at Waitara (who he expected would resist by force the seizure of their land), but against all the tribes in the province of Taranaki ; against the Ngatiruanuis and Taranakis, as well as the Ngatiawas: who had up to that time taken no part with W. Kingi. Can it be matter of surprise that the tribes thus declared rebels and enemies should decide on making common cause with JTirerau Kingi ? What must the natives have thought of the declaration contained in the manifesto issued by the Governor in April, that when the Governor went to Taranaki in March he had no wish to make war, the declaration of war having been made in February ? After such strauge and unheard of proceedings, is it reasonable to expect that the natives should retain the slightest confidence in the justice of the Government ? Is it not on the contrary surprising that the whole native population does not rush to arm 3 ? I cannot see what excuse can be made for the government in thus proclaiming war' against natives who had committed no overt act; nor ba3 any excuse yet been attempted. I state, very distinctly, that I have consulted those best acquainted with the native language, and that they all declare that the natives could not put any other construct tion on the proclamation than that it was a declaration of war. But, Sir, while honestly and conscientiously believing that the war is an unjust and unholy war, I cannot but feel that we are placed in a most painful position; for while on the one hand, any retreat, or any vacillation in carrying on the war might be tnost disastrous to both races, it is, on the other baud, most shocking to urge that we should go on shedding blood in a cause which we believe to be unjust. I cannot but express an earnest hope that we may be able to devise some means of bringing the conflict to a close without compromising the. dignity of the Crown or the safety of both races. I would remind you that, as the natives have not in this bouse any representatives of their race, we are bound by a sense of justice—by that love of fair play which has ever been, and, I trust ever will be the distinguishing character of our nation—to protect their interests; to mete out equal justice. For ray own part, I know of no higher duty than can possibly devolve upon this House than to prove to the natives that it is a tribunal to which an appeal for redress will never be made in vain. I can conceive no means so calculated to restore the confidence of the natives in the justice of the Government—which ha,s been so entirely destroyed by these transactions—as a determination evinced by this House to protect them from acts of injustice, no matter how high the powers by which they are perpetrated. Such, I repeat, is the most sacred duty that can possibly devolve upon this House.