The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY) TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1880.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 5872, 27 January 1880, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY) TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1880.

The Government have at last determined to reassert the right of the Europeans to the confiscated lands north of the Waingongoro river. With this object in view, some two hundred armed men yesterday crossed the river and encamped upon the land from which the surveyors were ejected some nine months ago. The step will not take anyone by surprise. Mr. Bryce has repeatedly intimated the determination of the Government not to allow the validity of the confiscation to be even questioned. In a few words, on the Bth of last month, he gave the House very plainly to understand that the Government had no intention whatever of allowing any mere legal question of the validity of the European title to interfere with the right of occupation which the Government claimed, and were quite prepared to exercise when the proper time came. Mr. Bryce intimated that he was not prepared to leave it to the lawyers to settle the question of title, because although he could understand the legal objections raised, such as that urged against the setting aside of the Habeas Corpus Act, yet the writ was, he thought, but “a mere means to an end, and that “ the circumstances of the country might “ occasionally demand that it should bo

“ set aside.” The Native Minister also explained that the Maori trespassers who had been arrested repudiated any idea of asserting a mere legal right. They scorned and despised our laws, they did not confine their depredations to land of which they disputed the European title, “ but ploughed up land the title of which “ they did not dispute, with the intention “ of taking possession of it themselves.”

In order to enter into a correct appreciation of the present position, it is necessary to.bear in mind these words of the Native Minister, and also the fact that the intention of the Confiscated Lands Inquiry Commission was defined by the Native Minister himself as “simply to “ cause inquiry to he made into certain “alleged unfulfilled promises made to “ the Maoris since the confiscation took “ place.” The Ministry have clearly determined to show the Maoris that they now mean to enforce the confiscation ; at first the only act ofownership which will be carried out willhe the right of entry upon the land for the purposes of survey and roadmaking, No settlers’ lives will be risked, and the navvying and surveying will proceed under the protection of armed covering parties. The latest news is to the effect that no active resistance has been made to the re-entry, and apparently no force of malcontents has even been organised. It is sufficiently evident that the Maori, prisoners held by the European authorities will do duty as hostages and will act as an inducement to the Plains Maoris to avoid active rebellion, lest they, should thereby hinder the young men of their tribes from regaining their liberty. The fundamental point at issue seems to be whether the practice of English or Maori law shall be accepted in dealing with the confiscated lands. By the PhiloMaoris it is urged with much force that the Maori title is perfect in their eyes, because the Europeans have never occupied the land. It is also claimed that the Europeans, in a measure, recognised the Maori title and tried to buy it out because they were at that time afraid to oourtarenewalofhostilities. Totheseargumeuts the move on to the Plains is a conclusive answer. We interpret it to mean that the Government are now prepared to assert their title to the confiscated land as a whole, by the right of conquest exercised in the form, and according to the usage recognised among civilised nations. In national disputes, the last appeal is to the sword ; it has been made, and the result has been accepted as final. The Government have given a practical guarantee of their desire to deal fairly with all who have just grievances, by appointing an impartial tribunal to examine into and report upon such cases of injustice as may be laid before them. The report of the Commission will clear the way for future settlement on the Plains, and those Maori landowners who have grievances, but fail to lay them before the Commissioners, need not be surprised if their right to certain lands is ultimately ignored. The Government have not only asserted their right to the confiscated land, but have also expressed their readiness to forego their right in all such cases, but in such cases only, as the Commissioners decide that the enforcement of the confiscation would inflict injustice. The Hall Ministry and the Gkey Ministry have assumed an entirely different attitude in respect to this question. Sir Q. Grey allowed the Maoris to eject the surveyors, to plough the settlers’ land at Opunake, at Stoney River, and at Hawera; but he never attempted to enforce the English law, or protect the property of the settlers, until they took the Jaw into their own hands and forced him to interfere. As Premier he openly sympathised with the Maoris, and supported their claims in opposition to those of the Europeans. On the Sth of last December he went so far as to say that the Maori prisoners “had a claim to no “ unnecessary delay being made in their “ trial. They offered no resistance to “ their arrest. They submitted quietly “ totheaotionof the law.” An Englishman in England reading’ this speech would naturally infer that Te Whiti and his followers were good and loyal citizens. He would be astounded if told that Sir G. G key’s law-abiding citizens were armed trespassers, who openly defied the law, and who were acting under the direct orders of a chief who had a few weeks before the trespass expressed open approval of the cold-blooded murder of a man attached to the Government survey party by Hiroki. That Te Whiti, the chief in question, had given shelter to a murderer called lIIiiOKI, and had not only absolutely refused to give him up to justice, but had even heaped abuse upon the Native Minister, defied him, and called him a “ thief of the land,” when Mr. Sheehan demanded the assassin’s surrender. It is simply nonsense to pretend that these men ever ‘ 1 submitted “ quietly to the action of the law” of the Europeans.

Latterly it has been doubtful whether the Law or the Sword would decide the question of ownership on the confiscated land—that is to say, whether the lawyers or the Government would secure the Waimate Plains. The action of che Government yesterday will go far to resolve the doubt, by taking formal possession, which even lawyers admit is eciual to nine points of the law. The sword has generally proved the moat successful arbiter in settling such disputed questions of national law. A bold step has been taken, but Fortune proverbially favors the bold. Tho ultimate verdict of the country upon the action taken will mainly depend upon the success which attends it. If tho step should involve the colony in an expensive native wax 1 , the position of the Ministry will be shaken, and their want of judgment condemned. But if the Government happily succeed in securing a bloodless repossession of the confiscated land, as nothing succeeds like success, their reputation will bo increased tenfold, and all criticism will be silenced in a general round of applause. We heartily approve of tho policy adopted. We believe also that a large majority of the public are prepared to endorse it and to brave the cense? quenoes, whatever they may be.