Chapter XIII. of the Royal Instructions was devoted to placing into

legal phraseology the Minister's policy for "the Settlement of the

waste lands of the Crown" and Clause 9 of that Chapter more

particularly dealt with the method by which the native titles were to

be ascertained and recognised.

(9) No claim shall be admitted in the said land Courts on behalf of

the Aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand to any lands situate within

the said islands, unless it shall be established, to the satisfaction

of such Court, that either by some Act of the Executive Government of

New Zealand as hitherto constituted, or by the adjudication of some

Court of competent jurisdiction within New Zealand, the right of such

aboriginal inhabitants to such lands has been acknowledged and

ascertained, or those from whom they derived the title, have actually

had the occupation of the lands so claimed, and have been accustomed

to use and enjoy the same, either as places of abode or tillage, or

for the growth of crops, or for the depasturing of cattle, or

otherwise for the convenience and sustentation of life, by means of

labour expended thereon.

The newspapers in England which supported the New Zealand Company

published with undisguised exultation Earl Grey's Despatch, and hailed

him as a Daniel come to judgment.[185] The Maoris regarded the matter

in quite a different light. Here they were being asked to submit for

ratification, by an extraneous authority, their lands which they and

their forefathers had fought for, and which they had ever guarded with

a jealous care that only death itself could terminate; lands which

they had been told by Captain Hobson and the Missionaries were to be

theirs to loose or to hold as they pleased; lands of which the Treaty

of Waitangi had solemnly recognised them as already the indisputable

owners. Was this then the much vaunted honour of the Queen? was this

to be the unhappy end of all her high-sounding promises? The fire of

indignation ran through the Maori veins as they contemplated the

deception; the rumble of discontent grew as the tidings spread; the

breath of battle was in the air.

The position of the Governor was delicate in the extreme, and probably

only two things stood at this critical juncture between the colony and

war--the Maori confidence in Grey, and Grey's confidence in himself.

"What was I to do indeed?" he afterwards said. "My instruction was not

alone that of the Colonial Office; but the Constitution had been

sanctioned by Parliament. A man's responsibility in the larger sense

is, after adequate deliberation, to proceed as he determines to be

just and wise. If he has to decide, not for himself only but for

others, unto future generations, there lies his course all the more.

There was one clear line for me, simply to hang up the Constitution,

and intimate to the Home authorities my ideas about it." In accordance

with this decision he wrote on August 20 (1847) to his chief, describing

with that directness of which his pen was capable the ferment into

which this impossible statesmanship had thrown the country.

I have to state to Your Lordship that within the last few days I have

received alarming accounts from various quarters of the island

regarding the excitement created in portions of the country most

densely inhabited by natives, upon the subject of the introduction of

the new Constitution into this country, and the steps that may be

taken regarding the registration of their lands. I am not yet in a

position that would enable me to state whether actual insurrection,

upon an extensive scale is to be immediately apprehended; but I

cannot entertain any doubt that the country is in a very critical

state. I will lose no time in taking such measures as are in my power

to quiet the apprehensions which at present exist, and I will also

delay for some time the introduction of the proposed Constitution,

but I beg again earnestly to press upon your Lordship the advantages

which would result from in so far modifying the proposed Constitution

as to leave the Governor the power of being able certainly to promise

the natives that he will enact any measures which they may request as

essential to their interests, and which the Governor may also

consider to be absolutely requisite to secure the tranquillity of the

country.

A portion of the Governor's measures to "quiet the apprehensions" of

the Maoris was to despatch Captain Sotheby, then in command of H.M.S.

_Racehorse_, to visit the northern chiefs, and aided by the ever

loyal Waaka Nene he assured them, "on the authority of His Excellency

the Governor, that there was no truth in the report that the

Government claimed all land not under tillage." Subsequently this

officer invited Earl Grey to reflect upon the rapidity with which this

report had spread through the North Island, and the dissatisfaction

which it had excited, "even in the minds of those chiefs who had

hitherto been friendly to the British and who had fought on our side."

From old Te Wherowhero, of the Waikato, came the following

characteristic protest to the Queen, whose honour he would not impugn,

whose word he would accept:

O Madam the Queen, hearken to our words, the words of all the chiefs

of Waikato.

May God grant that you may hold fast our word, and we your word for

ever. Madam listen, news are going about here that your Ministers are

talking of taking away the land of the Native without cause, which

makes our hearts dark. But we do not believe this news, because we

heard from the first Governor that the disposal of the land was with

ourselves. And from the second Governor we heard the same words, and

from this Governor. They have all said the same. Therefore we write

to you that you may be kind to us, to your friends that love you.

Write your thoughts to us, that peace may prevail amongst the natives

of these Islands.[186]

In this dignified appeal the chief was joined by Bishop Selwyn,

Archdeacon Maunsell, and Chief Justice Martin in the colony, and by

the Wesleyan Mission Committee in England, who employed the searching

pen of Dr. Beecham to voice their protest.

How the Bishop regarded the proposals of the Chief Secretary may be

judged from the following passage in a letter which he subsequently

wrote to his friend, the Rev. E. Coleridge, in England: "If Lord

Grey's principles had been avowed by the Governor as the rule of his

policy, the safety of the English settlements could not have been

guaranteed for a single day."

Archdeacon Maunsell, who in 1840 had informed Captain Hobson that the

Missionaries had committed themselves to the promotion of the Treaty

of Waitangi only because of their unshaken faith in the integrity of

the British Government,[187] was at least entitled to point out that

ever since the treaty was signed the conduct of the Maori towards the

British had been marked by a spirit of chivalry, of friendship, and of

good faith. "Why, then," he asked, "does the statesman of a mighty

nation seek to confiscate the guaranteed possessions of our friends

and allies?" If such should ever happen, his letter concluded, there

could be no alternative but for the Missionaries in sorrow to leave

the country, broken and discredited men.

Nor was the kindly, conscientious Martin less emphatic. In a pamphlet,

"England and the New Zealanders," he discusses the danger of thus

shattering the native confidence in Britain's honour. "In particular,"

he states, "those who have received Christianity are disposed to look

up to us for guidance and government. But let the plan of confiscation

or seizure be once acted on, and all this will be at an end. The worst

surmises of the natives will have become realities. To them we will

appear to be a nation of liars."

The Wesleyan Mission Society embodied their views in a memorial, which

they subsequently deemed worthy of publication,[188] wherein they

justified their right to question the propriety of Earl Grey's policy,

not only because of the prestige and influence of their Mission, but

because that prestige and influence had been solicited in the

interests of the Treaty of Waitangi by Captain Hobson, at a time when

his success without it was impossible. They explained that their

solicitude upon the subject had been greatly increased, if not wholly

produced by the flood of letters they had received from their

Missionaries in New Zealand, expressing the state of alarm into which

they had been thrown by the publication of his Lordship's Despatch and

Instructions, and which in their opinion affixed a meaning to the

Treaty of Waitangi very different from that in which it was understood

by the parties principally concerned in its execution. Being

apprehensive that any attempt to carry what they regarded as a new

interpretation of the treaty into effect, would result in the most

disastrous consequences, they were constrained to make such

representations upon the subject as they had reason to hope would

avert the evils which they feared. They then proceeded to set out that

at the commencement of the proceedings adopted by Her Majesty's

Government for founding a colony in New Zealand, they distinctly

understood that the previous recognition of the independence of New

Zealand by the British Government having taken the country out of the

category of barbarous tribes and people without a national character

or national rights, the ordinary course pursued in colonisation would

not be adopted in its case, but that New Zealand would be negotiated

with as an Independent State, and that the British Crown would not

take anything from the Aboriginal proprietors which was not ceded on

their part by fair and honourable treaty. In support of this view,

they quoted at length from Lord Normanby's instructions to Captain

Hobson, in 1839 and from the subsequent correspondence with him, when

that officer sought a greater amplification of important points. On

the authority, then, of the noble gentleman formerly at the head of

the Colonial Department, they claimed that they were not deceived when

they understood that the cession of sovereignty in New Zealand was not

to involve the surrender of territory, either in whole or in part;

that the cession to the Crown of such waste lands as might be

progressively required for the use of the settlers should be

subsequently obtained by fair and equal contracts with the natives,

and that no lands were to be claimed for the Crown in New Zealand,

except such as might be obtained by purchase from the natives, or by

their own free consent. They detailed the overtures which Captain

Hobson made to their Missionaries in 1840, when, "in accordance with

instructions he had received from the highest authority in the realm,"

he requested their assistance in effecting the negotiation with which

he had been entrusted. The Missionaries at this time, the Committee

pointed out, had not read Captain Hobson's instructions, for they had

not then been published, but they fully understood the claims of the

natives upon the soil of New Zealand, and the point upon which they

had to satisfy themselves was whether the proposed treaty was designed

to admit and confirm those claims in the full and unqualified sense in

which they were made. The Missionaries knew that the Maoris claimed

the _entire_ soil of New Zealand.[189] They knew that the entire

country was divided amongst the several tribes, that the boundaries of

every property were accurately defined, and the proprietorship so

vested in each tribe that all the members of the tribe had a

beneficial interest therein. They therefore knew that at the time the

Treaty of Waitangi was signed there was no land in New Zealand without

an owner, and which would under the principles of public law, be

automatically transferred to the Crown.

