Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Rare Volume

II. Te Teira's Title Alleged to be Incomplete

II. Te Teira's Title Alleged to be Incomplete.

Beside the tribal right of veto vesting in and exercised by Wiremu Kingi, Teira's right to sell has also been contested on the ground that there were other owners whose consent had not been obtained.

The Government acknowledged that there were other claimants by appending to the description of the boundary a condition, "that all who might have claims within the block might either sell or retain them, as they thought proper." (Speech of Mr. Stafford, the Colonial Secretary, Aug. 7.)

Among these Kingi himself puts in a usufructuary claim in right of himself and his wife to some small allotments of

"It is now admitted, that whatever the value of his tribal claim, King is one of those who have a right to 'some small allotments' inside the block sold by Te Teira, the precise locality of which is unknown to Government," (Fox, p. 39).

"All of these different portions of land have names given them by our ancestors; the name of William King's is Te Porepore. One portion of land belonging to his son and daughter, which was the property of their mother, is that on which Te Hurirapa's pa stood, which was burnt by the soldiers. Another portion of land is at Orapa, to the south of where their old pa stood. All these portions are contained in the block asserted to be Teira's, and have all been taken by the Governor." (Riwai Te Ahu. Fox, App., p. 52.)

page 15 the land. Mr. McLean admits that Kingi's cultivations were "wholly, or almost wholly, on the north side.of the river." (Evidence, Aug. 14). Teira himself acknowledges that they were not wholly outside the disputed block, for in a letter to the Governor, March 20th, 1859, he says :—

"Your word advising them (W. Kingi and his 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."

Again, in a letter signed Tipene Ngaruna, we meet with this passage :—

"When we met to talk at Hurirapa, Teira said that he would give up his lands outside the boundary, in exchange for the lands belonging to all the others within the block which he was selling. All present replied, ' We will not exchange our lands,' &c." (Dr. Featherstone's Speech, Southern Cross, Sept. 1).

Mr. Fox says :—
"It is now stated that the 600 acres are not the property of Teira, but the joint property of himself and perhaps 100 other owners—an amount of sub-division very common among natives, whose several occupations are often but a few rods in extent.* The Ven. Archdeacon Hadfield declares before the House of Representatives that he is prepared to

* See p. 27.

page 16 prove that there are at least 100 proprietary owners. Riwai Te Ahu gives full particulars in his letter, which I append.* Hohepa Ngapaki, and ten others, resident at Otaki, prefer their claims in another letter also appended.* Wi Tako, Te Puni, and other important chiefs at Wellington, confirm this to the Superintendent of that Province. Another old chief, who resided for forty years at Waitara, draws a map showing a multitude of small allotments, to which he assigns owners by name. Now only fourteen men and five women have as yet signed the incomplete deed of sale held by the Government; a great many, certainly the majority of these joint proprietors, have not consented to sell; most have never been asked; and tell us that they never heard of the transaction, till informed that the fighting was going on. Some

* Extracts from these are quoted elsewhere.

* Extracts from these are quoted elsewhere.

"Neither he, (the District Commissioner, Mr. Parris,) nor any other Commissioner, ever visited Waikanae or Otaki, where King and the larger part of his tribe had resided for twenty years, and where many of the claimants are now found; nor did they send to those places any notification of what was going on. (McLean's Evidence before House of Representatives.)" (Fox, p. 40).

"We have heard the justification (put forth in defence) of Mr. Parris's wrong act in reference to our portions of land. It is as follows :—'A long time was allowed to elapse; no objections were made to (the sale) of the land. Mr. Parris, Land Commissioner at Taranaki, carefully inquired in order to ascertain who were the owners of the land offered to him. Mr. Parris made inquiry and was satisfied as to the right.' We presume that this statement is put forth that all men may wonder at the carefulness of his proceedings : that people may be led to believe that he really did make enquiries ! Listen. We are living at Waikanae—one at Otaki. Mr. Parris never came to make enquiries of us as to whether we had lands there or not (nor did any of his fellow Land Commissioners come to make enquiries). He did not even write to enquire. He did not during the whole of that year advertise in the newspaper his wish to ascertain what claimants there were to that land. He did nothing of the kind. One of the Land Commissioners enquired of some persons in Queen Charlotte's Sound; but he passed us by and made no enquiries of us." (lb. App. p. 56.)

It is asserted that some of the alleged signatures purporting to give consent to the sale on the part of members of the tribe at Queen Charlotte's Sound were forgeries.—(Dr. Feather stone's Speech, Southern Cross, Sept. 1.)

page 17 have positively refused to sell, among whom is Patukakariki, the head of E. Teira's hapu, who is actually fighting on King's side." (Fox, p. 38.) Mr. McLean, in his Evidence before the House of Representatives, admits the dissent of of Patukakariki, but says that he never asserted his claim.

No little pains have been taken by speakers and writer in New Zealand to prove that Kingi did actually put in his claims both seignorial and proprietary. It is difficult to account for the Governor's allegation, in his opening address to the Legislative Assembly, that Kingi did not "assert" his claims, seeing that nearly the whole year is said to have been spent in investigating the claims adverse to Teira, and in correspondence with Kingi himself and others, on the subject. But Mr. Richmond's statements quoted above are alone sufficient evidence on the point.—(See above, p. 3, &c.)

In every point of view, therefore, the conclusion is irresistible, that the action of the New Zealand Government has been hasty and impolitic; the presumption is strong that it has been unjust. Further enquiry is urged by the natives themselves :—

"'The Governor,' said one of the native speakers at the great meeting at Waikato in May last, 'ought to have gone and enquired into the conduct of Te Rangitake (Kingi), then returned, consulted Potatau, and formed a committee of missionaries, magistrates, and chiefs, to enquire into the matter, and if they found that Rangitake is wrong, settle the matter by giving the land to the Governor. But he went to Taranaki and let out all his wrath at once.'"—(Fox, p. 37.) And again at Kohimarama in July, one speaker said :—"The Governor was wrong here. Had he sent us to confer with W. Kingi and he had proved obstinate, it would then be time for the Governor to punish him." Another said :—" 'It appears to me that the Governor was wrong because he did not page 18 first call together the (native) teachers that they might arrange it. Had he done so, it might have been settled.' Mr. McLean interposed, and said that four teachers, whom he named, had tried to settle it, but Kingi's party would not listen."—(New Zealander, Aug. 1.) But this was an intervention far too slight and informal for so serious an emergency.

From the evidence of Mr. McLean, the Chief Commissioner, before the House of Representatives, it appears, that he initiated the inquiry, and made in person some partial inquiries of those whom he "knew" to be "the real claimants," at Queen Charlotte's Sound and Wellington; and then instructed Mr. District Commissioner Parris to conduct the negociations, and proceed with the inquiries. (New Zealander, Aug. 18.) This admission, on the part of Mr. McLean, fully bears out the assertion of Mr. Fox, supported as it is by other high authorities, that the negociation with Teira and the investigation of his title, were virtually left to Mr. Parris, a Sub-Commissioner, "and who really stands in the transaction as at once a party and a judge." (Fox, p. 37.) The Land Purchase Department is, in its very constitution, an agency of the Executive for the purposes indicated by its title, and possesses none of the adjuncts requisite for conducting a regular judicial inquiry. (See Mr. Richmond's Memo., May 25.)—The delicate nature of this transaction, its intricacies, and the momentous issues depending upon it, alike demand a most searching and impartial inquiry, and one, the dignity of which shall carry with it the weight essential to important judicial proceedings.