Mr. Meurant's Case—and the Rights of the Anglo-Maories.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume V, Issue 227, 31 August 1849, Page 2

Mr. Meurant's Case — and the Rights of the Anglo-Maories.

A ol momenlous import is depending in the balance. The charge a*

dishonesty on the part of Government in the case of Mr. Meurant, preferred by us, and re-echoed by the indignant English press, is poised against the assertion of his Excellency the Governor that he has acted, not only honestly, but with unwanted liberality towards Mr. Meurant ; and it now remains for the public to cast toe turning weight of their opinion into the proper scale. "We are spared the necessity of reiterating all the facts of the alleged case of dishonesty, as they are recapitulated in the Memorial presented by Mr. Meurant to the Legislative Council, and which^ is copied into our columns to-day. Taking it for granted that our readers will make themselves masters of these decails, we proceed to analyze, and weigh the defence set up by the Governor. After a careful examination of all that he advanced, we cannot detect a single fact that alters, in any material sense, the character of the entire case. On the contrary, we are bold to assert, that a more daring piece of effrontery— a more hazardous because a more transparent piece of deception, we never recollect' having witnessed. How the non-official members of Council could have been so easily duped, and have allowed their suspicions to be allayed by the irrelevant statements of his Excellency we cannot imagine. It is plain that they had not taken the trouble to make themselves masters of the facts of the case, or they would not have been so easily misled. Not one of the main points of the .case were touched by his Excellency. He only. proved that there was a discrepancy between Mr. Meurant's memorial, and Mr. Meurant's correspondence. In the memorial Mr. Meurant complained in terms that could not be misunderstood, of the Government having taken away and sold a portion of, the land bestowed by the natives upon his wife and family, but in the correspondence read by" his Excellency he applied for a government title to land which he had bought for himself. The Governor with admirable tact, seized hold of this flimsy plea, and upon it based his defence ; at all events he succeeded most completely, in confusing the non-oftioial members, for although one or two pointed questions would have laid bare his duplicity, these gentlemen 'had not the wit to put them. For instanoe, when the Governor,—who had been arguing from the provisions of the deed of purchase relating to the piece of land Mr. Meurant had bought of Jabez Bunting, and with which the memorial, and consequently the real question at issue, had nothing whatever to do — was reminded by Mr, Merriman that there was another deed which conveyed to Mr. Meurant's wife and children a different piece of land. "Oh ! (said his Excellency,) the' Government knew nothing about the existence of that deed until a. copy of it was. forwarded by Mr. Meurant." And, when the hon. member pressed his Excellency again upon, the subject, reminding him that the deed was witnessed by his own interpreter, all that he could elicit from the Governor was, the reiterated surly assertion that the Government "knew nothing about it." Now, the question was not whether the Government knew of the existence of that deed on any particular date, but whether they knew it when they sold a portion of the land jit bestowed. Supposing.the hon. member Mr. Barstow, had put some suoh questions as these to his Excellency,: By what means, in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi, is land acquired by the Government before it is offered for public competition ? The answer most likely would have been — By purchase from the native owners. Did your Excellency so purchase that portion of the land alluded to in Mr. Meu. rant's Memorial, which was sold by auction wjhile Mr. Meurant was absent. The answer to this might have been ''yes" or "no," according to the moral attributes of his Excellency's conscience. If he had said <( yes," he would in one sense have been speaking the' truth, but in a moral point of view he would have been cloaking the robbery with falsehood. But if even he had managed' to clear' this difficulty unscathed, yet another query might have been proposed. When you purchased this land, were you aware that it formed part of a piece that had been already bestowed by its proprietors upon a native female and her family, their relations? This would have been a poser, and would at once have laid bare the iniquity of the whole transaction. But as some of our readers may yet lack a .clear apprehension of the case, we will place it before them in few words, Mr. Meurant bought a piece of land containing about 14 acres, of Jabez Bunting and Wata, for- which he paid £13 13s. This the Government has not interfered with. He claimed, not for himself, but for his wife and children, another distinct