"In the view, therefore, of both the Missionaries and the natives,"

they said, "the sovereignty and the land were two entirely distinct

things, and to preserve the latter intact, while they surrendered the

former, was the great solicitude of the natives. From Captain Hobson

the Missionaries received the most satisfactory explanation of the

terms of the treaty. It dwelt explicitly on both the sovereignty and

the land, and the interpretation which the Missionaries were

authorised to give of it was that, while the _entire_

sovereignty should be transferred to the British Crown, the

_entire_ land should be secured to the natives. Most certainly

the Missionaries received the fullest assurance that, in surrendering

the sovereignty, the natives would not by that act surrender their

original claims upon any part of the soil. In this sense the chiefs

themselves understood the treaty, as it was propounded to them. They

clearly comprehended its two main features as explained in their own

figurative style, that 'the shadow of the land,' by which they meant

'the sovereignty,' would pass to the Queen of England, but that the

'substance,' meaning the land itself, would remain with them."

But the Missionaries were not alone the source from which the

Committee proved the correct interpretation of the treaty. The

witnesses who had given evidence before Earl Grey's own Committee in

1844 were marshalled to their support, the official Despatches were

quoted to the same end, even those of Lord John Russell being referred

to as "warranting the conclusion that his Lordship designed the treaty

should be faithfully observed, in the sense in which it was understood

by the natives and Missionaries of both the Church and Wesleyan

Societies." To these was added the invaluable testimony of Lieutenant

Shortland, who had been in closest association with Captain Hobson

during the treaty negotiations, who had been privileged to administer

the affairs of the colony under it, and who from his close official

connection with it was peculiarly the man able to say what it meant

and what it did not mean. Shortly before his return to England, the

Select Committee of the House of Commons had issued their report upon

"the State of New Zealand and the proceedings of the New Zealand

Company," and so completely did that report misrepresent, in Mr.

Shortland's opinion, the true position of affairs, so harmful did he

deem the resolutions which accompanied that report, that he felt in

duty bound to protest to Lord Stanley against the needless perversion

of the facts. During a lengthy and dispassionate statement of the

circumstances surrounding the procuration of the treaty--than whom no

one knew them better--Mr. Shortland, writing from his quiet retreat at

Torquay, dealt with especial emphasis upon the relation of the

sovereignty to the land:

Respecting the cession of the sovereignty to the Crown by the

aborigines without a reciprocal guarantee to them of the perfect

enjoyment of their territorial rights, I do not hesitate to say, such

a proposition would not for a moment have been entertained by the

natives, who, during the whole proceedings of the Government at the

first establishment of the colony, manifested a feeling of great

anxiety and mistrust in regard to the security of their lands. Of

this I could produce many instances did space permit, but will

content myself with noticing that the Church and Wesleyan Missionaries

possessing, as they deservedly did before the assumption of

sovereignty by Her Majesty, the unlimited confidence of the natives,

incurred by their aiding the local Government to effect the peaceable

establishment of the colony, the suspicion of the aborigines, who

frequently upbraided the Missionaries with having deceived them,

saying, "Your Queen will serve us as she has done the black fellows

of New South Wales; our lands will be taken from us, and we shall

become slaves." How then could the colony have been founded with the

free and intelligent consent of the native owners of the soil, on any

other terms than those laid down by the Treaty of Waitangi, viewed in

the light in which it has always been understood and acted on by the

local Government.

With these and many similar pieces of unimpeachable evidence did the

Committee press upon the Colonial Secretary the conviction that their

reading and understanding of the treaty was the only one which its

"large words," as Lord Stanley had termed them, would bear. Earl Grey

relied upon the astute pen of Mr. Herman Merivale, his new

Under-Secretary to release him from the horns of the dilemma upon

which the cold reasoning of the Committee had impaled him. This he did

by referring the memorialists back to an obscure phrase in the Royal

Instructions, which provided that no native claim to land would be

recognised unless the title had previously been acknowledged and

ascertained, "by some act of the Executive Government of New Zealand

as then constituted or by the adjudication of some court of competent

jurisdiction." The Treaty of Waitangi was now admitted, and even

asserted by the Under-Secretary to be "unquestionably an act of the

Executive Government," and therefore it followed that nothing that was

guaranteed by the treaty was imperilled by the Instructions. With a

wealth of argument upon phases of the issue which were not directly

raised by the Memorial,[190] Mr. Merivale was at least able to assure

the Committee that the Government intended and always had intended to

recognise the treaty, as they believed, in the same sense in which the

Committee recognised it. "They recognise it in both its essential

stipulations, the one securing to those native tribes, of which the

chiefs have signed the treaty, a title to those lands which they

possess according to native usage (whether cultivated or not) at the

time of the treaty, the other securing to the Crown the exclusive

right of extinguishing such title by purchase." Considerable unction

was claimed for his chief by the Under-Secretary, in that he had

directed Governor Grey to proceed with all circumspection in giving

effect to the instructions of the Department, but he failed to observe

that even in his widened interpretation of the treaty, he still

limited the rights in native lands to those tribes whose chiefs had

signed the treaty. Those who like Te Heuheu, and Te Wherowhero had

maintained their independence might still have been subject to

spoliation had this view become the accepted interpretation of the

Department, and those who were keenly interested in the fate of the

colony were not slow to place this construction upon it. The immediate

necessity for anxiety upon this point was, however, obviated by the

prompt suspension of the Charter by Governor Grey, and upon the

submission by him to Downing Street of a more liberal and flexible

Constitution, drafted upon the slopes and amidst the snows of Ruapehu.

[Illustration: EARL DERBY.

Formerly Lord Stanley.]

Ere the brewing storm in New Zealand had burst, the crisis had come in

the life of Lord John Russell's Ministry, who were defeated on their

Militia Bill. They were succeeded by the Stanley of old, who in the

person of Lord Derby, became Premier, with Sir John Pakington as his

Colonial Secretary. To him fell the duty of giving legislative effect

to the more workable and equitable Constitution drafted by Governor

Grey, and when the Wesleyan Committee again approached the Colonial

Office with the regretful assurance that the reply vouchsafed to them

by the noble gentleman who had just vacated the Chief Secretaryship

"was less satisfactory to the people of New Zealand than it had

appeared to themselves," Sir John was able to convey to them through

the Earl of Desart the gratifying intelligence that in the Bill then

before the House there was every provision for the full and complete

recognition of the principles for which they had so resolutely

contended.

Concerning the Third Clause of the treaty, little need be said. By

this covenant the Queen undertook, in consideration of the cession of

sovereignty and the granting of the pre-emptive right of purchase of

land, to extend to the Maori race her Royal protection, and impart to

them all the rights and privileges of British subjects. Of the manner

in which this undertaking has been fulfilled, the Maoris have never

complained, and they have never had just grounds for complaint. There

is no colour line drawn against the New Zealander in New Zealand. Our

courts are as open to him as to anyone, and whether he be plaintiff or

defendant, the same even-handed justice is meted out to him. He

travels upon our railways, he rides upon our cars, he sits in our

theatres on equal terms with his _Pakeha_ friend. His children

are educated in our schools and his sons are absorbed into our Civil

Service, his chiefs sit at the Governor's table, and his elected

representatives sit in Parliament, where their voice is respected and

their vote is valued. The professions are open to him, and there is

no position in Church or State which he may not fill. No more is

demanded of a Maori than of a European. His passport to society is his

good behaviour, his participation of civil rights is governed by his

disposition to become a law-abiding citizen.

Only one question now remains to be discussed. In what relation did

those chiefs stand to the Treaty of Waitangi who refused to sign it?

It has never been contended that all the chiefs were invited to meet

Captain Hobson at Waitangi, nor that all were solicited by his agents

to sign the treaty, nor that all who were so solicited agreed to affix

their signatures to the document. There was a residuum, which included

some of the most powerful chiefs in the land, who either had no

opportunity of subscribing their allegiance to the Crown, or who for

reasons of their own held aloof. How were these non-participants

affected by the compact?

This question was first raised in its practical application by Taraia,

a Tauranga chief, who in December 1842 committed what is believed to

have been the last act of cannibalism perpetrated in New Zealand.

Taraia was not a signatory to the treaty, and the Government were

sorely exercised as to whether they were justified in claiming

jurisdiction over him. An effort had been made by the Aborigines'

Protection Society in London to define the status of these independent

chiefs, by submitting the question to Mr. Joseph Phillimore, an

eminent English lawyer, and Mr. Phillimore had given them a qualified

opinion that if there were any chiefs who had preserved their

independence by refusing to become parties to the treaty, then such

chiefs _may_ not be bound by its obligations, and _may_ be

entitled to distinct and separate consideration. But clearly, in an

abstract sense, there could be no such qualification to the unaltered

status of these men. They were still chiefs of an Independent State so

far as they were concerned, retaining inviolate their _mana_, and

refusing to be compromised by the concessions made by their fellow

chiefs.

The Government, then controlled by Captain Hobson, did not share even

the qualified view entertained by Mr. Phillimore and those who thought

with him. They presumed all natives of New Zealand now to be British

subjects and determined that Taraia must be punished. This valiant

determination was not, however, given final effect, not because the

authorities were dubious of its justice, but because they had become

uncertain as to its practicability; so much so that they subsequently

deemed it prudent to limit their interference to a warning to that

chief, that he might expect to incur the anger of the Governor upon a

repetition of his offence. In Taraia's case this reprimand was

sufficient to quiet him, but only a few months later Tongoroa, another

Tauranga chief, made war upon his neighbours, and the sore which

looked as though it had healed was suddenly reopened. Lieutenant

Shortland, who had now assumed the post of Acting-Governor, proceeded

to Tauranga to arrest the disturber of the peace, but before the

apprehension could be effected his accumulating difficulties were

further increased by an unexpected communication from Mr. Clarke, the

chief Protector of the Aborigines, and Mr. Swainson, the Attorney-General.

Both these gentlemen had previously endorsed the contemplated arrest

of Taraia, but to the amazement of the Acting-Governor they informed

him that more mature reflection had caused them to reverse their

opinion, and that they now considered the arrest of Tongoroa would be

illegal.

