The Proposed Reconfiscation.

Maori Record : a journal devoted to the advancement of the Maori people, Volume I, Issue 2, 1 August 1905, Page 2

The Proposed Reconfiscation.

In reading your account of the debate on the above matter by the Taranaki provincial section of the Farmers’ Union, it was a large satisfaction to me to be able to recognise that the majority of 16 to 5 in favour of the seizure of 200,000 acres of Crown Granted lands was obtained by a misrepresentation of the position, in, I believe, the innocence of honest error. No one welcomed the advent of the Farmers’ Union more heartily than myself, because I thought it would inherit all the best traditions of the British yeoman, and, whilst presenting a sturdy front for the maintenance of the just rights of the farming community, be an immensely strong factor in advocacy for cleanly administration and equitable legislation, and at the same time be a trenchant foe to all chicanery. In such belief I have, since its inception, been a sincere advocate by voice and pen of the programme of the Farmers’ Union, and its extension, which is rapidly becoming inevitable, to a stall in the political arena. But, Sir, no right-thinking man would continue to give countenance and support to the Farmers’ Union, if by 16 to 5 they adopted an iniquitous proposal in the fullness of knowledge. I will take a portion of Mr Maxwell’s last speech as my text, and in doing so let me say that, without personally knowing that gentleman, I have a most sincere admiration for the way in which he protected settlers’ rights in the Harbor Board matter, and I believe that when Mr Maxwell knows the true position of the Reserves he will cease to advocate their confiscation. Says Mr Maxwell: “The reserves consisted of 200,000 acres of confiscated land, and the natives had never got hj back.” The total area of the confiscated territory, that is, not of land actually confiscated, but of native lands over which settlement of Europeans might be made, was 1,192,000 acres (see Parliamentary Paper, 1884 A—sß). At that date there were 235,350 acres of this area occupied by Europeans, and 528,800 more acres available for European settlers. This latter has since been sold or leased by the Government on State account. The reserves made in former years, called Compensation Awards, have also, almost to the last acre, come into the occupation of Europeans. Those which had not been thus alienated at the date of the report were absorbed into the West Coast Settlement Reserves, which are, in the P.P. I have quoted, stated to be in area 201,395 acres. Mr Maxwell states the natives “never got it back.” I had considerable admiration for the Farmers’ Union when they, or some of them, refused to sanction the revaluation of lands held

in perpetuity at a fixed rental, because they refused to lend the influence of their powerful name to a breach of contract, although it was felt that those lessees, in respect to this one condition, had ,an exceedingly soft thing. It is this admirable sense of right and justice made manifest which encourages me to hope that the Farmers’ Union will not stultify itself when it is informed that the 201,395 acres were in the early eighties Crown Granted to 5289 natives in 392 Crown Grants, that these natives live between the Waitotara River and White Cliffs, and this area is all between those natives and destitution, as with that exception the 1,192,000 acres have been taken, sold or leased by the Government to Europeans, or sold by natives to Europeans. The latter is probably an inconsiderable area. This 201,395 acres, then, is the total provision for 5289 natives after the bulk of their land has been taken, loyal and rebel alike, men who shot at us, and men who for us shot their fellow-tribesmen, or those who remained neutral. It was felt that in the then state of Maori civilisation, and the state also of their finance in 1881, they could not beneficially occupy, as farmers, the large area, although it fell far short of the statutory acreage of 50 acres per capita, as will be seen by dividing the number of acres by the number of grantees. The Crown Grants of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, which I hope the Farmers’ Union will think equally worthy of respect with the contract of the lease in perpetuity, speaking from memory, are conditioned as follows: I may say I have handled the whole 392 Grants and copied fully one-half of them. They grant the freehold to the natives, all individually named, for ever, and the lands are made inalienable except as follows:—First by exchange for lands of at least equal value, said lands taken in exchange being held in fee simple; secondly, by lease for 21 years, without fine, premium, or foregift. Sir William Fox issued a proclamation declaring the lands, subject to the grants, the freehold of the native grantees for ever. It was not thought advisable that the natives should have the leasing of their own lands, so in 1881 was passed the first West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, which appointed the Public Trustee to administer the lands. And just here comes in another point: If property, the subject of a trust held by the Public Trustee, can have its title defamed and destroyed as the effect of political agitation, what faith is to be placed on the inviolability of any property confided to tne State Trustee? It was deemed advisable to lease, with the consent of the native owners, when Mr Thos. Mackay had succeeded Sir William Fox as Commissioner. The latter asked me to consult the natives of the Waimatc Plains, and, by quoting Crown Grants and the proclamation above spoken of, that the lands should be theirs and their children’s for ever, and the leases merely temporary, I got a tacit consent to the leasing of the land, valuable because it ensured the settlers from interference. The lands were then leased from time to time, but on conditions very different at first from those now existing. By political agitation, by dangling their votes before the eyes of successive candidates for Parliamentary seats, in the same way as is being done at present, the lessees of these West Coast Settlement Reserves obtained

