Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Rare Volume

Archdeacon Hadfield on the Land League

Archdeacon Hadfield on the Land League.

The advocates of the war having ignominiously failed in their various attempts to bring discredit upon Archdeacon Hadfield, have resorted to the expedient of representing Otaki, where he resides, and where his influence with the natives is justly great, as the head-quarters of on anti-Iand-selling league. This, like the charge against the Archdeacon that he had maliciously concealed certain letters of Wiremu Kingi (before alluded to) from the Governor; and that he had instigated the natives of Otaki to petition for the recall of the Governor—a statement which had no element of truth whatever in it—is simply intended to divert attention from the conduct of the real originators of the war. There page 51 is grave reason to believe that the whole story of a land league, in the sense of a general combination of the natives to prevent any further sale of their lands, is either a fabrication altogether, or a gross exaggeration, Certainly William King had no connection with it. In a letter to the New-Zealand Spectator (dated Nov. 3. 1860) Archdeacon Hadfield sheds considerable light on the subject. He says :—

What I now assert, and until proof is adduced to the contrary by those who can shew where this imaginary league exists, must continue to assert, is, that there is no such league, and that there never has been any such league; that the whole story is an invention, a fabrication, an imposition; that it either is a fiction, or the Government is chargeable with gross negligence for never having taken steps to put down a conspiracy having objects so clearly avowed and so dangerous as Mr. M'Lean states them to have been seven years ago. But I am quite sure that no proof can be adduced to the contrary. It may be suggested that I am ignorant of the subject. But until the questions I have asked above are satisfactorily answered, there is such a prima facie appearance of incredibility about it, that the charge of ignorance is hardly worth refuting, But Mr. M'Lean is debarred from making such an objection, because he has stated his belief that the league commenced at Otaki, in which rase no one would be more likely than Mr. Williams and myself to have some knowledge of this league; but we both assert it to be a fiction.

The Native Minister made use of language in the House very similar to that used by Mr. M'Lean. And during the whole of the debates on the origin of the Waitara hostilities, it was really amusing to notice how every speaker on the Ministerial side of the House, when all arguments in defence of either the justice or necessity of the war seemed to fail, immediately had recourse to the Land-league. William King was called A land-leaguer (I think Mr. Richmond invented the term), and this invariably produced a (hear hear). This was considered an unanswerable argument, on the principle, I presume, of omne qnotum, &c. This imaginary league did more service on the Government side of the House than all the other fictions invented for the occasion put together, such as, Teira's chieftainship—William King's armed resistance to the survey—or his refusal to meet the Governor before war was officially declared. The general ignorance displayed on the subject by the Native Minister and his Supporters may account for, though it does not justify, the use made of this bugbear. But Mr, M'Lean cannot be excused in the same way. I must repeat, that the language contained in the passage cited above from his statement deliberately made before the Committee of the House, is the most bare-faced and shameless fabrication that I ever knew to be officially made.

I shall probably be asked whether there was not such a land league at Otaki many years ago, and whether this league did not keep gaining ground for some years, until a general meeting took place in the Ngatiruanui country seven years ago. The answer has been given by Mr. Williams: "The Otaki and Manawatu natives (principally Ngatiraukawa) entered into an agreement not to sell any more land within certain boundaries, over which they had an undoubted control according to native custom. This agreement was, however, cancelled in 1852." It would simply be an absurd and unwarrantable abuse of language to call this local agreement, made for the prevention of the further sale of land until some interna] differences and disputes had been adjusted, a league. But this agreement, made for a temporary purpose, and which terminated in 1852, is the only agreement of the kind that has ever existed here. To assert, therefore, as Mr. M'Lean does, that this local, temporary agreement, which he calls a league, and which actually ceased in 1852, "kept gaining ground for some years until page 52 a general meeting took place in the Ngatiruanui country" where the murderous resolutions already referred to are said to have been agreed upon, and that it ultimately developed itself in an anti-land-selling league which occasioned most of the difficulties and opposition which were eocountered in the attempted purchase of Waitara, is to state what is absolutely false. Mr. Williams confirms my statement: he says—" The meeting at Manawapou, in the Ngatiru-anui district had no connection whatever with the agreement entered into at Otaki and Manawatn, which had been cancelled two years before."

I have already denied that any such resolutions as those mentioned by Mr. M'Lean were adopted at the Manawapou meeting. The attempt made at that meeting to get up a land-league utterly failed; and failed, let it be observed, through the advice of the few Natives who attended from Otaki and its neighbourhood. The decision arrived at was that stated by Mr. Williams—" that each tribe should be left to manage its own affairs; the very opposite of an anti-land-selling league. Mr. Williams likewise correctly saya—" what is called the land-league at Waitara was entirely of a local character." It was in fact a mere temporary agreement among members of the same tribe, the actual owners of the one particular district, not to sell any more land. I have distinctly stated in my evidence (42) what the cause of Rawiri Waiaua's death was. Until my statements made on that occasion are refuted, I must decline to attribute his death, and the deaths of those persons who shared his fate, to an imaginary cause.

There may still be objections raised by persons Little acquainted with this subject. It may be asked—How comes all this talk about a land league if no league exists? Is it possible there can be all this smoke without any fire to cause it? A very few words will suffice to answer this. I believe there has been, during the last ten years, no general disinclination on the part of the Natives to dispose of their lands. Purchases of several extensive districts have been made. But it will hardly be denied by any one competent to give an opinion on the subject, that very great dissatisfaction has existed (which has, during the last few years, increased) with the mode in which transactions have been carried on by the Land Commissioners in reference to the purchase of land. Quarrels have been fomented, and, as in the case of Taranaki, when Rawiri was killed, and in the disturbances at Ahuriri, many lives were lost The result has been the formation from time to time of separate and independent agreements in various tribes for protesting against, and peaceably resisting, the mischievous proceedings of the Land Commissioners. But I positively deny the existence of any combination, or confederacy, or league, between any two distinct tribes.

W. M. Watts, Crown Court. Temple Bar.