Hurrying back to Auckland, Shortland called a meeting of his Council,

and there sought some enlightenment as to this new view-point of the

Maori status under the treaty. Amongst those consulted was necessarily

Mr. Clarke, the erstwhile Missionary, and now Chief Protector of the

Aborigines, whose close and constant intercourse with all the tribes

gave him the most favourable facilities for gauging the strength and

direction of the native aspirations. In the course of his examination

Mr. Clarke was asked:

(1) Do the natives who signed the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledge

themselves to be British subjects?

To which he replied:--The natives who signed the Treaty of Waitangi,

having been solemnly assured by Her Majesty's representative, the

late Captain Hobson, that they should in the fullest sense of the

term be entitled to all the privileges of British subjects, consented

to be considered as such, with a full understanding that their

allegiance depended upon the British Government fulfilling their

engagements in that treaty.

(2) How far, and to what extent, do the various tribes in New Zealand

acknowledge the Queen's sovereignty?

To this Mr. Clarke's answer was:--The natives alone who signed the

treaty acknowledge the Queen's sovereignty, and that only in a

limited sense. The treaty guaranteeing their own customs to them,

they acknowledge a right of interference only in grave cases, such as

war and murder, and all disputes and offences between themselves and

Europeans, and hitherto they have acted on this principle. The

natives who have not signed the treaty consider that the British

Government, in common with themselves, have a right to interfere in

all cases of dispute between their tribes and Europeans, but limit

British interference to European British subjects.

(3) In your communications with the natives, have you asserted that

they are British subjects, and the right of the Government to

interfere with them as such? and (4) On making that assertion how far

has it been acquiesced in?:--In all my communications with the

natives I have been instructed to assert, and have always asserted,

that they are British subjects, and amenable to British authority, in

which very few, even those who signed the treaty, would acquiesce,

save in matters relating to disputes or depredations upon each other

(viz. differences between Europeans and natives).

(5) If the Government were to admit that any tribe or tribes of New

Zealanders were not British subjects, and were not amenable to the

laws, what effect do you think that admission would have on the peace

and future colonisation of the colony?:--The admission that the

tribes of New Zealanders were not amenable to British law, would, I

am apprehensive, be destructive to the interests of the natives and

the prosperity of the colony. It would be made use of by designing

men to embarrass the Government, to embroil the natives with each

other and with the Government, which must be alike injurious to both.

Her Majesty's Government having seen fit to colonise New Zealand, it

is now an act of humanity to both natives and Europeans to consider

the whole of the tribes of New Zealand as British subjects, and to

use every honourable and humane means of getting the tribes

universally to cede the sovereignty where it has not been ceded.

(6) Supposing that we should treat as British subjects, by force,

those tribes, who have uniformly refused to cede the sovereignty to

Great Britain, should we be keeping faith with the principles we

professed when we originally negotiated for the cession of the

sovereignty?:--In treating those tribes as British subjects by force

who have refused to cede the sovereignty to Great Britain, would not

only be considered by the natives as a breach of faith with the

principles originally professed when negotiating for the sovereignty,

but would, I am apprehensive, lead to a destructive war, and although

the result would be destructive to the native race, it would be

inglorious to the British Government, and at variance with the

designs of Her Most Gracious Majesty in adding this interesting

people and country to her Dominions.

From the Protector of the Aborigines who only pretended to interpret

Maori opinion as he gleaned it in his progress through their _pas_ and

settlements, the Executive turned to their Attorney-General, Mr.

Swainson, for his more recent interpretation of the position as it

appealed to the trained mind of a jurist, and Mr. Swainson only put

into less direct language the pronouncement of Wiremu Tamihana, the

King Maker, who during the hey-day of the King movement scorned the

authority of the Queen over his land: "I am chief of Ngati-Haua, which

is an independent tribe. My father, Te Waharoa, was chief before me.

Neither he, I, or any of my people signed the treaty, therefore we are

not bound by it." Mr. Swainson's opinion was as follows:

From the evidence given before the Council by the Protector of the

Aborigines (Mr. Clarke), it appears that, as I have already stated,

there are numerous tribes who have not ceded their sovereign rights

to the Queen, and who do not yet acknowledge her sovereign authority.

For the reasons already given, I think it would be consistent neither

with justice nor with the principles we professed, viz. that we came

here to treat for and not to assume sovereignty, to treat those

tribes in all respects as British subjects, and to impose upon them

our penal code; in this opinion, also, the Protector's opinion

coincides. I am also of opinion that so numerous are these tribes,

and many of them so distant, that were we disposed to do so we have

not the power. At the same time, I am persuaded that the benefits of

British protection, and the laws administered by British judges,

would far more than compensate the natives for the sacrifice of their

independence. These benefits, however, I am equally persuaded, can

only be obtained on the voluntary surrender by them of their own

sovereign rights, and on their "free and intelligent" submission to

British authority. To subjugate them would require a large armed

force; but by the employment of persuasion, the influence of example,

and the general spread of civilisation among neighbouring tribes,

there is ground to expect that they will gradually submit themselves

to the operation of British laws. To constantly point out to them the

benefits they will derive from doing so, and to impress upon them, to

use the language of the Secretary of State, the impossibility of Her

Majesty's extending to them an effectual protection unless the Queen

be acknowledged as the Sovereign of their country, or at least of

those districts within, or adjacent to which Her Majesty's subjects

may acquire land or habitations "is the course, I believe, to be most

calculated to effect the object of establishing an absolute

sovereignty over the whole country."

Though doubtless giving to these expressions of opinion the respectful

consideration which was their due, the Acting-Governor decided to

assume the responsibility of setting them aside, and following the

dictates of his own judgment. To him it seemed that it would be

fatally weak to admit in the practical administration of the country

the nice line of distinction drawn by the Attorney-General or

subscribe to the opinion expressed by Mr. Clarke, "that every

honourable and humane means should be used to prevail on tribes to

cede the sovereignty where it has not been ceded," as in his judgment

this would have been an over-ready admission that they were beyond the

pale of the British Crown, and no more effectual means could have been

adopted of disseminating the harmful acknowledgment. The troops were

accordingly sent to Tauranga, but no arrests were made. Here prudence

again prevailed and the officer in charge was instructed only to

employ the soldiers "in the general preservation of peace." When these

proceedings were reported in due course to Lord Stanley, he warmly

endorsed the view adopted by Lieutenant Shortland[191] and as warmly

censured Swainson, who was told in the plainest terms that he could

not be permitted to entertain the views to which he had given

expression, and hold a public office at the same time.

As a matter of abstract reasoning, Lord Stanley was probably wrong, as

a matter of practical administration he was probably right, but the

correctness of his attitude depended for its success upon the

tactfulness of its application. Fortunately New Zealand has, in the

main, been blessed with administrators of wide sympathies, and a

paternal parliament has generally, though not always given the native

race the most indulgent exposition of the treaty. Mistakes may have

been made, misapprehensions may have occurred, even technical breaches

of the treaty may have been committed, but since the administration of

native affairs was handed over to the Colonial Government in 1863

there have been but few instances of flagrant violation of native

rights. Prior to this date the care and control of the Maori still

vested in the Imperial authorities, even after representative

institutions had been granted to the country; and while that condition

lasted there was, unhappily, an all too frequent clashing of the two

races. With one or two exceptions these conflicts had a common origin

in an over-anxious desire on the part of the Europeans to become

possessed of native land, as opposed to the deep-founded pertinacity

with which the chiefs clung to their ancestral domains. The first of

these exceptions was the insurrection of Hone Heke in 1845, which was

not in its inception a dispute regarding land, but an undisguised

protest against the exercise of the Queen's sovereignty. Land did

ultimately play its complicating part in the disruption, but in its

initial stages it was the revolt of a volatile man who felt the treaty

had carried him further than he intended it should lead him; it was

the protest of an ambitious chief who loved notoriety as much as he

loved his independence. Heke fell upon what now appears to have been

the weak point in Hobson's negotiations; that while he may have, and

doubtless did, convey to the natives a clear enough idea of what was

meant by the sovereignty of the Queen, he does not appear to have

taken sufficient care to explain with any detail what its possible

effects might be. Assuredly he was not endowed with such a mental

vision as to foresee all that was to happen, nor to conjure up within

his mind all the changes that were inevitable in evolving a State from

a condition of barbarism to one of civilisation. One thing, however,

must have been obvious both to him and to those who were associated

with him, that no government could be organised and carried on in a

new country without a revenue adequate for all its varied purposes.

Under Lord Normanby's instructions funds were to be temporarily

provided from New South Wales, but the permanent revenue was to be

raised within New Zealand itself, of which a large part, it was hoped,

would be derived from the sale of land. Other sources of income in the

way of customs duties and taxation in varied forms must also have been

in contemplation, but we have no evidence that Captain Hobson ever

took occasion to explain to the people that sovereignty would cost

them something; that revenue which had been falling into the hands of

the chiefs would be diverted into the coffers of the State, and that

with the surrender of their independence they must also surrender the

levies which they had been making upon the whalers.

It is conceivable that had this surrender of a means to opulence been

clearly contemplated by the chiefs as a part of the colonising scheme

those at the Bay of Islands would have been the more easily reconciled

to it by the natural expectation that even larger sums would be

flowing in to them from the sales of land. If these anticipations ever

existed they were doomed to disappointment, for instead of entering

upon an active campaign of land-buying the Governor suspended the

purchases he should have made, and wasted his money on a site for a

town, while the rigid enforcement of the pre-emptive right acquired by

the Crown closed the market against the buyers of open country lands.

