EXILES — THEIR LANDS — A COMPLIMENT — GRATITUDE — IMBROGLIO — A
SUPERINTENDENCY LAWYER AND LAND SHARK — PUNIC FAITH — “DISTRICT
POLICE ACT” — INTERESTS CLASH — COMPENSATION — A MUDDLE — “SOFT
SAWDER” — NO GO — ANNEXATION.
The East Coast Hauhau prisoners were deported to the Chatham Islands in
1866, to the number of 187, of the worst characters; their women and
children were permitted to accompany them. Land, seeds, and implements
were allotted each man; they were well fed and clothed, and a guard of
25 men was placed over them. One of the prisoners was the spy Te Kooti,
who had planned an ambush to murder an escort party.
The Chathams are well adapted for expatriation purposes, their nearest
point being 400 miles from the mainland of New Zealand. When the
prisoners arrived, the Chathams were inhabited by 46 Europeans and a
small number of Morioris and Maoris; the former were aborigines of the
Chathams, who had been conquered by the latter.
Upon the restoration of peace, a problem of difficult solution
presented itself, viz., the administration of Hauhau lands. In
accordance with Maori usage, those lands were so minutely divided and
mixed up with lands owned by loyal natives, that the greatest tact
and intimate acquaintance with native customs and land tenures were
requisite in him who should be entrusted with the unpleasant task, in
order that injustice might be avoided. There is no subject upon which
a Maori is so sensitive as that of his land: but so confident were the
natives in Mr. M‘Lean’s impartiality, that the whole of their lands
were placed at his disposal, by the unanimous desire of all concerned.
There is not another man in New Zealand to whom such a compliment
would be paid; and if the land question remains unsettled to this
day, the fault is attributable to Mr. Stafford and his colleagues.
It has been shewn that, by his conquest of the East Coast, Mr. M‘Lean
had paved the way for its speedy and peaceful colonization. At this
juncture ministers stepped in, and, jealous of his unrivalled influence
with the Maoris, meanly tried to filch the laurels he had won. The
administration of the East Coast was practically transferred to
themselves, and Captain Biggs, a highly meritorious officer, but quite
incapable of dealing with a question of such magnitude, was appointed
to negotiate between them and the natives.
Consequences followed that might have been foreseen. The natives,
irritated and bewildered at the seeming refusal of the Government to
accept their liberal offer through Mr. M‘Lean, whilst another agent
was treating for the very lands included in that offer, became first
suspicious, and finally disaffected. Between the date, however, of
their offer to place all their lands at Mr. M‘Lean’s disposal and the
disaffection alluded to, the natives had taken an important step and
petitioned the Assembly that Poverty Bay and East Coast districts might
be annexed to the province of which Mr. M‘Lean is Superintendent.
Such a proposal was “gall and wormwood” to ministers; accordingly,
they played into the hands of Mr. Whitaker, and thereby prevented the
proposed annexation and consequent settlement of those districts,
though they were well aware that at that very time Mr. Whitaker, the
Superintendent of Auckland and a General Government Agent, was breaking
the law, and assisting to prevent a settlement of the Poverty Bay land
question, by negociating, through his agent, with rebel Hauhaus, for
the cession of the Poverty Bay oil springs and other lands.
The recognition of rebel claims by a person holding such a high
position, led to similar dealings of the most irregular description,
involving breaches of faith with the loyal natives, whose confidence
became weakened by the treatment they experienced after the valuable
services rendered by them in the East Coast campaign of 1865, while the
assurance of those lately in rebellion greatly increased, and led both
to deny what had been at first unanimously approved, viz., the justice
of the principle embodied in the Outlying Districts Police Act of 1865,
which assents, that “expenses incurred in suppressing rebellion should
be borne out of lands of the insurgents.”
By 1867, manifold conflicting interests had grown up in Poverty Bay and
East Coast districts, in the shape of land purchases and leases of
runs, which of necessity interfered with a settlement of out-standing
claims. A committee of the House of Representatives had eschewed the
right of East Coast settlers to compensation for losses sustained in
1865. This led to some of those settlers applying for and obtaining
compensation from rebels in land. The consequence of all this was that
complication after complication arose, until the land question became
an unintelligible web of confusion to ministers, who, seeing no other
way of escape from a serious dilemma, called Mr. M‘Lean to the rescue.
But though they had by their injudicious meddling marred the fairest
prospect that ever presented itself for settling a question of
vital importance to the whole colony, and were compelled to ask
the assistance of the man whose influence they envied and tried to
undermine, their peddling policy was perceptible to the end; even
whilst they gave Mr. M‘Lean to understand they had no doubt though “the
opportunity for carrying out good arrangements had long passed by,” and
the question “had become complicated by circumstances which greatly
increase the difficulty;” and whilst they were constrained to admit,
that if any solution of the difficulties could be arrived at, it would
be solely through his exertions.
In truth, the difficulties in the way of a satisfactory solution were
well nigh insuperable. Nevertheless, Mr. McLean, whilst pointing out
that in his opinion not much could be achieved in the settlement of
the land question, agreed to go, if Ministers would indicate what they
proposed to do. He afterwards proceeded to the East Coast, but fresh
complications arose. Finally his exertions were rendered nugatory by
the criminal negligence that precipitated the massacre of Poverty Bay.
There can be no doubt that Mr. McLean earnestly desired the settlement
of the East Coast lands question, in common with every settler
interested in the welfare of those districts, and it was essential for
the welfare of his own province that the East Coast should be occupied
by a European population. But apart from that consideration, the high
and influential positions held by him for so many years must enable
him to take a more comprehensive survey, embracing not a part only but
the whole of the colony, and to act as he thinks best for the general
welfare.
It has been insinuated that Mr. M‘Lean desired the annexation of a
certain district to Hawke’s Bay province, from personal considerations,
and that the petitions presented to the Assembly upon the annexation
question from natives and Europeans were fictitious. Both insinuations
are false. With respect to the first, it ought to be known that Mr.
M‘Lean desired the Poverty Bay district to be administered by a
Commission. The annexation petitions were the spontaneous expressions
of the opinions of a very large majority of native and European
residents in the Poverty Bay districts, who, seeing the advantages
enjoyed by their neighbours, desired to share in those advantages, and
to have their district administered by the man who saved them from
destruction.