MAORI USAGE IN LAND CONFISCATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 825, 12 August 1864, Page 6

MAORI USAGE IN LAND CONFISCATION.

(From the Daily Southern Cross.)

A writer in our contemporary recently propounded the doctrine that confiscation ! of land was not in accordance with native custom, and that, therefore, the Government have no precedent for the course they are now talcing. If the Government were induced to make a frontier line at the Maungatawhiri creek, as our contemporary desires, we admit they would have ' no right to confiscate the rebel lands, as far as native usage may be regarded as affording a precedent. But inasmuch as the Government do not intend to be guided by our contemporary's advice, we think Maori custom can be appealed to by them in support of their confiscation scheme. The native custom is—conquer and hold; the Government in end to conform most strictly to this time-honored Maori usage. That the lovers and defenders of Maori usage should "object to its^, application to the Maoris by Europeans does seem a little contradictory; but we lave been so accustomed to these that might otherwise surprise us now comes to be looked upon as a matter of course. It may be interesting to the public generally to have a few examples of this Maori usage put upon record. At all events, no harm c^n h*- done by it, and it may have the effect of creating a spirit of inquiry in this direction which must lead to good results, if it be only to enlighten the colonists at large regarding the most important custom that prevails amongst the aboriginal natives of New Zealand, and of which they have heard so i much but really know so little. We will first give an example of conquest without the forfeiture of land following thereupon. When Hongi, the great Ngapuhi leader, invaded and conquered Waikato, the Waikato tribes did not lose their lands. The reason was this: Hongi was not able to retain possession. He was strong enough to overrun the territory, but he was not strong enough to hold it. If Hongi had been able to hold the lands he over-ran, the Waikato's title to the territory which has been the scene of hostilities between the troops and the rebels would not have been recognised by us. The Ngapuhis would have been the owners of the soil, and our enemies, if any such -existed; would have been of the ■Ngapuhi tribe. This case may be quoted by the pro -Maoris, as a precedent in favor of the Government giving up Waikato; but it clearly implies weakness. It presupposes that we are not able to hold our own against the rebels, and that having invaded the country we are unable to retain it. That we are not in this weak position must be admitted, and arguing on Maori usage only, to speak nothing of an enlightened policy and its requirements, we are forced to the conclusion that this precedent in no way governs the point at issue. But there are precedents at hand which do govern it. Our tried friend and ally, William Naylor, holds the lands at Whangaro, (Raglan) by right of conquest. He drove the original owners south; and his title, which is that of occupation based on conquest, has been recognised by the Government, who purchased largely of the lands so acquired. This is a case in point, it will be seen. If Naylor's title be good, in what way will the title of-the Government to the.confiscated and settled territory of the rebels be contrary to native usage ? Has any one of the original owners of the Whangaro lands objected to Naylor selling the land to the Government ? We never heard of any one questioning Naylor's and his people's right to the lands they hold by force of arms; and, indeed, no one would ever dream of questioning a title which was recognised as just and equitable by the native inhabitants of 'these islands throughout their length and breadth. Take another instance of Maori usage, which still more closely governs the question at issue—whether Maori usage sanctions the confiscation and settlement of the conquered lands of the rebels. The precedent we are about to cite is that afforded by the tenure on which the Waikatos themselves held the lands of Kawhia, Otawhoa, Maungatautari, Ara itaha, and other places in the Upper Waipa and Waikato countries, wnich have been the theatre of war. This extensive and fertile territory was held by the Waikato, up to the war of rebellion, by right of conquest and occupation. The original owners were theNgatiraukawa tribe, who were expelled by Pehitukorehu, Porokuro, and other of the Waikatos. Rauparaha was driven from Kawhia south; and a new country was conquered at Cook's Straits, where the greater part of the expelled tribe now reside. They content themselves by upholding their new title, never dreaming of disputing with Waikato the right to the lands from which they were driven. A few of the Ngatiraukawa are living amongst the Kotorua tribes; but the great bulk of-them went:south, carrying slaughter with, them as they journeyed to the Straits. A3 an. incident

worth recording here, we may add that the last Ngatiraukawa pah which fell was that of Arakitaha, to which a reconnaissance was made the other day from Te Awamutu, and where a party of hostile natives were seen.

It will be seen, therefore, that the Waikatos drove the Ngatiraukawas from Kawhia, and the fertile country lying between that port and the Horatiu river at Maungatautari, and that they held it, up till the other day, by right of conquest on a military tenure. It would further appear that they have in turn been expelled by the troops from this country; and it follows that, if we hold the conquered territory by military settlers, we will be inflicting no injustice upon the Waikatos. They dispossessed the rightful owners, and not content with the rich lands so acquired, they levied war upon, the European settlements to obtain possession of them. In this they not only failed, bnt they have been unable to hold their own. Who can, therefore, justly accuse the Government of violating Maori usage, or, by conforming to it most strictly, of driving the natives to desperation? The natives knew the risk they ran, and they challenged the worst in the hope of bettering their condition. They have been defeated. They have been expelled from the lands from which, at no very remote date, they had expelled others; and it follows, according to Maori custom, that if we are able to hold the lands we ought to keep them. There are many other examples of this custom which we might quote, but these are nearly sufficient for our purpose. We will show, however, in what, respect the Ngatiawas differ from the JSTgatiraukawas, both of whom were conquered by the Waikatos. It is only necessary to _ state that the Waikatos permitted the Ngatiawas to return to the Waitara, through the intervention of the missionaries; but Te Wherowhero (King Potatau") sent a letter to the chiefs of that tribe, warning them not to interfere with the white men on their first settling in Taranaki, and intimating pretty plainly that he would only sanction their occupation of the lands he had conquered and 'could hold if he pleased, during their good behaviour. Whether William King and his section of the Ngatiawas carried out the wish of their conqueror and benefactor we do not inquire, seeing that it is not pertinent to the question; but when considering the native custom 'of 'conquest and occupation, the points in the various precedents ought to be plainly stated, to see in how far they are applicable to the particular case which is now occupying so much of the public attention. The case of the Chatham Islands is too well known to require particularisation; but the barbarities of the Maori conquerers are not so generally known. In this case, the natives chartered a vessel, and landed in force on the Chatbams, slaughtering the adults indiscriminately; and taking such precautions as rendered the increase of the aboriginal race an impossibility. The adults were all destroyed; cannibal feasts prevailed; and the children who were allowed to live were kept as slaves. They have now dwindled to a mere handful —noton account of being' reduced to a state of slavery, but in consequence of the inhuman mutilation of the males.

To say, therefore, that the confiscation and settlement of the rebel territory is contrary to Maori usage is to say what is not true. To say that the Government have not a right to sell that land is to question the right of William Naylor and many other chiefs to sell the land they hold on native military tenure; and to say that it is either in accordance with a native's sense of justice, or that it will impress him witb> v/an idea of our magnanimity, to give up what we have won by so much blood and toil, is to wilfully misrepresent Maori feeling.