piece of land containing 30 acres, which was given to them by Te Tawa, Te Keene, and Te Ilira. Of this piece the Government have seized and sold the largest part. The Colonial Secretary in backing up the defence of the Governor, insinuated that this latter piece was not bestowed by the natives upon Mvs. Meuvant and her children as a free gift, but that it was given in consideration of services rendered by Mr. Meurant to the natives in assisting them to sell their lands. Suppose this was even true, it would not alter the case. The fact of the land having been alienated by the natives for the benefit of Mr. Meurant's family, is incontestible. Whatever may have been .the motive that induced them to do this, it is quite clear that they did it voluntarily, and nothing could warrant the Government in subsequently taking a part of it away. The Surveyor-General too tried to make it appear, first, that Mr. Meurant's wife was ■ no relation to Tawa, because she came from a different tribe ; and secondly, that it was not likely that the natives would give her a piece of land out of the block that had been reserved for themselves, and which they were prohibited ifrom selling to the Europeans. Now this latter argument proves just the contrary. Mr. Meurant's wife would be considered as one of themselves. The natives knew very well that the land bestowed upon her would bring them no return. It was but j natural then, that they should prefer giv- i ing her a piece out of their own reserve to ' curtailing their own receipts by abstracting a portion of that which would bring them a price if sold to a European. But, as we have said above, the 30 acres wero bestowed on Mrs. Meurant and her ohildren — whether as a marriage portion, or as a mark of esteem, or in consideration of services rendered by her husband— we care not to prove. No regular deed was executed until April 1847, which, after the usual formula, thus goes on, "To have and to hold the same land and premises unto and t6 the use cf the said Kenehuru, otherwise Eliza Meurant, and her heirs, to her and their only proper use and behoof henceforth and for ever," &c, &c. But we have seen a letter from the old chief Tawa, written some time before the execution of this deed, which runs thus : "Friend Edward, health to^ you. This is my speech. Listen. The piece of land shown to you by Keene recently, although it is but small, I have appropriated to you, Eliza, and the ohildren, as permanent inheritance for your children for ever. Amen." So the fact of the bestowment of the land is proved beyond a doubt. Now, then, how came the Government to acquire a right over any portion of this land ? Why, thus : When Mr. Meurant applied for a Crown title, his application, it seems, was so worded as apparently to apply only to that piece of land he had bought of the chiefs of another tribe, and not to the 30 acres, though he intended it to apply to both, thinking by a Crown title to make his children's inheritance more secure. When the Governor, however, found that Mr. Meurant claimed 30 acres in virtue of his wife, besides the 14 acres he had purchased— he raised an outcry. Eventually, Mr, Meuraut was foolish enough to accept a Crown Grant for 24 acres. Not 24 -acres out of his wife and children's 30 — but 24 acres made up in this way : The piece he had purchased of Jabez Bunting and Wata, 14 acres, and 10 acres out of his wife and children's portion. So that in fact the Government did acknowledge the deed of gift to Meurant's wife, ' inasmuch as they incorporated 10 acres of the given land in the Croibn Grant issued to Meurant— and which confers upon him and his wife a life interest in the same. Mr. Meurant was doubtless a very foolish man td accept of such a grant, but nobody that knows him will wonder at his being easily worked upon by one so skilful as the Governor. But the question still remains, how did the Government acquire a right to the remaining 20 acres out of tho 30. Why thus : It was surveyed, and offered for sale. Mr. Meurant, awaking, we suppose, from his stupor, protested against such an abuse of justice, and we, having discovered' the injustice about to be perpetrated upon a native woman and her family, previous to tho intended day of sale, and regarding the case not as a personal but as a public grievance,— laid the facts before the community, the consequence of which exposure was, that no bidders could be found. Shortly after, Mr. Meurant went to Sydney. Keene, one of the younger grantees of the land to Mrs. Meurant, and doubtless a more pliable instrument than the old chief, was sent for, and prevailed upon to accept of jgl4 for his interest in the land, and sign a new conveyance to the Government !— The 20 acres, or a portion of them, were then again put up for sale, and as the pro-

