HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Otago Witness, Issue 458, 8 September 1860, Page 3

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Mondat, July 30, 1860. The Members of the House of Representatives, headed by their Speaker, (whom we were glad to see in a much better .state of health than we had been led to expect,) the business proceedings of the Session were commenced by the swearing in of new members several of whom, as our readers would be aware, proved new friends with old faces. There was Mr Dillon Bell, who, on the call from the chair to be sworn in, crossed the floor with his accustomed celerity, and as if he had j never been absent a session — waiting no sponsor from his newly-adopted " Southern County cold." As an old acquaintance this forgetfulness of strict Parliamentary etiquette was overlooked in the case of the Land Claims Settlement Commissioner; but the Speaker then requested that new members should be duly introduced. This was accordingly done ; but some of the sponsors being themselves new members, and others having their backs turned to the reporters' gallery, we cannot give a complete list of the names of the introducers. The following Members were present at the opening of the Session :—: — Bell, Francis Dillon ; Brandon, Alfred de Bathe ; Brown, Charles Hunter ; Carleton, Hugh ; Carter, Charles Hooking ; Clark, Archibald ; Clifford, the Hon. Sir Charles (Speaker); Cookson, Isaac Thomas ; Curtis, Herbert Evelyn ; Daldy, William Crush ; Domett, Alfred ; Farmer, James ; Featherston, Isaac Earl ; Fitzgerald, Thomas Henry ; Fitzherbert, William ; Foreaith, Thomas Spencer ; Fox, William ; Gillies, Thomas Bannatyne ; Graham, Robert, Haultaine, Theodore Minet ; Heale, Theophilus ; Henderson, Thomas ; J.ollie, Edward ; Keeling, John Fedor Augustus ; King, Thomas ; Monro, David ; Moorhouse, William Sefton ; Renall, Alfred ; Rhodes, William Barnard ; Richmond, William ; Richmond, James Crowe ; Sewell, Henry ; Stafford, Edward William ; Symonds, John Jermyn; Ward, Crosbie ; Weld, Frederick, Aloysius ; Williamson, John. The House then proceeded to business, and a variety of Notices of Motion were given : as, however, it will be impossible for us to give the reports of the proceedings of the Assembly in full, we must refer such of our settlers who wish to study the, matter in detail, to the Auckland papers,— and content ourselves with giving as full a sketch of the proceedings as possible, and such debates in full as we consider of importance. The Address in reply to the Governor's speech was to be discussed on Wednesday, the Ist., and on that day the Address was moved by Mr. Fitzgerald and seconded by Mr. Ileale. The Address was a mere echo of the speech, and was adopted without any debate. After its adoption, an irregular discussion took, place, the House being much disappointed that no explanation of the policy of the Government had been given by the Ministers, not one of whom had spoken to the Address. They having, evidently, expected an attack by the opposition, had left the moving of the Address to secondrate men. and reserved the whole of their strength for a reply. The debate, or discussion, is not of sufficient consequence to be reprinted. The House of Representatives did not meet on Thursday, the 2nd, there not being a asufficient number of members to form a quorum. [We are indebted to the " Independent" for the following report, condensed from the " New Zealander," Auckland] :—: — NATIVE OFFENDERS BILL. Friday, August 3, 1860. Mr. Richmond (Colonial Treasurer and Minister for Native Affairs), according to notice, moved for leave to bring in "The Native Offenders Bill, 1860." In so doing, the honourable member adverted to the surprise felt by Ministers at meeting no opposition upon the address in reply to his Excellency's opening speech, and at being suddenly called upon to ma', c a statement of future policy, instead of having to answer for their past deeds, as they were prepared to do in the debate which so unexpectedly collapsed. The disappointment, and even irritation, of members under the circumstances were natural enough, but Ministers were not to blame. And now he would take the earliest opportunity of stating in what way Ministers proposed to state their own views and give opportunity for discussion upon the various important topics glanced at by the members who took part in the conversation to which he referred. What the honourable member for Wanganui called, rather vaguely, " the whole question," embracing as it did the past, present, and future of native policy in all its aspects, was far too much for a single statement ; a summer's day, nay, a solid week could not suffice. The practical way, he would put it to the House, would be, to deal with the subject in several divisions ; and this was the way he would propose : — First, he would on the present occasion go into what is called the Waitara queston — the question between the Governor and Wiremu Kingi — about which the House desplayed most anxiety. Next, on moving the second reading of the Native Offenders Bill, he would fcxplain, as usual, the policy of that measure. Thirdly, he would, at the present sitting, give notice of a motion for the appointment of a select committee to