This restriction was felt to be not without its element of injustice;

for upon a more critical examination of the terms of the treaty it was

found that though the Crown claimed the exclusive right to extinguish

the native title, nothing had been determined as to the price to be

paid or as to the time within which the purchase should be made. Thus,

chiefs like Heke, who had been in receipt of substantial sums by way

of anchorage money from the shipping found their perquisites

appropriated by the State, while they derived no compensating benefit

from the sale of land.

The first flush of disappointment which surged within the breast of

Heke as he contemplated the unexpected effects of the new power was

fed by the angry adventurers and thwarted speculators, who, in their

chagrin at the interception of their schemes, had no compunction in

inciting him to a course which ultimately led to a declaration of

hostility against the Queen and to open war against the Crown.

Not so the Waitara war of 1860, which found its origin not so much in

a desire to violate the treaty, as in a blundering endeavour to

observe its most important provision. The taking up of arms by Wiremu

Kingi was not in its spirit rebellion against the Queen's sovereignty,

but a reply to the Governor's attempt to divest him of his rights by

insisting upon purchasing land from one whom Wiremu contended could

not by any application of native law be constituted the owner. There

was on the part of the natives the greatest reluctance to resort to

arms, their desire being to test the disputed point of ownership

before a properly constituted Commission; but when these overtures

were rejected and the Governor held on his headstrong way, they felt

there was no course compatible with their high-strung sense of

dignity, but to refer the momentous issue to the final arbitrament of

war. The story of the Waitara campaign is too well known to need

recapitulation here, but in the opinion of many of those skilled in

the intricacies of Maori land tenure it was a blunder of the first

magnitude, for which Governor Gore-Browne, and not the Colonial

Parliament was wholly responsible. If, then, the war was unjust, the

confiscation of native land which followed upon the suppression of

what was called rebellion was branded with the same injustice.

And just as one wrong perpetuates itself in the form of others, this

confiscation has ever since burned deep into the hearts of the

Taranaki natives, and led in the early eighties to what is known as

the Te Whiti movement. Like his predecessor, Wiremu Kingi, Te Whiti

was a much-misunderstood man. For this state of misconception he may

have himself been largely accountable, for as a concession to the

Maori love of the mysterious he so combined religion with his

politics, and dealt so freely in the mystic, that it was frequently

difficult to separate intangible prophecy from the things that really

mattered in his material policy. But shorn of all its grotesqueness

the movement which centred round the Parihaka prophet and his uncle

Tohu was not a repudiation of the Treaty of Waitangi, nor was it a

revolt against the authority of the Queen. At its base lay the

grievance, or the fancied grievance, which was before them every day

in the shape of the confiscated lands. There upon the wide Waimate

Plains they saw European homesteads whose occupancy was in their eyes

a crime against Maori rights. Te Whiti felt he had two things to do.

He had to assert his right to those lands, and he had to agitate for

justice. He accordingly sent his faithfuls to plough up the fields of

the farmers and the lawns of the settlers, in the mistaken hope that

he would be able to force the issue before a competent tribunal and

there determine who had broken the treaty--the Maori or the _Pakeha_.

The Government of that day saw things differently. They had no desire

to exhume the remains of past mistakes with a possibility of being

called upon to repair them at a cost of much treasure and more

dignity. They preferred to stand upon the settled policy of their

predecessors, and instead of sending a Commission to discover what was

at the back of the prophet's mind, they sent troops and took him

prisoner. Te Whiti may have been a dreamer, he may have been a babbler

of vain things, but he was never a rebel, nor the maker of rebels; but

for saying "I love my land" he was legislated into rebellion, and made

to appear as a criminal.

In the same way the King movement of 1857 only became rebellion when

the Crown made it so. Two primary causes operated to call into

existence this political power, the creation of Wiremu Tamihana's[192]

genius, which for over fifty years was a potent influence in the Maori

life of the Waikato. For upwards of fifteen years the colony had been

following with more or less exactitude the terms of the treaty, and

during this time the State had exercised its power of pre-emption in a

manner which the more enlightened Maoris now began to regard with

disfavour. When Lord Normanby despatched Captain Hobson to found the

colony he anticipated no opposition to the practice of buying land

from the natives at a low price and selling it again to the colonists

at a large advance on what the Crown had paid. For a time these

anticipations were confirmed by results, but now the fathers of the

race, jealous of the rapid increase of the Europeans, and alarmed at

the equally rapid diminution of their lands, began to adopt a

different view. Rather than part for a few shillings with property

which they knew would be sold for as many pounds, they determined to

exercise their right under the treaty, and refuse any longer to

sanction the large transactions in which they had been engaged with

the Crown.

Their eyes, too, had been opened by the Waitara war. Here a single

individual had embroiled the whole of the Ngati-Awa tribe in a

sanguinary conflict with the Government, by insisting upon selling

land to which his title was contested. These unauthorised sales, said

the chiefs, must cease, and no individual should, by his avarice, have

the power to involve the people in war. To crystallise this

determination into a practical act of statesmanship Wiremu Tamihana

conceived the idea of a Maori King, who was to be, not antagonistic

to, nor a substitute for the Queen, but the arbiter and judge in all

internal disputes, as well as the mouthpiece as to land which the

tribes as a whole were or were not prepared to sell. "I do not desire

to cast the Queen from this Island, but from my piece of land. I am

the person to overlook my piece" was how Wiremu Tamihana once publicly

stated his attitude towards the Crown. The King movement was thus a

Land League and not a rebellion, and as the Maoris had the right to

withhold their land from sale if they so pleased, their adherence to

this restrictive policy was no more illegal than the establishment of

a Trades Union or a Political Association. The movement did not become

militant until after the invasion of the Waitara by the British

troops, when many of the Waikato natives rose in sympathy with Wiremu

Kingi, and the battle followed them back to their gates. Then the

authorities began to realise what a compelling truth there was in the

maxim of Bishop Selwyn: "Nothing is easier than legally and peacefully

to extinguish a native title; nothing is harder than to extinguish a

native war."

Worsted, though not disgraced, in the field, the dissatisfied Maoris

have since sought to secure the full measure of political justice to

which they believe themselves entitled by more constitutional methods.

Amongst their dreams has been a native Parliament sitting in the

Treaty House, at Waitangi, to approve measures for the betterment of

the race, which measures would be afterwards adopted by the Government

and given the effect of law. This, however, has been nothing more than

a dream. Little better was the _Kotahitanga_, or union, in 1892,

of all the tribes in the north, exclusive of the Kingites who still

remained loyal to their monarchal authority. The policy upon which

this new union was founded was that of inducing the Government to

cease purchasing native lands, and to set aside as a reserve for the

benefit of the present and all future Maori generations the

considerable areas of native land still unsold. Nor was this all.

Legislation had been passed, not specially directed against, but not

excepting the native race, placing restrictive conditions upon the

oyster fisheries of the country, and this the leaders of the movement

held to be a breach of the second clause of the treaty, which

guaranteed to them not only the free use and control of their lands

and their forests, but of their fisheries also. The deprivation of

their right to freely gather food from the sea and the sea-shore was,

together with other grievances, sufficient to galvanise them into

political activity, and the _Kotahitanga_ was formed with the meteoric

Hone Heke[193] at its head. The Native Rights Bill was introduced by

him and rejected by Parliament, but the movement was not without its

fruits, for in 1900 part of their purpose was achieved in the

concessions made by the Government in the Native Land Administration

Act and the Maori Councils Act.

With the accomplishment of these aims, and the early death of Heke,

the _Kotahitanga_ has failed to preserve its former vitality; but

brief as was its career, it must be recorded of it that in its

inception and activities it was, as most Maori movements have been,

not an organisation designed to aid in the evasion of the treaty, but

rather to insist upon the due observance of its contracts.

Few Legislatures in the world have had a more difficult task than has

fallen to the lot of that of New Zealand in legislating for the Maori

so as to preserve his nationality, his rights, his liberties, and yet

not bar the progress of the European state. That it has been

embarrassed times without number by the treaty is undoubted, and

therefore it is the more to its credit that the diplomatic bargain

which has now held good for the better part of a century should have

been so little violated. The treaty has been the broad foundation upon

which the intricate structure of native legislation has been reared

through all these years; and if there has ever been as there must have

been under changing conditions trespass upon the strict letter of the

compact, it is safe to assert that this variation has only occurred

when Parliament has been honestly satisfied that the wider interests

of the State as a whole demanded the departure. At no time has the

Legislature been callously unmindful of the true spirit of the treaty,

or careless of the great trust imposed upon it as the guardian

of native rights.[194] This commendable endeavour to observe that

"justice which is the paramount interest of all men and all

Commonwealths" has finally led to a universal acceptance of the treaty

by the native race as the basis of their civil and political

privileges. So far is this the fact, that to-day the Maori is more

insistent upon a due observance of its covenants than is the European.

The present generation of natives accept it unquestioningly; and long

before the "Old Guard" of objectors had passed away they, too, were

beginning to realise that the sacrifice of their independence was more

than compensated for by the protection of the British flag. They felt

the irresistible sweep of the white tide that had surged upon their

shores, and much as they might regret the passing of their ancient

_mana_, they were compelled to acknowledge the force of truth in

the figurative statement of their diminishing power once propounded to

them by Mr. Busby: "How can the little pebble dam the stream? how can

the single tree stand against the storm?"

[156] "One cannot but laud the moderation of the English Puritans who

first established themselves in New England. Although provided with a

charter from their Sovereign, they purchased of the savages the land

they required to occupy. This praiseworthy example was followed by

William Penn, and the colony of Quakers which he conducted into

Pennsylvania."--Vattel.

[157] The real discoverer of New Zealand was probably a Polynesian.

