THE MAORI WARS

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 68, 29 September 1928, Page 17

THE MAORI WARS

NATIVE GRIEVANCES CONFISCATED LANDS COMMISSION'S EEPOET The recommendations of the Royal Commission which inquired into confiscation of Native lands following the Maori Wars aud other grievances of the Maori people were laid upon the table of the House of Representatives yesterday. Tho Commission was sot up in 1920, and devoted its attention principally to the grievances of the Maoris in the Taranaki, Waikato, and Bay of Plenty districts. Tho members of the Commission were Sir W. A. Sim, the Hon. Vernon Reed, M.L.C.,' and Mr. William Cooper, of Gisborne, and the first question which they were asked to consider was whether, "having regard to all the circumstances and necessities of the period during which Proclamations and Orders in Council under the New Zealand Settlements Act, 1863, were made and confiscations affected, such confiscations or any of them exceeded in quantity what was fair and just, whether as penalty for rebellion, or as providing for protection by settlement as defined in the Act." The report says that this question assumes that in every case confiscation was justified and directs an inquiry only as to the extent of the confiscation. Counsel for .the Natives claimed that notwithstanding this apparent limitation of the inquiry the Natives were entitled to raise the question whether or not there should have been any confiscation at all. This contention was not really disputed by counsel for the Crown, and in each case the question whether or not there should have been any confiscation at all was raised and discussed. It was contended on behalf of the Maoris that in dealing with this question under several petitions, the Commission was not bound by the limitations imposed by the first question, and that Natives who had denied the sovereignty of the Queen and who had repudiated her authority could claim the benefit of the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Commission says that in dealing with these petitions and in ascertaining what accords with good conscience and equity it should treat the petitioners whose ancestors were rebels as not entitled, except in special circumstances, to claim the benefits of the treaty. "UNJUST AND UNHOLY." The Commission says that both the Taranaki Wars ought to be treated as having arisen out of the Waitara purchase and judged accordingly. The Government was wrong in declaring war against the Natives for the purpose of establishing the supposed rights of the Crown under that purchase. It was, as Dr. Featherston called it, an unjust and unholy war, and the second war was only the resumption of the original conflict. Although the Natives who took part in tho second Taranaki War wero engaged in rebellion within the meaning of the New Zealand Settlements_ Act, 1803, the Commission thinks that in the circumstances they ought not to have been punished by the confiscation of any of their lands. A total of 462,000 acres were finally confiscated, and the report says that it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion as to the value of the land at the date of its confiscation. Tho Commission recommends that the wrong done by the confiscations should be compensated for by making a yearly payment of £5000 to be applied by a board for the benefit of the Natives of the tribes whose lands were confiscated. THE WAIKATO WAR. Tho history of the Waikato trouble was traced at some length by the Commission, which says it is true that the Government did afford the Maoris of that district some excuse for their resort to arms. Had the Natives contented themselves with- providing for their own defence when attacked, with providing for the providing also of law and order in their midst, and for the regulations of the sales of Native land, they might havo been declared to be blameless. But they were not content to do that, and formed a plan for the destruction of Auckland and the slaughter of its inhabitants. The Commission says that it is not justified in saying that the tribes who took part in the Waikato War ought not to have suffered some confiscation of their lands' as a penalty for the part they took in tho rebellion. After reviewing all the circumstances the Commission says that the confiscation was excessive, and particularly so in the case of the Mangere, Ihumatu, and Pukaki Natives. It recommends that this excessive confiscation should bo compensated for by making a yearly payment of £3000 to bo applied by a board for the benefit of the Natives whose lands were confiscated. With regard to the Tauranga confiscations, the Commission finds that they were justified and not excessive, and that the Natives have not made out any case for an inquiry asked for by them in regard to the rights of loyal Natives to an area of 50,000 acres, and as to a contention that both the loyalists and rebels were entitled to a full share in that land as if it had not been confiscated. CONFISCATIONS JUSTIFIED. Dealing- with the Bay of Plenty confiscations, which wero the outcome of events following the murder of the Rev. C. Volkuer at Opotiki on 2nd March, 1865, and the murder of James Fulloon, at Whakatane, on 21st July, 1865, the Commission says that it is clear that the Natives of Opotiki and Whakatane were engaged in rebellion when they resisted with arms the advance of the forces sent out to capture the murders, and that the confiscations were justified. It is impossible at this distance of time to determine exactly the hapus concerned in tho rebellion, or to ascertain their respective interests in the land confiscated. It would be idle to attempt to discriminate now as to the complicity of the different hapus, and all that can be said now is that it has not been proved to the satisfaction of tho Commission that the land

