THE NEW ZEALAND CASUS BELLI. (From the Economist, Nov. 10.)

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XVII, Issue 1377, 22 February 1861, Page 4

THE NEW ZEALAND CASUS BELLI. (From the Economist, Nov. 10.)

In treating of the relations between English settlers or colonists and the native races with whom they are brought into contact, we have always endeavoured to uphold the Government, both at home and abroad, in resisting the eager selfishness and the encroaching ambitions which tend to turn the energy of English settlen into * scourge for the feebler races with whom they have to deal in India and those of our colonies where the Aboriginei ■till linger. We believe that one of the hardest and most solemn, as it is certainly one of the most invidious duties of the British Government, both at home and abroad, is to protect the native races which our spreading civilization seems destined to transplant. We have followed, therefore, the history of the collision in New Zealand, with no inclination to support the settlers against the Maoris, — with profound •version for those displays of contempt and dislike to the "niggers" which have been fiom time to time exhibited. But we must say that the conduct of the Government in the matter has seemed to us, so far as we understand it, temperate, firm, and just, — and far from open to the charges which tho ecclesiastical party in that colony, and a writer in the lasb number of the " Saturday Keview," obviously deiiving his bias from the same souice, have levelled against it. We writo under the disadvantage of not having yet seen the last despatches to which the writer in the " Satuiday" obviously had access, stating the case of the Governor of New Zealand for the course he has taken. But we