tester was this time out of the way, buyers were found. So that in point of fact the Government have not only despoiled a native female and her children of a large portion of property bona fide bestowed upon them, but have actually had the baseness to tamper with the natives, and undermine their principles of honor and integrity by seducing them to take payment for land which they had already alienated, and which, as true proprietors thereof, they had clearly as much right to alienate and give away to a countrywoman and her children, as we have to give away a lew copies of this very number of our journal to Mr. Joseph Hume. However ductile the principles of Kecno may have been in thus being guilty of double dealing, the consistency and honor of old Tawa are worthy of record. When the money was taken to him. "0, (said he,) you should not have taken that. Don't bring it to me. I'll have nothing to do with it. Put it by, and give it to Edward (Meurant) when he returns from Port Jackson." Well may the Editor of the " British Banner" when he reads this record of the honor of a New Zealand Chief, and the conduct of a New Zealand Governor, exclaim, ' ' It makes me ashamed of my country: I almost wish I were black"! Tawa maintained his integrity to the last. When Meurant returned after the land had been sole], — (for bidders were found the second time) — the old Chief lost no time in exculpating himself. He wrote as follows, ■ "Friend Edward, thi? is what I have to say. I had nothing to dv with this matter. It was the doing of Keene and the Governor." Such is Meurant's ease, ' and if any one will point out to us a single • sentence in the Governor's defence incouncil sufficient to exonerate him from these damning charges, we will be as ready to publish his acquittal as we are determined to proclaim his guilt. Our contemporary in reference to this subject has said — "On the whole, had we been sitting in a Jurybox, to determine on the case as it camo before the Council, we 'could not have hesitated for a moment to word as our verdict a full and entire acquittal of the Government, and a censure of the charges as unfounded and calumnious! As the case came before the Council, an honest man might have returned such a verdict — but as it is now before the public, it is a question whether even the "Nev- r Zealander" will venture to acquit the Go- 1 vernor. If he does, may we never see him ! in a jury-box in any case of ours. * In summing up the matter, we would i place before our readers the following points, which we think the case involves, and which, until they are disproved, must, in the estimation of ever}' honest, man, brand with injustice and disgrace! the proceedings of Government. j 1. That it is not Meurant's own case ; but the case of his wife, a native woman,! and involves therefore the rights .of the' Maories and of their half-caste children^ 2. It matters not whether Meurant': statements are true or false, their accuracy could no more create, than their fallacy could destroy the claim of his wife, founded as it is upon distinct and separate evidence. 3. That if the case is— as was asserted by the Governor — one of the weakest that could have been hit upon ; so much the better, for it will test the principle more severely. 4. That the Governor's plea of ignorances of .the existence of the Deed of gift is no 1 " excuse, because the fact of his having incorporated 10 acres of the land in a deed of his own to Meurant, is evidence to the contrary. 5. That it is but a shallow artifice /or the Governor to complain of the ingratitude of a man who- had obtained 10 acre* of his wife's land aut of 30' acres. ; To His Excellency Sir George Grey, K. C. I-Governor-in-Chiffofthe Colony of NewZealad and the Hon. the Legislative Council. The humble petition of Edward Meurant, Sbewetb, . That in the month of May, J844, a'piepe of W°' situate at the junction of ths Tamaki and EpK" 5 roadß, containing 30a. 2r. 8p , was transferred of tie native chiefs Te Tawa, Te Hira, and Te Ke«*' to their blood-relatioo Kenehu-u, now Eliza >W rant, wife to the pe'itioner, as a marriage portioft and for the support of her children That your petitioner, being desir.-.Ms that ' f land fhould be held by Crown vue an vn>'l a 61, Maori right, npplied to the Governu cnt ou the^", May, 1844, for waiver of pre-emption, and was) « formed in answer, "that the land in question bti».. r held in right of his wife, no purchase or deed , , grant from the Crown would be required." J That pn the 6th of April, 1847, it was conWJ | - from the same parties to Kenehuruby deed, accoy t ing to British form, at the instance of your p lioner, and by ivay of a precautionary measure. That on tbe 14th Otober, 1848, His Eicelle" X the Govemor-in-Ciuef called your Petitioner him, and said, Meurant, you have too much J || at Remuera, I will not euffer it, I shall B'"'Jg a Crown to a portion of it", on .conttilW» j|<