[158] Stowell in his _Maori-English Tutor_ thus defines

_mana_:

I speak of potency, the right

To order things as I may deem;

I, nothing wanting, have the might

Which clothes authority supreme.

Surely as much power as is possessed by any crowned head, and more

than is possessed by some.

[159] For some years after the treaty was signed the red blanket was

considered amongst the Maoris the hall-mark of distinction, and no

chief who had not received the "treaty blanket" was admitted to the

select circle of their counsels.

[160] The Kohimarama Conference was summoned at Auckland in July 1860,

by Governor Gore Browne, "to afford an opportunity of discussing with

him various matters connected with the welfare and advancement of the

two races dwelling in New Zealand." It was attended on the opening day

by 112 chiefs from all parts of the country, and next to the meeting

at Waitangi in 1840 is the most important native conference ever

held.

[161] "When casuists afterwards strove to qualify the terms accorded

to the Maoris, the words _tino rangatiratanga_ foiled them.

_Tino_ is an intense expression of fulness, comprehension, and

precision, and _rangatiratanga_ included all the rights of

chieftainship."--Rusden.

[162] In 1841 a Mrs. Robertson, her two children, and a half-caste

were murdered at the Bay of Islands by a native named Maketu. The case

was heard at the first Criminal sitting of the Supreme Court in New

Zealand, presided over by Chief-Justice Martin, and was watched with

the keenest interest by the natives.

[163] Writing on this point to Lord Stanley in a letter dated Torquay,

January 18, 1845, Lieutenant Shortland remarks: "I was present at the

several meetings of the natives at Waitangi, Hokianga, and Kaitaia for

the purpose of considering the treaty, and the impression on my mind

at the time was, that the subject was fully understood by them, and

they were quite aware of the nature of the transaction in which they

were engaged. I was so impressed with this idea, and so struck with

the shrewdness and intelligence of many of their remarks at the first

meeting at Waitangi, that at the subsequent ones I noted down the

speeches of the chiefs, which all serve to show that the natives not

only understood the treaty, but that they were peculiarly sensitive

with regard to every question affecting their lands."

[164] The question of the title to the lands claimed by the

Nantes-Bordelaise Company was not dealt with by the New Zealand Land

Claims Commissioners, and became the subject of protracted diplomatic

negotiations with the French Government. Finally, in 1845, Lord

Stanley directed the issue of a grant for 30,000 acres. This area was

afterwards sold to the New Zealand Company, and on the surrender of

its charter the unsold portion became the property of the Crown.

[165] These two vessels were crossing the line when Captain Hobson

took possession of the North Island by virtue of the Treaty of

Waitangi.

[166] _Vide_ his letter to Captain Lavaud, September 20, 1841.

[167] In his judgment in the case, Regina _v._ Symonds, delivered

in 1847, the late Mr. Justice Chapman laid it down that the

pre-emptive right to buy was not limited to the "first refusal," but

consisted in the right to buy before all others: _i.e._ that the

Crown enjoyed the exclusive right of extinguishing the native title.

[168] The Bill was passed on August 4. It enacted that all titles to

land in New Zealand were to be absolutely null and void except such as

were, or might be, allowed by the Queen. The Governor was to appoint

commissioners to examine and report on all claims to grants of land

which might be referred to them by him. They were to be guided by the

real justice and good conscience of the case. Certain lands, those

reserved for the site of a town or village, for purposes of defence,

or any other public purpose, were not to be recommended by the

Commissioners for grants, but compensation in the shape of other lands

might be arranged. The claimant had to prove that he had made a

purchase, and there was to be some relation between the quantity of

land granted and the sum expended on its purchase, but as a general

rule no claimant was to receive more than 2560 acres.

[169] Mr. Busby laid off a portion of his property on the bank of the

Waitangi River as a township, which he dignified by the name of

Victoria. Here he marked off streets, squares, and reserves for public

buildings, the lots being sold to Sydney speculators and settlers at

Kororareka at the rate of from £100 to £400 per acre. Over seventy

years have elapsed since then, but the great city which was to be is

still unsubstantial, rude boulders are its cathedrals, and the cabbage

palms wave over its empty market-place.

[170] Despatch to Lord John Russell, August 16, 1840.

[171] Amongst these was Tu Hawaiki, the Otago chief, who afterwards

signed the treaty at the request of Major Bunbury.

[172] "In consequence of the animadversions made by me in Council on

this proceeding of Mr. Wentworth, and particularly of my having said

that he had, in my opinion, exposed himself to a prosecution for a

conspiracy, Mr. Wentworth has thought proper to resign his commission

as a Magistrate, and (to use his own expression) to separate himself

entirely from any official connection with my Government."--_Vide_

the above Despatch, August 16, 1840.

[173] "The more completely Lord Normanby admits the right of the

chiefs to the sovereignty and soil of New Zealand the more fully must

he rely on the third principle upon which I have said this Bill is

founded, namely, that Englishmen cannot found colonies without the

consent of the Crown, and can obtain no titles to lands in colonies

but from the Crown."--Extract from Sir G. Gipps' speech.

[174] For a further exposition of this point the reader is referred to

what has been called the "classic" judgment of the late Mr. Justice

Chapman in Regina _v._ Symonds, 1847.

[175] In November 1840 Lord John Russell entered into an agreement

with the Company, by which they were to become entitled to select out

of the extensive domain claimed by them one acre for every 5s. they

could prove they had expended upon colonisation in New Zealand. A Mr.

Pennington, a London accountant, was appointed to discover what the

Company's expenditure had been. He reported that they had expended, as

far as could be ascertained, the sum of £200,000, which on the basis

of the arrangement entered into would have entitled them to select,

approximately, 1,000,000 acres. This the Company asserted to Lord

Stanley was a final determination of their rights, and that they were

_ipso facto_ entitled to the land. Lord Stanley, however, held

that the Company still had to show that they had lawfully and

equitably extinguished the native title over this area, and that for

this purpose their land must come under investigation by the

Commission. The correspondence is embodied in the Parliamentary papers

of the period.

[176] Both sides of the Committee appear to have disregarded Major

Bunbury's proceedings, not because they had no constitutional value,

but probably because they were not sufficiently posted in the facts.

[177] In October 1845, Governor Fitzroy wrote to Lord Stanley: "I

cannot believe that those most dangerous resolutions of the House of

Commons (Committee) in 1844 respecting unoccupied land, can be adopted

by Her Majesty's Government, but if such should be the fatal case, the

native population will unite against the settlers and the destruction

of the colony as a field for emigration must result."

[178] _Vide_ his letter to Archdeacon Henry Williams, November

11, 1845.

[179] Governor Hobson died at 12.15 A.M. on September 10,

1842, at Auckland. Amongst a large section of the Northern Maoris the

belief was current that he had been _makutaed_ (bewitched) by an

old _tohunga_ (priest) at a banquet, the _tohunga_ being

instigated by the section of natives who were opposed to the treaty.

[180] In the previous debate Sir Robert had said: "If ever there was a

case where the stronger party was obliged by its position to respect

the demands of the weaker it was the engagements contracted under such

circumstances with these native chiefs."

[181] _Vide_ his Ordinance of March 26, 1844. For an able

justification of this measure the reader is referred to Mr. George

Clarke's _Final Report_, 1846, the manuscript of which is in the

Hocken Collection at Dunedin. The pre-emptive right was finally

abrogated in the Native Land Act of 1862.

[182] _Vide_ his Despatch to Lord Stanley, December 10, 1845.

[183] In this he was further assisted by the fact that Mr. Hawes, who

had been prominent with him in the interests of the New Zealand

Company, became his Under-Secretary, and Mr. Buller became Lord-Advocate.

[184] For a critical analysis of Earl Grey's policy at this period,

the reader is referred to L. A. Chamerovzow's work, _The New Zealand

Question_, 1848.

[185] One writer declared that, "by Earl Grey's Constitution the

humbug Treaty of Waitangi is very properly laid on the shelf." Another

referred to it as "sweeping away all the Treaty of Waitangi nonsense."

[186] Te Wherowhero, who had refused to sign the Treaty of Waitangi,

was greatly influenced by Governor Grey, and this petition is

interesting as showing that the chief was beginning to recognise the

sovereignty of the Queen as the accepted order of things.

[187] "As was anticipated, the chiefs would not enter into the treaty

without the advice of their religious instructors. The Wesleyan chiefs

said, in effect, to their Missionaries: 'We do not know the Queen of

England, but we know you, and can trust you. If you say that the British

Government speaks true about the land, we will believe you, for we

know you will not deceive us.' The Society's Missionaries, understanding

that the primary object of the British Government was to throw the

shield of protection over the New Zealand people, and believing that

the measure proposed was the best for preserving the natives from the

evils by which they were threatened, could not hesitate to assure

their people, that, when once the faith of the British Government was

pledged, it would be maintained inviolate."--_Vide_ Wesleyan Mission

Committee's Letter to Earl Grey, 1848.

[188] Correspondence between the Wesleyan Missionary Committee and the

Right Hon. Earl Grey, 1848.

[189] In a letter received at the Mission House after the Committee's

Memorial had been prepared, the Rev. Thomas Buddle, writing from

Auckland, on July 3, 1847, remarked in reference to lands having no

native claimants: "No such lands have yet been discovered in this

Island. I question much whether there is an acre that has no owner."

The testimony of other Missionaries in the same direction, was, the

Committee asserted, "clear and express."

[190] It is instructive to observe that the treaty is no longer

described as "what has been called the Treaty of Waitangi," as it was

in Earl Grey's Despatch, but is now spoken of with respect by Mr.

Merivale as "The Treaty of Waitangi."

[191] "I do not think it necessary or convenient to discuss with Mr.