report whether it would be practicable and expedient to make any, and what, change-in the present mode of extinguishing the native title. Fourthly, the question 'of the relations of the Governor and responsible Ministry in native affairs, which, he observed, in passing, the House could not alter its will, together with the question whether the existing machinery for the conduct of native affairs could be improved, would naturally and inevitably be raised on the second clause of the Native Offenders Bill in committee. Lastly, he would, within a few days, make some new propositions with respect to the future Civil Government of the natives. Addressing himself to the first of the above-mentioned topics, the honourable member spoke as follows : — Sir, there are two things to be considered about the present war— its justice and its policy. The question of policy, we supposed, would have been debated upon the address in reply to his Excellency's opening speech, which, however, was voted ncmine contradicente, and without debate, after the speeches of the mover and seconder ; I say, we intended by the address to put in issue the policy of the war, taking, of course, as it was decorous and in every way right to do, the basis of the Governor's facts. We proposed that the House should assume the premises that the rebel chief of Waitara, Wiremu Kingi, neither asserted nor possessed a title to the land sold by Te Teira's party, and should fully discuss the conclusion drawn by hia.Excellency's speech, and admitted by the address ; that, such being the case, it was his Excellency's plain duty to repel Kingi's pre-

tension to interfere with the sale by force of arms. Much seemed open to fair discussion upon this subject. Many doubts and objections might naturally present themselves to members who had | not fully given their minds to the question, or were but imperfectly acquainted with the state of the Northern Island. Why, it might have been asked, did the Governor accept Te Teira's offer ? Why did he bring the war and confusion into that Maori Paradise of peace and loyalty, the Maori pahs ? Why ? having begun, and encountering serious opposition, did his Excellency pursue his undertaking ? Why did he not threaten, and back out, as former Governors had done befbre him ? Why did he not surround the L pah ? Why did he not send succours to Waireka ? Why did he get into a land quarrel ? Why did he abstain from interference with the Maori King party so long ? Why did lie rouse the Maori King party so soon ? Surely, surely, some of these were-terapting questions for an Opposition to handle, and a fine field for those numerous prophets who are wise after the event ! Now, sir, we ministers understand that it is still practically open to discuss these points, all or any of them, although they are technically determined by the vote of the address. We desire to see the whole question thoroughly ventilated. I propose, then, to deal with the subject in this order : First, to explain the ground taken by the Governor when he ordered the survey oj the Waitara Block. Secondly, to state the grounds we have for the conclusion, that the sellers of the land had a valid title, and Wiremu Kingi had no right to interfere. The ground of the Governor's action was, and is, his Excellency's refusal to submit to the dictation of the Taranaki Land League, headed by Wiremu Kingi. It is plain as the sun at midday that Kingi's stand has throughout been taken wholly and solely as a land-leaguer. The overt and formal origin of the Taranaki Land League was the Native Meeting at Manawapo in the Ngatiruanui country, south of Cape Egmont, in 1854. There were present representatives of all tribes from Waitara to Wellington. And that the House may judge of the ultimate tendency of land leagues in general, and the virulent character of the Taranaki league in particular, I will mention a most important fact, revealed at th 6 Native Conference now sitting in our neighbourhood, at Kohimarama, respecting what took place at Manawapo. It is positively stated by Chiefs who are cognizant of the fact, that not only did the meeting resolve against all further land sales, and that Waitaha should be the Pakehas boundary to the north, but it was attempted to resolve ou the resumption of the land already sold, and on the extermination of the Pakeha. As a symbol of this resolution, a tomahawk was passed from chief to chief. It Avent round the whole meeting, and was then sent to that influential and excellent native, Matene te Whiwhi, who had retired to a hut close by. He refused to take the hatchet, and his opposition, thus signified, stopped the bloody scheme. The man who took the hatchet in Matene was Paratene te Kopara, who was killed at Waireka. Ido not intend to impute to Kingi any complicity in this part of the business. He was not present at the meeting, but he actively adhered to its land-holding policy, which had always been his own. The first fruit of the league was the death of Rawiti Waiana, the highest chief of those hapus of the Ngoti'awa, known as the Paketapus. Wiremu Kingi was the active abettor of Ka'atore, by whose hands Rawiti and his brothers were slaughtered, whilst unarmed, and engaged in cutting the boundary of a block he was offering to