1 ur gi'i°g U P a11 clainQ t0 the renaaindei ' which * -I^l ii f«ke away from you. I 8 rLtVour petitioner carefully explained that the 1, d id not belong to himself, but to his native 1 r held bv her under native right ; but could not JSduce bis Excellency to suffer the whole to be I * TlSf'tbe Government proceeded to act uron that had been thus given to your S Zitioner, by turning off two tenants who ht Id a S P L io n of tnat land, paying rent for occupation, *1 Ld «b° consequently threatened your petitioner J J| th an action, fiom which, however, he succeeded 1 in dis*u»ding ihem. i ; Tbat y O ur petitioner never did relinquish any • -kim eirher oa bis own part, or on that of hi* ! j wife • i h«t b e had not tbe P ower - even had he been I 1 B n disposed to give away what belonged, not to | - La/f,but to hia wife .nd children ; that no such j k waiver of claim, even if it had been made, could | I have affected the rights of bis wife, which she steadily refused to resign, lhat on tbe 20th Sept., 1848, a crown grant m » issued, conveying 10a. 2r. 8p. of the aforesaid land to himself for life, to his wife for life, and to hie children, which was delivered to your petitioner's son on the 10th October 1848 ; that your pe- . titioner accepted it. viewing it in the li,ht of a colf lateral security for the portion conveyed, which it I ou ia have been unwise to refuse, on account of J the uncertainty which prevailed as to the intentions J of Government with regard to the land question, I and furthermore, because the deed purported to I e rant 24a. 3r. 18p. of the allotment alienI ated by the natives for the maintenance of his wife, I whereas, when at a later period he examined into I it he perceived that the grant was in reality for ! only 10a 2r. 8p. of the said claim ; and, further1 more, through fear of being accused of contumacy \ towards Government in refusing it, and thereby • ! risking the loss of bis appointment as a servant of ; government, upon which he depended in a great * meosare for subsistance. ' Tliat a por ion of tbe land which had been taken fiom your petitioner, was put up for sale by governI W ent on the 1 6th September, ,1848 ; that a protest > against the snle was enteied in the name of your I petitioner, and that no bidders appeared. I That your petitioner brlieves. that Te Tawa, Te f Hira, and Te Keene, could not have been induced, to receive mont-y lor the said lands whilst he was living in their neighbourhood ; but that during hit temporary absence from the Colony, (-ome time between the end of the year 1848, and the begin- ! ning of I849,)TeKeet<e consented, in consideration i he believeb of about £14. to convey to the Crown bis share as tenent in common of the aforesaid land. notwithstanding that he had previously parted wuh It by deed in favor of Kenehuru Tnai on the 16th September, 1848, a poriion of that land was put up for sale, and a purchase made, j Tha' on his return to this colony, learning what j had taken place, your petiiionei wrote to Te Tawa on the Fubject ; that he entrusted the letter to Te Hira, but ihit it never reached its destination, having been taken from Te Hira by a Government Officer. That your petitioner af< envards wrote again upon the same subject, and received the followi g answer: August 24th, 1849. Frfend — Saluting you, — Tell me the name of the white man who took the letter I gave you for the Tawa when I returned from Port Jackson. From your friend, Edward Mebrant. That your petitioner is unable to reconcile tbe seizure of land belonging to a native woman, transferred to her according to native custom by her Mood-relations, with a faithful carrying out of the engagements entered into by the Queen in the Treaty of Waifangi. That your petitioner cannot ascertain with certainty the legal grounds upon which tbe Government must be supposed to have proceeded in seizing the aforesaid lands, but has been told, he knows not with what tru h, that it might have been upon the following consideration : That when Kenehuru was married to him, she abandoned her native righs ; thst, by transfer to herself, the title of the original native owners whs extinguished, and that, as the land did not vest in your petitioner, the Government had a right to take possession of it as demesne of tbe Crown. That petitioner, upon moial considerations, cannot bring himself to believe, that, when. Kenehuru became his wife, she. thereby lost the, native rights, which had been guaranteed by the treaty, inabtnucl) as that in such case it would have been more advantageous to her, in h temporal point of view, to have lived with him in concubinage, than to have been married after the rites of a Christian church : neither can he think that the Government, by acting upon such a principle, would prove to the native race, that Iqbs of caste and property were involved by ritual and legitimate alliance with Euro peans. ,' • * That the case of your petitioner represents tbe present position of the'half»caste race, .who will be deprived of the right to enjoy their maternal herita £Pi . a Pd consigned io poverty, should' the proceedings with respect to your petitioner be considered as an authoritative precedent in the future proceed- | ings pf Governinent as affecting the native *ac(e. That your petitioner, aware of the reserve with which it is incumbent on bim, as a government officer, ,to memoriaiiie the Council, itraya that no expiessions made use'of by him may be construed into intentional inasmuch a^tha^.he hfes endeavoured to confine himself to a mere and bimple .statemeftt.of, his case. . Your pflitio/ier, .therefore, jyayg that your Excellency and the honorable Council should' afford him such relief as may seem meet. And yuur petitioner shall ever pray, & c . (Skned) Edward Meubant. We had intended according to promise, and, indeed, had parely prepared, an answer to our contemporary's strictures on our remarks upon Marriage Ordiuance question, and the scheme of appointing Ministers to be Deputy Registers, when we received the long and able letter of our correspondent, ." One of the Committee." The sub'ect is so completely dissected in this communication, that we abandoned our original purpose — especially as our correspondent has gone much more fully