Swainson the justice or the policy of the course which the Queen has

been advised to pursue. For the present purpose it is sufficient to

say Her Majesty has pursued it. All the territories comprised within

the Commissions for the Government of New Zealand, and all persons

inhabiting those territories, are and must be considered as being to

all intents and purposes within the dominions of the British

Crown."--_Vide_ Lord Stanley's Despatch to Acting-Governor

Shortland.

[192] William Thompson, son of Te Waharoa, known as the King-maker.

[193] A grand-nephew of the chief who led the war of 1845.

[194] The confiscation of Taranaki lands following upon the Waitara

war might be held by some to be an exception to this rule, but that

would depend upon the view taken of the justification for the war. The

breaches of the treaty, real or alleged, which have occurred in

connection with the Waitara war and since, have been vigorously stated

by Mr. G. W. Rusden in his _Aureretanga_, published in 1888.

APPENDIX

The following petitions to the late Queen are interesting as being the

more recent protests of the Maoris against what they regard as

breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Memorandum and correspondence

which follow may be taken as the official answers to the grievances as

alleged in the petitions.

The subjoined judgment of the Chief Justice, and the extracts from the

other judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal in the case of

Tamihana Korokai, October 1912, are of value as affording us the most

recent judicial interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi.

PETITION FROM MAORIS TO THE QUEEN

_The Earl of Kimberley to His Excellency Sir A. H. Gordon, G.C.M.G._

DOWNING STREET, _August 8, 1882_.

SIR--I have the honour to transmit to you, to be laid before

your Government, a copy of a memorial to the Queen, which was handed

to me by certain Maori chiefs, complaining of alleged breaches by the

New Zealand Government of the Treaty of Waitangi, with a printed

translation of the same, which I received in a letter from the Rev. P.

Walsh of Parnell, Auckland. I also enclose a newspaper extract, which

gives a brief but fairly accurate account of an interview which I held

with these chiefs and several members of Parliament, and others who

accompanied them on the occasion.

I request that you will lay these papers before your Government. You

will invite them to favour me with any observations they may wish to

make in regard to the memorial.--I have, etc.,

KIMBERLEY.

The Hon. Sir A. H. Gordon.

To Her Majesty VICTORIA, the Good Queen of England, and the

Empress of India, Greeting.

Go forth, O our messenger, on the soft airs of affection to remote

lands, across the ocean that was trodden by Tawhaki,[195] to Victoria,

the Queen of England, whose fame for graciousness has extended to all

the kingdoms of the world, including New Zealand. O Mother, the

receiver of the sentiments of the great peoples and the small peoples

under the shade of your authority, Salutations! May the Almighty

preserve you on your Throne, and may men applaud you for your goodness

to your peoples living in these Islands, who are continually directing

their eyes toward you, the mother who is venerated by them.

O Mother, the Queen! on account of the desire to protect these

Islands, your father sent hither, in 1840, Captain Hobson. At that

time the enlightened administration of England was discovered by us,

and the Maori chiefs came to the conclusion that England, in

preference to other countries, should be the protector of New

Zealand--to protect and cherish the Maori tribes of New Zealand. The

conclusion brought about the treaty of Waitangi, and the appointment

of the first Governor, Captain Hobson.

In consequence of the ignorance of some tribes, including Hone Heke,

the flagstaff was cut down at Maiki, Bay of Islands, for the tribes in

question imagined that the flag was the symbol of land confiscation.

Nevertheless, there was no blood in the flagstaff which had been cut

down, making it needful to raise armies to fight the Maoris. If the

Native chiefs had been summoned to a conference at that time, and

matters had been explained to them, there would have been no war; but

the Europeans flew as birds to make war against Heke, which brought

about the blood-shedding of both Europeans and Maoris.

In the year 1860 another evil was brought upon the Maori tribes by the

Governor himself, who, without any grounds, drove Wiremu Kingi from

his own lands at Waitara, and this war about land renewed the shedding

of both European and Maori blood. On this occasion, O Mother, the

Queen! the grievous lamentation of this Island was raised, and you

recalled, in consequence, Governor Gore-Browne, whose administration

closed here. It was said by the Europeans that William King did wrong

in opposing the Governor; that if William King and party had appealed

to the Supreme Court, the Government act in that case would have been

condemned. Hence the knowledge of the Taranaki tribes taking up that

opinion, and retaining it up to the capture of Te Whiti and others,

who did not oppose in fight the Government when it went with an army

to Parihaka, to enkindle Maori strife, thereby endeavouring to find a

basis to make the Maoris do wrong, and then confiscate their lands.

In the year 1862, you, O Queen, sent hither Governor Grey to calm down

the rain and the wind,[196] so that the sea of both races should be

still. Governor Grey possessed much wisdom: he understands the Maori

language, also the Maori customs. Notwithstanding, when he came the

second time as Governor of these Islands, he rushed hastily away to

Taranaki, and gave instructions for road-making on Maori territory,

thereby bringing about a war and the slaying of many of both races. In

the year 1863 the war was carried into Waikato, and the Maoris

throughout the Island were unaware as to the reason why war had been

made on the Waikato. Now, O Queen, the Waikatos had formed a land

league, in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi, to preserve their

native authority over the land, which principle is embodied in the

treaty.

O, the Queen! you do not consider that act of retaining their land to

be unjust; but the Government of New Zealand held it to be wrong,

inasmuch as war was declared against the Waikatos, and the

confiscation of their land followed, although the Waikatos had no

desire to fight--the desire came from the Governor and his council.

When the Waikatos were overpowered, armies of soldiers went forth to

engender strife against the Maoris at Tauranga, at Te Awa-o-te Atua at

Whakatana, at Ohiwa, at Opotiki, at Turanganui, at Ahuriri, at

Whanganui, at Waimate, and various other places. The motive impelling

the projectors of these deeds to execute this work was a desire to

confiscate the Maori lands, and to trample under the soles of their

feet the Treaty of Waitangi. While these proceedings were being

carried out, the weeping people wept, the lamenting people lamented,

the agonised people were in agony, the saddened people were in

sadness, while they held the Treaty of Waitangi as a basis on which

the voice of the Maoris could be made known to you, O Queen.

But the people of New Zealand declared that the fighting and the

confiscation of land which brought calamity, and made your Maori

children orphans, were sanctioned by you, O Queen. We did not believe

the utterances of the Europeans as to the wrongs we suffered, that

they were brought upon us by your queenly authority; but our decision

was that such acts were not sanctioned by you, O Queen, whose

benevolence towards the Maori people is well known. The disorderly

work referred to has been carried into practice, so that a path might

be opened up to Europeans to seize Maori lands.

In the year 1881, a new plan was devised by the Government to enkindle

strife in respect to the Maoris. Armies were sent to Parihaka to

capture innocent men that they might be lodged in prison; to seize

their property and their money, to destroy their growing crops, to

break down their houses, and commit other deeds of injustice. We pored

over the Treaty of Waitangi to find the grounds on which these evil

proceedings of the Government of New Zealand rested, but we could find

none. Some of the European inhabitants of this Island disapproved of

these injurious doings to Maori men; and it was vaguely rumoured that

Sir Arthur Gordon, the Governor, refused to approve of these acts.

Many other evils have been discovered by our hearts, therefore have we

considered right, O Mother, the Queen, to pray that you will not

permit increased evils to come upon your Maori children in New

Zealand, but to graciously sanction the appointment of a Royal English

Commission to abrogate the evil laws affecting the Maori people, and

to establish a Maori Parliament, which shall hold in check the

European authorities who are endeavouring to set aside the Treaty of

Waitangi; to put a bridle also in the mouth of Ministers for Native

Affairs who may act as Ministers have done at Parihaka, so that all

may be brought back to obey your laws; and to prevent the continued

wrongs of land matters which are troubling the Maori people through

days and years; and to restore to the Maoris those lands which have

been wrongfully confiscated according to the provisions of the Treaty

of Waitangi; and to draw forth from beneath the many unauthorized acts

of the New Zealand Parliament the concealed treaty, that it may now

assert its own dignity.

In this year, 1881, we, O the Queen, built a House of Assembly at the

Bay of Islands, and the great symbol therein is a stone memorial, on

which has been engraved the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, so

that eyes may look thereon from year to year. Two invitations were

sent to the Governor, requesting him to unveil the stone Treaty

Memorial. He did not accede to the request. Perhaps his disinclination

arose from the fact that the Europeans had disregarded the principles

embodied in the treaty, because in you, O Queen, is vested the sole

authority affecting the Waitangi Treaty. Should you authorize, O

Mother, the Queen, the appointment in England of a Royal English

Commission, under your queenly seal, to investigate the wrongdoings of

both races, then will you rightly be informed, O Mother, as to what is

just and what is false.

It is believed by us, O Queen, that you have no knowledge as to the

deeds of wrong that gave us so much pain, and which create lamentation

among the tribes; but if, in your graciousness, a Maori Parliament is

set up, you will, O Queen, be enabled clearly to determine what is

right and what is wrong, what is evil and what is good, in the

administrations of the two races in these Islands.

O Mother, the Queen, there are no expressions of disaffection towards

you by the Maori tribes, including the tribes of the King; but they

revere, only revere your Majesty; and the search after you, O Queen,

has induced us to send this petition to England by the hands of the

persons appointed by our Committee, who will see your very countenance

and hear your words.