have at least Arohdeaoon Hadfield'i statement of the opposite oase before iw, and the earlier narrative of the quarrel as given by the New Zealand premier, and wo are unwilling to wait for the publication of the last despatches before attempting to remove some miscon - ceptions injurious to the New Zealand Government which the article to which we allude is likely to spread in the public mind, since the earliest view of any complicated question which is diffused widely among English readers has almost always a very great advantage over subsequent statements, even though more exactly "corresponding to the truth. r By the Waitangi Treatry the English are bound to respect the rights of the natives in all the unsettled land of the colony, and never to encroach upon any land which all the propxietors have not agiced to sell. A groat difficulty, however, has arisen as to the defination of piopiietary rights. There is an organised fac tion, or land league, among the Maori chiefs against any further sale to the English settlers, and whenever any actual possessor proposes to sell, the chief of the tribe, if ho belongs to the league, immediately interposes his authority and claims a feudal light in the land, which he declines to alienate. It is obvious that if such claims as these were admissible to lands which the Maoris desire to keep, only in order to pievent the dreaded encioachment of the English settleis,— tho settlement of the Noithern Island of Now Zealand would be at once at an end. The movement against tho sale of land is veiy widely organised ; and though there are still some chiefs who did not belong to it, it includes, we believe, an increasing party amongst them. No doubt the movement is, in a laige measure, due to the coarse and insolent treatment of the nativei by the lower class of English settlers ; but it is the business of tho Government to stand firmly between these opposite parties, — and while controlling the encroaching spirit of the settleis, also to refuse their assent to principle* which must for an indefinite time delay the extension and prosperity of the colony without in any way conducing to the benefit of the Maori population- The title of savages to really unused and waste lands is in itself scarcely a defensible one ; — but that being conceded, to admit the claim of the chief or the natives to veto the sale of land by the actual proprietor, would be a completely imbecile and futule policy for the New Zealand Government* The casus he!h at New Plymouth is this. A valuable block of land at the mouth of the Waitaia, a fow miles north of New Plymouth, was offeied for sale by a person named Teira, professing to be the proprietor. The title was investigated in a preliminary way in 1859 by the Chief Commissioner for the sale of land, Mr. Maclean, who thought the title a good one. It was afterwards investigated more thorouglily by the subordinate Commissioner, Mr. Parns, who decided that it was valid. The evidence of individual title is a local one, a matter of rates and bonds The chief of the tribe, called Wirernu Kingi, or William King, asserted that the " land was in his hands," and that he would not permit the sale The title was also disputed by a person named Paora, who said that Teira could not sell without his own consent and that of another dissentient who was then dying, and died soon after. Paora's title was affirmed to be only indirect, through a rxlative who concurred in the sale. The chief, W. Kingi himself, when questioned "Does the land belong to Teira's party <" repfied " Yes : the land is theirs but I will not let them sell it." And he did not. When the surveyors went on to the ground to survey it, they were attacked, and this lamentable war broke out. Now the accusation brought by our contemporary against the Governor is as follows : — "We can pretend to give no opinion upon the validity or the invalidity of William King's claim on the land Probably} no one on this Bide of the globe is in a condition to unravel the complicated thieads of the dispute. But this at least is clear, — that the Governor has dealt with a Maori as he never would ha\e dared to deal with an Englishman, and that he has plunged us into a costly and perilous quarrel to uphold a paltry claim which, be it good or bad, has been advanced, prosecuted, and earned out with very little regard for the most obvious principles of justice." Now, the grounds on which this charge is made are two — that a completely different statement of the case is made by Archdeacon Hadlield, who coiresponds with W. Kiug, and is m his confidence, — and that whatever be the truth in the matter, the claim is tried, not by an independent court appointed to adjudicate on Maori titles, but by the officers of the Government, whose interest it is to pui chase land for bale to the colonists, and who arc therefore a "party to the suit." First, as to Aichdencon Hadfiold's version. He maintains that Kingi has a right, not merely feudal, but one of actual possession to a part of the land, and that his answer to the Commissioner, " Yes, the land is then-'s," means in the (surely very peculiar) Maori idiom "A. part of the land is theirs " in short, Archdeacon Hadfield repiesents Kingi as an injured owner, whose title has naver been e\ammed, because it was known that he was not inclined to sell, and who was deeply aggrieved by the injustice of the British Governor. He adds that Kingi has always been frwndly to the English, and has never been connected with the Land league at all Now, we must say there is much reason to believe Archdeacon Hadfield to be the tool of W. Kingi m this matter In the first place, there is indisputable evidence that this chief has long been excessively jealous as to the sale of laud to Europeans, and, so for from having always been an ally of the English, he was one of the leaders of the Maon.paity in the troubles of 1855 concerning a disputed land title on the same spot. He was then appeased by the extreme modeiation and foibearance of the present Governor, who wiote as follows on that occasion .—. — i '' In the autumn of last year, Mr. Cooper, sub commissioner of Crow n'lands, was induced to commence a survey of some native lands which had been the subject of a, native feud, and the title to part of which was disputed by the natives amongst themselves. Katatore, one of the disputants, warned the opposing natives, one of whom was an assessor, not to peisist in making the survey, and on his continuing to do so fired into the ground, which, accoiding to native customs, shows an intent to carry out the quarrel to bloodshed if the aggie«Bor do not desist. The aggressoi did not desist, and Katatoie shot him and si\ of his followeis. Hence arose a native feud, in which the party desiring to sell urge that we ought to take part, and that the native assessor was slam in our service 1 have, however, disapproved of Mr. Coopei's conduct in commencing a survey before he was assured that all who Imd even a disputed claim to tJie land desired it should he sold, and have declined to make a demand for xeparation, which could only be enforced at the expense of a general war, including sooner or later all the tribes in the Noi them Island." Is it ci edible that the Governor who took thisanild and forbearing cuurse in 1855, should in 1860 deliberately urge on by force the completion of an unscrupulous purchase on| the same spot dnectly after giving public notice that all claims to the land should be caiefully investigated and respected' In the next place, there is direct evidence of the same date that W. Kingi's claim to lands south of the Waitara (the land in dispute) is only a chieftain's claim, not that of an individual owner. We find theJollowing m a letter on this subject, written by a friend of the natives to the Chief Land Commissioner, dated September 24, 1855 : " When I further reminded them that W. Kingi had no right either to hold or to occupy land on this (south) side of Waitara river, since in 1847 he had given his distinct promise to Governor Sir G. Grey, pievious to his coming up from the south, that he would not settle on this side, but on the opposite (north) banks of the river, I received in reply that W. Kingi being the head chief of all Waitara, on both sides of it, it was for himself to choose and to say on which side and on which spot he was to reside. In fine, the Taranaki natives seem to scorn the idea of having that personage set down as merely a second or third-rate chief, and as being possessed of only a. nominal right and claim to the Waitara lands which he holds and occupies." Now, with this evidence before us, and the knowledge that Archdeacon Hadfield knows nothing personally of the locality in dispute, his station being at least 150 miles away, and most of his statements appearing by his own evidence to rely on letters written to him by W. Kingi, we must say we are inclined to believe him the victim of fraud. The question remains whether the Government can rightly decide on claims when they are naturally biassed in favour of the purchasing interest. We reply, that no doubt an independent court for investigating native titles would be far better, — but that the settlement of New Zealand need not necessarily be delayed till such a court is established. All depends on the bona, fide equity of the Governor and his subordinates in the matter. We have very impressive evidence to show that they have again and again resisted the eagerness of the settlers, and held the balance fair between the two parlies. We shall continue to believe, till we see evidence better than Archdeacon Hadfield's to the contrary, that they have done so in this case. The issue is by no means, aa the "Satin day" Reviewer calla it, a'• paltiy" one The party opposed to any sale of land among the natives had advanced with rapid strides. If the selfishness of the colonists was to berestiained, it could only be by a Government not wholly negligent of their interests. If, when fair offers to sell valuable hind came from the real owners of it, the Government had declined to purchase for fear of offending the natives, they would have been justly declared pusillanimous and untiustworthy. They delayed the sale over tho whole of one year, during which time they twice investigated the title themselves, and gave ear to anything that professed to be pioof of

conflicting claims. What could they do more ? The question is in great measuie one of veracity, as between the Governor aud his subordinates on one side, and the Maori Chief on the other. We know how steadily tho same Government has resisted temptations to hasty action which the settlers would have forced upon them. We think we are justified, therefore, in trusting them, prima facie, even without the decision of an elaborate New Zealand Court of Chanceiy in thoir" favour.