into the ecclesiastical merits of the case than we should have done. There are, however, one or two points upon which our correspondent does not dwell, that will require notice. But, at present, we cannot spare sufficient space. The Bay op Islands. — On Tuesday we announced the intended departure of H. M. S. " Fly," for the Bay of Islands, for which she sailed that day. The Government brig, with his Excellency Sir G. Grey on board, took her'departure yesterday for the same destination. It is, we understand, his Excellency's intention to be present at a great Native Feast, which is to be given there shortly, by the chiefs Na Manu, Ka Whai, and others, to Ruhi, chief of the Ahu Aim, Waimate, who will be accompanied by all the tribes between the Bay and Hokianga. Heke, it issaid, will not be present, but will witness it from a hill at Waitangi. Expected Arrivals. — We learn by accounts received yesterday, that another Company of New Zealand Fencibles may shortly be expected to arrive by the ship "Oriental Queen," which sailed from Gravesend on the 20th May. The brig " Richard Dart," Capt. S. Potter, has on board 4 non-commissioned officers and 27 privates of 6th comp. of Sappers & Miners, under tne, command of Lieut. Liddell, R. E., for Auckland ; and as she left the Downs for this port direct on 6th April, is now considerably overdue. The barque " Pilgrim," sailed for Wellington and Auckland on 26th April, and the "Cornwall," for the New Zealand Company's settlements, on the 20th. The " Enterprize," was to sail for Auckland, direct, on 1st June. The brig', Susan, arrived yesterday in 11 days from Sydney, brings us English dates to 7th May, received by the overland mail afc Ceylon> and brought down to Sydney by the brig Torrington. The news by this arrival are very important. We are indebted to the " Sydney Morning Herald" of 14th August, and the " Ceylon Times" of 16th June, for the following summary of English intelligence. The Bill for the amendment of the Navigation Laws passed a third reading in the House of Commons by a majority of 275 to 214, being an increase of five votes on the majority by which the second reading was carried. It appeared to be the general opinion that in the House of Lords the Bill would be lost. A Bill for enabling persons haying encumbered estates in Ireland to dispose of them with more facility than they now do, had been introduced by the Government, and was expected to be carried almost unanimously. It was an adoption of a portion of the plan proposed by Sir R. Peel, and which met with the warm concurrence of all parties. The Bill for compelling the directors of the Scotch Railways to run passenger trains on Sunday was thrown out by a majority of 131 to 122. A bill called '• the Grants of Land (New South. Wales) Bill" was passing through the Plouse of Commons. We have not been able to find a notice of its contents. The thanks of both Houses of Parliament had been voted by acclamation to Lord Dalhousie, Lord Gough, General Whish, and the other officers and men of the army in India for the late victories. Mr. J. A. Smith, M. P., was to be fche new Secretary of the Admiralty. The wool market was said to be quiet, waiting for the May sales. The writs of error in the case of O'Brien and others were to be argued before the House of Lords on the 10th May. The Indian and Australian Steam Navigation Company had given notice of their inability to fulfil their contract to convey the mails from Singapore to Sydney. The Indian journals received by this opportunity acquaint us of the annexation of the Punjaub to the British dominions ; Dunleep Singh was to be pensioned, and Moolraj hung. Sir Charles Napier had arrived in Calcutta, and was to start for head-quarters of the army on the 7th May. Cape of Good Hope news come down to 6th July. The feeling of the colonists against the admission of convicts was waxing strodger and stronger : a meeting, attended by upwards of 8000 people, had been held to protest against their being landed, and a sum of £3,400 guaranteed to send them back. From South Australia we have dates to 27th July. The Legislative Council was sitting, business was in a flourishing state, and Burra Burra shares had risen to £160. The Secretary of State had approved of the conduct of Sir H. Young in giving up the claim to Royalties, and had authorised the introduction of a bill to declare the

reservation clause in the deeds of grant null and voil. In Sydney considerable excitement prevailed, owing to the arrivals of the Despatch and William Hill, from California. The Maulcin was to sail for Auckland on the 23rd inst., and the Inchinnan on Ist September.