O Mother, the Queen, do not suppose that the sufferings under which we

labour are light. Many wrongs are felt by various tribes, but the

following are some which have come under our own notice:--(1) The

fighting between the Maoris and the New Zealand Company in the year

1841-42 was brought about by land disputes, and Mr. Wakefield fell in

the strife. (2) The war against Te Rangihaeata in the year 1842-1843:

a land dispute also was the origin; and some of Rangihaeata's people

were wrongly executed, their deaths being opposed to the English law,

and contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. (3) The war

against Heke and Kawiti in 1844-45, caused by land sales and the

withholding of the anchorage money at Bay of Islands, was contrary to

the second article of the Treaty of Waitangi. (4) The fighting between

the chiefs Te Hapuku and Te Moananui in 1848-1849 brought about by

land purchasing on behalf of the Government. (5) The war against

Wiremu Kingi on account of the block of land named Waitara, at

Taranaki. (6) The war against the Waikatos in 1863, extending to the

year 1870. (7) The fight among the Ngatitautahi tribe in 1879, four

Natives killed, the strife being occasioned by the land purchases of

Government, a portion of £700,000 having been scattered over our lands

by Government Agents in 1875. (8) The capture of two hundred innocent

men of Te Whiti in 1879-81. (9) The incarceration of Te Whiti and his

people in 1881-82, who were guiltless of any crime.

The following, O Queen, are references to New Zealand Ordinances put

forth and said to be against the principles contained in the Treaty of

Waitangi: (1) The making of unauthorized laws relating to Maori

lands--namely, the Land Acts of 1862, 1865, 1873, 1880--which Acts

were not assented to by the Native chiefs in all parts of the Island.

Nor is there any basis in the Treaty of Waitangi for these laws, which

continuously bring upon our lands and upon our persons great wrongs.

(2) The Immigration and Public Works Act, and the borrowing of

£700,000 expended here and there to confuse the Maoris and their

titles to land.

O Mother, the Queen, these other things, and many of the laws that are

being carried into effect are, according to Maori ideas, very unjust,

creating disorder amongst us, giving us heart-pangs and sadness of

spirit to your Maori children, who are ever looking towards you, most

gracious Queen; and it is averred by men of wisdom that these matters

which weigh so heavily upon us are in opposition to the great and

excellent principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

May you be in health, O Mother, the Queen! May the Almighty bring down

upon you, upon your family, and upon the whole of your people the

exalted goodness of Heaven, even up to the termination of your sojourn

in this world, and in your inheritance in the home of sacred rest!

May you live, is the prayer of your children in the Island of New

Zealand.

PARORE TE AWHA,

HARE HONGI HIKA,

MAIHI PARAONE KAWITI,

KINGI HORI KIRA,

MANGONUI REWA,

HIRINI TAIWHANGA,

WIREMU PUHI TE HIHI,

HAKENA PARORE.

For the Native people of New Zealand.

MAORI CHIEFS IN LONDON

Yesterday afternoon, a deputation of Maori chiefs, accompanied by

numerous friends of the Aborigines' Protection Society, waited upon

the Earl of Kimberley (Secretary of State for the Colonies) at the

Colonial Office, for the purpose of seeking redress of grievances

under which Native tribes, it is alleged, suffer in New Zealand. The

Maori chiefs, three in number, were attired in English dress. They

appeared intelligent men, one of them having his face much tattooed.

Their names were Wiremu Puhi te Hihi, Hirini Taiwhanga, and Hakena

Parore. There were present Sir T. Fowell Buxton; Mr. W. H. James,

M.P.; Mr. T. Fry, M.P.; Sir Wilfred Lawson, M.P.; Sir D. Wedderburn,

M.P.; Mr. W. Rathbone, M.P.; Mr. A. M'Arthur, M.P.; Mr. Alderman

Fowler, M.P.; Mr. Brogden, M.P.; Mr. Cropper, M.P.; Mr. Thomasson,

M.P.; the Bishop of Nelson, the Rev. T. Grace (late of New Zealand),

Mr. Froome Talfourd, Mr. C. Hancock, Mr. W. Wilson, Mr. G. W. Rusden,

Mr. Da Costa, Mr. F. W. Chesson (Secretary of the Aborigines'

Protection Society).

Mr. F. W. Chesson read a letter from Bishop Abraham (the late Bishop

of Wellington) in which he stated that in 1852, Sir John Packington,

being the Colonial Minister, framed a Constitution for New Zealand

absolutely ignoring the 60,000 Natives, who then outnumbered the

English, and who were by the Treaty of Waitangi proclaimed to be as

much subjects of the Queen as the English. No Native could vote unless

he chanced to have a Crown grant, which only a very few had, and this

was a direct violation of the treaty. It was not till about the year

1865 that four or five Natives were admitted into the Houses of

Parliament.

The Bishop of Nelson then explained the objects the deputation had in

view. He said the three Maori chiefs present had brought with them a

petition to the Queen, signed by Native chiefs, asking for the

investigation and redress of grievances under which they laboured, and

they were desirous of presenting it to Her Majesty, at the same time

requesting the acceptance of some presents, according to the Maori

custom. They complained of the incarceration of Te Whiti and his

people, who, it was alleged, were guiltless of any crime, and also

that the reserve of land promised had not been properly secured to

them. The treatment of Te Whiti was the more extraordinary considering

how much had been condoned in the case of disloyal Natives, while

throughout the whole of the disturbances he had never been in arms

against the Government, but had prevented war, in the full confidence

that his legal position and claim would be gone into.

The petition addressed to "The Good Queen of England and the Empress

of India," and which saluted Her Majesty, "whose fame for graciousness

had extended to all the nations of the world," as Mother of the Maori

tribes, was then handed to Lord Kimberley.

Lord Kimberley asked whether the petition had been presented to the

Governor or the Government of New Zealand.

The Bishop of Nelson--"I think it has not been so presented."

Lord Kimberley pointed out that the memorial ought to have been

presented to the Governor and the Government of New Zealand in the

first instance, in order to enable him to have their views on the

question; and he remarked that under the present circumstances he

could give no definite answer to the petition.

The three Maori chiefs then spoke in their own language, their

statements being interpreted by the Rev. Mr. Grace. One of the chiefs

(Hirini Taiwhanga) apparently understood a little English, although

declining to converse in that tongue. Firstly, they complained that

the Treaty of Waitangi had not been upheld, and urged that it should

be maintained, and the English and Native races governed according to

it; secondly, they desired that steps should be taken to unite more

closely the English and the Native race, instead of the latter being

treated by the former as a horse treated his enemy--kicking him away;

and, thirdly, they were much concerned at the treatment to which their

fellow-countryman, Te Whiti, was subjected, and they wished him to be

set at liberty.

In reply to a question put by Lord Kimberley as to the reason why the

petition had not been presented to the New Zealand Government--

Wiremu Puhi te Hihi said the omission was due to the haste the chiefs

made to present the Petition to the Queen, as they had heard reports

that her life had been attempted by assassins. He added that he was

perfectly aware that Her Majesty had given the New Zealand Government

power to deal with its domestic affairs, but he thought the Government

at New Zealand had not acted as the Queen would have done under

similar circumstances. He further stated that the Native grievances

extended throughout the Island.

Lord Kimberley requested the interpreter to tell the chiefs that to

pass over the Colonial Government, and to endeavour to induce the

Imperial Government to act independently, would not tend to the union

of the English and Native races.

One of the chiefs (Hakena Parore) said the chiefs had no wish to

ignore the New Zealand Government, and they were doing their utmost to

diminish drunkenness among the Native tribes by means of total

abstinence societies.

Mr. Wilfrid Wilson (of New Zealand) said there was reason to believe

that some of the Native chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi were

not the owners of land, and there was a large number of chiefs who

owned land that did not sign the treaty.

Sir T. Fowell Buxton, having observed that a good deal might turn on

the question whether the treaty was obsolete or not--

Lord Kimberley said the treaty was very simple, and provided that the

possession of land was to be respected. It was not the duty of the

Colonial Office to advise the Queen in reference to local matters like

the present. The management of the land of New Zealand was absolutely

handed over to the New Zealand Government, and the Queen was advised

by the Ministers of the colony with regard to these matters, and not

by himself, as there could not be two governments for one country. It

had been decided, as more likely to conduce to the peace of the

country, that the affairs of New Zealand should be managed at the

colony rather than in Downing Street. He had a strong conviction that

the course was right. The question now raised by the deputation

appeared to be connected with confiscations arising out of wars, and

the treaty would not be concerned in such confiscations, but the point

was whether they were just. Having received the petition, he should

transmit it to the Colonial Government, and ask them to state their

views with regard to it. It might be thought desirable to issue

another Royal Commission, but that step rested with the Colonial

Government.

At the request of His Lordship, the Interpreter told the chiefs that

the Queen took a great interest in the welfare of the Native

population of New Zealand, and it was a matter of great satisfaction

to Her Majesty that of late years there had been no wars or bloodshed

between the two races, which was a happy omen for the future.

The deputation then retired.

_The Premier to His Excellency the Administrator_

Ministers have had under consideration the despatch from the Secretary

of State, dated the 8th August last, enclosing copy of a memorial to

the Queen from certain Maori chiefs of New Zealand, and inviting this

Government to favour him with any observations they may wish to make

thereupon.

The memorial professes to be signed "For the Native people of New

Zealand." After full enquiry, Ministers have ascertained that but few

Maoris were aware that such a memorial was to be presented; and that

several of those who knew what was intended have no sympathy with the

proceedings of Hirini Taiwhanga, from whom the memorial emanated.

Taiwhanga belongs to Nga-Puhi, the principal tribe in the northern

part of the North Island. He is not a man of any rank; and he has no

importance beyond what he has gained in consequence of his abilities

and education. As an intelligent boy, he was educated under the

direction of the late Bishop Selwyn; and, subsequently it being

desired to push forward Native youths of promise, he was after due

instruction appointed by the Government a licensed surveyor. The

appointment was not a success; and in June 1872, his license was

revoked, in consequence of malpractices, reported by the Inspector of

Surveys and two Judges of the Native Land Court.