of any innocent hapu was confiscated. The Commission finds that except in the case of the Whakatohea Tribe, which was left with 347,130 acres out of 491,000 acres, the confiscation in the Bay of Plenty did not exceed what was fair and just. In the case of the tribe mentioned it was excessive, but only to a small extent, and the Commission recommends that a yearly sum of £300 should be provided for the purpose of higher education for tho children of the members of that tribe. In reply to the question as to whether any lands included in any confiscations were of such a nature as that they should have been excluded for some special reason, the Commission says that it is clear that any general attempt to restore these places now is quite out of the question. It asks, for example, what would be the use of a canoe landing place to Natives who have not got any canoes and who now travel in motor-cars? The Commission also deals at length with a number of petitions affecting cases from individual hapus. In the majority of cases application was made for relief by way of grants of land, but the Commission has found that few have established a case. SERFS IN THE WAIKATO. Continuing his discussion of the report after "The Post" went to press, Sir Apirana Ngata (Eastern Maori) remarked that in the Waikato the grievances of the Natives there were holding back the development of a great tribe. Ho pointed out that amongst the Waikatos tho ownership of land was an integral part of Maori social life, and a rangatira without his own land was without prestige. By the loss of their lands the Waikatos had been practically in the condition of serfs for over fifty years. He understood that the Commission recommended tho provision of annual funds, and in that connection ho did not want it to be thought that the Maoris were "sponging" on the pakehas. The Natives contributed largely to tho Consolidated Fund, and that fact should be romembered. The funds would ensure assistance in the promotion of tho healthy education of the Maoris, and would help them to utilise their lands. If the pakehas were sympathetic to the Maoris they would find that they would go ahead, and it would be far better to see the Maoris progressing rather than getting in the road. (Hear, hear.) He considered that the Government could well be more generous than the Commission recommended. • The Minister of Native Affairs (the Right Hon. J. G. Coates) said that Sir Apirana Ngata had not painted the picture unduly. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland): "Rather the other way." Mr. Coates said that it had to be remembered that after the Maori Wars the. psychology of those in authority at that time was different from what it was to-day. FINDING A SOLUTION. The Loader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland): "Could not a. final settlement be made with the Maoris?" "Yes," replied Mr. Coates, "if we can get finality. We want to work out some scheme whereby the whole thing can be definitely settled. That implies negotiations to some extent." It was the responsibility of the pakeha to see that the Maori got every possible advantage in the way of education, and that his education was directed along the lines of progress. That was the policy of the Government. His object all the way through had been to endeavour to get some solution, if possible, because he shared the same view as others, that the Maoris, as a race, were particularly fair-minded, and could see both sides of a question. So long as they had an underlying feeling of discontent they could never make any progress. The Government felt that it had a to direct the Maoris into avenues whiich would develop their initiative so that they might fend for themselves. There were those who thought that the Maori race would die out, but there was no evidence to that effect. On the other hand, the raeo was increasing and in the last ten years the increase had been approximately 10,000. That showed that they were not a backward race, but were able to exist with the pakeha. It was important to remember that. What would New Zealand be without the Maori race? he asked. The Maoris had lent a lustre to the history of New Zealand and to their relations with the British. He hoped that that state of affairs would long continue. The relations which subsisted between the Maoris and the pakehas were probably the happiest that had ever subsisted between any two nations. It would be au irreparable loss to the Dominion if it did anything that was likely to impair the progress of the Maori race. The Maoris were a tremendous asset to New Zealand, and the pakeha was proud to call him an equal. As to what the Government was going to do with the Commission's report, a voto would appear in the Supplementary Estimates sufficient to show that a scheme to give effect to the Com mission's recommendations had been propounded. It would not be possible within the next few months to give effect in detail to the whole of the recommendations. As far as the Wai katos were concerned, it seemed necessary that a number of the sub-tribej should have a certain amount of land at their disposal because those Natives were now living under cramped condi tions. He had already informed the member of the Executive representing the Native Race (the Hon. Sir Maui Pomare) that it was the Government's intention to approach the matter most sympathetically so as to wipe out all past bitterness among the Waikato people. The Taranaki and Bay of Plenty people had, he thought, been treated a great deal better than the Waikato people. Sir Apirana Ngata and Sir Maui Pomare might rest assured that the Government would approach the matter most sympathetically, and that the pakeha was anxious not to cavil but. to settle the differences in a fair manner. IN THE FAR NORTH. In regard to the northern Maoris, that country was very scattered, and the Commission had not been able to cover the whole of it. They had yet .to come to an understanding in respect to quite a-number of difficulties in the North, and it might be necessary to have another Commission to clear up the troubles there. Ho hoped, however, to be able to clear up those difficulties.