amendments (?) to the principal Act in 1883, 1885, 1837, 1889, 1892, 1893, 1900, and 1902, which amendments have gradually improved their title and terms of lease, and equally vitiated that of the natives. But the freehold belongs to the natives, and the Public Trustee holds the fee simple merely for purposes of administration, although he greatly presumes on his position. It will be a public fallacy that the freehold tenure by Crown Grant is unassailable, if the lessees by political agitation can for themselves obtain the freehold of others. What security is there in any title if such things can happen. There is much said, and a paper has been published, on Maori landlordry. What complaint have the lessees to make of the treatment they have received? When in 1887 they agitated as usual, and pleaded poverty, their rent was reduced one-half for a period of five years. And they have not ceased to agitato now when instead of those loan years the fat years have been long upon them, and having formerly got all they asked for, they now want the freehold. And every candidate who comes before them will promise to forward their iniquitous aim, although I do not think any one of those seekers after political honour and three hundred a year believes in his heart that when the Parliament of New Zealand hears the true state of the case the latter will so defame the honour of the colony as to transfer the freehold of one British subject, held in trust by a colonial office, to another British subject who only differs from the first in that he holds the franchise. Before the Government ventured on the amendments adverse to the natives, knowing it had a warrior people to deal with, it drew the latter’s teeth by domiciliary visits to their whares in 1881, at which it removed the Maoris’ pigeon guns. Birds were out of season, and in November the guns were rusty. Prior to the leases of the Public Trusteeand this is another phase of Maori landlordry, although not sanctioned by law—the natives made a certain contract with their European neighbours, by which they leased their reserves to the latter on such terms as would allow the lessees to improve the land, and return it to the native owners in a fit state for their own farming at the end of the term. Mr Davidson is one of those who acquired such a lease, and as a member of the Farmers’ Union, at the meeting on Wednesday last, he thus spoke, to his own honour and in the light of his full experience, of native landlordry in days when insecurity brooded over the district. Said Mr Davidson : “He had seen the time when the West Coast Settlement tenants were glad to get the land. They had a good thing, and now they wanted a better. He thought faith should be kept with the Maoris.” Mr Davidson thought that those who kept faith with him when the law protected neither should not be oppressed by the predominant partner, which owned power at the polls. Those irregular leases were enquired into by Sir William Fox, and those which were bona fide between the two parties, the Maori and the European, were confirmed for the terms for which they were made. Subsequent agitation ensuing, the Acts I have mentioned caused the conversion of these into perpetual leases. It was said at the meeting of the Farmers’ Union that the natives had no say in the fixing of the terms of lease. This is an error,

as is proved by the advertisements which appear from time to time, Sir, in your and other papers, with a long list 'of native grantees, calling on them to meet and consult as to tho renewal of some European’s lease. Ido not say that the wishes of the natives are always given effect to in their entirety, but they are studied by the Public Trustee. If those wishes had full effect, the 1000 acres advertised in your columns to be subdivided, and which is one of those confirmed leases, would have been let in several farms years ago. I acknowledge that the freehold is the best tenure, but it will cease to be so if it can be stolen by political agitation. If the lessees cannot exist without the freehold let them agitate for the right to freehold some waste lands of the Crown, which these reserves never were. They passed direct from the native title, which the Treaty of Waitangi protected, to the freehold tenure, secured on Crown Grant by Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen. As credentials for my authority to speak, I may say that the scheme of the continuous reserve was formulated by plan with full directions from me on February 23, 1879, sent to Mr Sheehan in Sir George Grey’s Premiership, and adopted by Sir William Fox the next year. The consent of the natives of the Plains was obtained by me as above stated. And finally Mr Bryce was advised by me to take the troops to Parihaka to arrest Hiroki and for other purposes a year before he did so.