The Government had for several years been making efforts to establish

schools in Native districts for the education of Maori children, and

in 1877 Taiwhanga was appointed master of such a school at his native

settlement Kaikohe. His remuneration was a capitation allowance; but

his conduct in this position was so bad that the school had to be

broken up. He neglected his work, absented himself from the school and

from the settlement, and, by rendering grossly false returns of the

number of children attending the school, he obtained money not due to

him for capitation. Taiwhanga's conduct in other transactions has been

equally open to condemnation.

The other two members of the deputation also belong to Nga-Puhi. One

is a grandson and the other a nephew of Parore, a Nga-Puhi chief of

high family and of great respectability. He is upwards of ninety years

of age, and was induced by Taiwhanga to provide the money to take his

relatives as a deputation to England to see the Queen. The men

themselves are respectable, but have not taken a leading position in

their tribe.

The only object in giving these particulars is to enable the Secretary

of State to form an opinion as to the weight that should attach to the

statements and proceedings of the deputation.

With regard to the "wrongs" detailed in the memorial, Ministers desire

to point out that the first six have reference to transactions during

the time Native affairs in New Zealand were under the control and

management of the Imperial Government, through their officer, the

Governor of the colony. A full history of these transactions will no

doubt be found in the Parliamentary papers, Imperial and Colonial, in

the Colonial Office; and on reference to such papers, it will be seen

how little reason the Maoris have to complain.

The "wrong" standing as No. 7 in the memorial, has relation to a

dispute between two tribes in reference to land, with which the

Government of the colony had no connection, and for which they were

not in any way responsible.

Nos. 8 and 9 refer to recent transactions, for which the Colonial

Government were entirely responsible. A full account, and the

justification of the Government's conduct, will be found in the

documents from time to time transmitted through the Governor to the

Secretary of State.

The special legislation referred to in the memorial as "unauthorised

laws relating to Maori lands ... not assented to by the Native chiefs

in all parts of the Island," and as having no "basis in the Treaty of

Waitangi," is not restrictive but enabling. The object of the Native

Land Acts enumerated was to provide a special tribunal for the

determination of Native title; to relieve the Maori owners from the

monopoly held by the Government; and to enable them to sell their

lands to whomsoever they pleased. In no way are the provisions of the

Acts compulsory. The Maoris were and are at liberty to avail

themselves of the powers conferred, or to abstain from doing so, at

their pleasure.

It may be stated that, with the exception of lands confiscated for

rebellion, no land whatever has been taken from the Maoris by the

Government. With the exception stated, all lands acquired from Natives

by Government have been acquired from willing sellers, and fully paid

for. The £700,000 referred to has been paid to them, besides other

large sums, for what was to them unprofitable waste.

The general legislation of the colony as to the Maoris has been more

than just--it has been exceptionally favourable to them. When laws

have been made applicable to the people of the colony, the object has

in many instances been to except the Maoris from their stringency; and

there is no instance in which they have been placed in a less

favourable position than the European population. Of the many laws on

the statute-book of the colony which bear out this statement, one

illustration may be mentioned: the Maoris are specially exempted from

all direct taxes on both real and personal property.

It may, indeed, with confidence be asserted generally that there is

not, and has not been, anything on the statute-book of the colony, or

in the conduct of the Colonial Legislature, as regards the Maoris, to

which reasonable exception can be taken.

FRED WHITAKER.

WELLINGTON, _December 12, 1882._

_His Excellency the Administrator to the Secretary of State for the

Colonies_

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, WELLINGTON, _December 16, 1882_.

MY LORD--With reference to Your Lordship's despatch, No. 33,

of 8th August 1882, transmitting a copy of a memorial to the Queen

from certain Maori chiefs of New Zealand, and enclosing a newspaper

extract giving an account of an interview held by Your Lordship with

those chiefs, and several Members of Parliament and others, I have the

honour to enclose a memorial from the Prime Minister, Mr. Whitaker,

which he has forwarded to me in consequence of the invitation to him

to make observations on the memorial, which invitation was conveyed to

him by Your Lordship's directions, as already stated in my despatch,

No. 88, of November 5, 1882.--I have, etc.

JAMES PRENDERGAST.

The Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

_The Secretary of State for the Colonies to His Excellency the

Governor_

COLONIAL OFFICE, DOWNING STREET, _February 17, 1883_.

SIR--I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your

despatch, No. 102, of the 16th December last, transmitting a

memorandum from the Prime Minister, Mr. Whitaker, on the subject of a

memorial placed in the hands of my predecessor, by certain Maori

chiefs of New Zealand for presentation to the Queen, complaining of

alleged breaches by the New Zealand Government of the Treaty of

Waitangi, and praying for the appointment of a Royal Commission in

connection with the laws of the colony affecting the Maoris, and for

the establishment of a Maori Parliament.

Having given these papers my attentive consideration, I request that

you will cause the petitioners to be informed that their petition,

which has now been reported on by the Colonial Government, has been

laid before the Queen, who was pleased to receive it very graciously;

but that I have been unable to advise Her Majesty to give any

directions for a compliance with the prayer of the memorialists.--I

have, etc.

DERBY.

The Officer administering the Government of New Zealand.

_The Native Office to Parore te Awha and others_

(Translation)

NATIVE OFFICE, WELLINGTON, _April 17, 1883_.

FRIENDS--In reference to the petition which you and certain

other Natives have addressed to Her Majesty the Queen, complaining of

alleged breaches by the New Zealand Government of the Treaty of

Waitangi, and praying for the appointment of a Royal Commission in

connection with the laws of the colony affecting the Maoris, and for

the establishment of a Maori Parliament, I am instructed to acquaint

you that His Excellency the Governor has received a despatch, bearing

date 17th February from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, upon

the subject of your petition.

In his despatch, Lord Derby requests that you should be informed that

the petition, which has been reported on by the Colonial Government,

has been laid before the Queen, who was pleased to receive it very

graciously. He further says that he has been unable to advise Her

Majesty to give any directions for a compliance with the prayer of the

memorialists.

From your friend, W. J. MORPETH (In the absence of Mr. Lewis).

To Parore te Awha and Hirini Taiwhanga, Kaihu, Kaipara.

_Parore te Awha to the Native Office_

(Translation)

HOUHANGA, DARGAVILLE, _April 25, 1883_.

TO MR. MORPETH--Friend, greeting! I have received your letter

acquainting me with the result of the petition taken by Wiremu Reweti

te Puhi, Hihi Parore, Hirini Rawiri Taiwhanga, and Hakena te Parore to

England. I myself sent those persons to England to lay our grievances

before the Queen--that is, before all her governing power--because all

the grievances that we, the Maoris, suffer from arise from the colony

of New Zealand; hence our petition for the establishment of a Native

Parliament in New Zealand. It was not done with the object of

trampling on the authority of the Government of New Zealand. No! but

we think that the Queen's authority should be exercised directly over

us. We, the Maori people, are entirely subject to the authority of our

most gracious Queen Victoria. The leading people in England say that

it is the Europeans of New Zealand who oppress the Maori people. Well

then, friend, do you write to me on the receipt of this letter. May

God protect us both.--From your sincere Friend,

PARORE TE AWHA.

MEMORIAL OF TAWHIAO AND OTHERS TO THE QUEEN

_The Right Hon. the Earl of Derby to Sir W. F. D. Jervois_

DOWNING STREET, _August 9, 1884_.

SIR--I have the honour to transmit to you a copy of the

memorial which has been presented to me by the Maori chiefs now in

this country.

I understand that it is contended, in support of the action taken by

the Maori chiefs in making this appeal to the Imperial Government,

that the powers granted to the Queen by section 71 of the New Zealand

Constitution Act, 15 and 16 Vict. cap. 72, are still in full force,

and that Her Majesty may properly be invited to provide by letters

patent that the laws enacted by the Legislature of the colony should

not extend to the Native territory; and that the Native laws, customs,

and usages, modified as might be thought desirable, should prevail

therein, to the exclusion of all other laws.

I shall be glad to receive the observations of your Government on this

point, and also any statements which they may desire to make

respecting the matters referred to in the memorial.--I have, etc.

DERBY.

Governor Sir W. Jervois, G.C.M.G., C.B., etc.

ENCLOSURE (Confidential)

Salutations!--May the Queen and her family long live! May her

Government and the people of England live! May God protect you!

This is an address from the Maori chiefs to the people of England.

Strangers landed on a strange land:

We, the Maori chiefs of New Zealand, have come to this distant land

into your presence, on account of the great disaster which has

overtaken your Maori race, which is beloved by the Queen and the

people of England. Accordingly we have now swum the Ocean of Kiwa,

which lies between us, and have reached England in safety, the source

and fountain of authority, to the place where the Queen lives, that

she may redress the ills of the Maori race inflicted on them by the

Government of New Zealand, who have not directed their attention to

right those wrongs up to the present time, and those wrongs are still

being committed; nor is it because the Maoris are adhering to evil

practices, and so causing trouble between the two races; and

therefore, owing to this continued inattention of the Government, this

is presented as an appeal to the highest authority. And because there

was a tender regard displayed by the Queen to her Maori race, as shown

in the Treaty of Waitangi, therefore it is well that those contracts

and these ills should be brought before you for your consideration.

Firstly, the words of the Queen were, that Victoria, Queen of England,

in her kind regard to the chiefs and the tribes of New Zealand,

secured that their rights of chieftainship and their lands should be

established to them, and that peace should be made with them.

Secondly, that the Queen of England shall order and consent that the

chiefs and tribes of New Zealand preserve their chieftainships, their

lands, their villages, their forests, and their fisheries.