the Government. Katature would never have dared to lift bis hand against his near relative and superior had he not been encouraged to the act by the certainty of Kingi's support. But you know the frightful catalogue of crimes which, since 1854, have followed in rapid succession in that unfortunate district ; and I have already said enough to indicatethe character of the land league in Taranaki— >what fruit it has already borne, and what fruit it might be expected to bear if not uprooted. I shall not dwell on the injustice inflicted by the league on the native proprietor, nor upon the complete incompatibility of such compacts, with the acknowledged rights of the Crown, but will go on and ask the House, in the light of its knowledge of what a land league is, to look at Kingi's attitude before the Governor in March, 1859, when Te Teira, as spokesman of his party, made the ofler of the Waitara block. Now, what does Kingi do on that remarkable occasion ? Does he claim the land as his own ? Does he contest Teira's title ? Does he say, this man and that man have claims ? No ; he bluntly declare 3, I' Governor, there is no land for you. Waitara is in my hand, and I 'will never let it go. Never, never, never." Then, again, look at his replies to Mr. Parris. to the questions put to lum on the payment to Teira's party of the first instalment of the purchase money. Mr. Parris asks :—: — " Q. Does the l.md belong to Teira and parly ? — A. Yes; the land is theirs, but I will not let them sell it. "Q. Why will you oppose their gelling that which is their own ?— A. Because Ido not wish for the land to be disturbed; and although they have floated it, I will not let it go to sea. » " Q. Show me the justice or correctness of your opposition ?-= A. It is enough, Parris ; their bellies aie full with the sight of the money you have promised them, but don't (jive it to them; if you do, I won't let you ha\e the land, but will take it and cultivate it mjself.'' Just mark that last phrase. King says he will take the land. If Taylor persisted in hit enterprise, King was prepared to seize the land as forfeited by a sort of escheat to this little sovereign. Now I say the who'e of this is plainly the attitude not of the dissentient claimant, but of the open, uncompromising opponent of all land sales. The House is of course awaie that the land question is within the boundary of the block of 60,000 acres purchased in 1840 by the New Zealand Company's agent of the resident Ngatiawa. You know that although Mr. Commissioner Spain reported that he had never seen a block of lanl which coidd be occupied by Europeans with less inconvenience to the natives, and that the purchase had been fairly and properly completed, Governor Fitzroy refused to act on that decision, and declared tlyit he should allow in their integrity the claims of those of the Ngatiawa tribe, who, having migrated, or being at the time in captivity, were not parties to the sale. Since that disastrous decision we have been gradually extinguishing the particular claims thus reserved. One small block after another has been added to the little piece on which the town stands, known as Fuzroy Block. First come the acquisition of the Grey Block— then the Bell Block. Then came the Hua and Waiwakaiho purchases, and then the Tarurutangi. Now Wil.iam King has never h-id one single sixpence paid to him for these blocks, nor has his consent ever been asked to their sale by others. Now, what is King's stand now ? He wants to put a stop to this giadual process of acquisition contemplated by Governor Fitzioy. He say* "No moie land shall be s>old — I will neither sell myself nor let others sell." This tyranny is the grievance of Mahau, the present head of the Puketapu. "This is the grievance of Huia, of Nikorima, of Te Teira. This is what has filled Taranaki with strife and bloodshed. King has gradually been consolidating his influence in New Plymouth. His right is that negation of right, the strong arm. He i<t Hpfyincr Governor lirowne as he defied Governor Greyi This, then, is King's attitude, the attitude of contumacious defiance. He plainly admits Teira's right, whilst he openly declares that for all that Teira 6ha.l not sell. Against this assumption the Governor took his stand, and the common sense of the country backed* him, and I should like to see any man have the face to stand upon the floor of this House and deny the justice of the course the Governor has taken (cheers). At the present moment, I repeat, the Goveinor's position is free and clear of the question of the title to the block. No title hag been asserted, but the Governor has been defied. The question of title is such as I shall now demonstrate. In March last, on occa•ion of the payment of the first instalment for the Block, a declaiation, wad made to the natives by the District Land Purchase Commissioner on behalf of the Governor, " that if any man could prove hit claim to any piece of land within the boundary described, such claim would be respected, and the claimant might hold or sell as he thought fit." No claim adverse to the sellers was put forward then or at any prior or subsequent time. But the declaration still stands, in favour, at least, of all who have not forfeited their right by rebellion. The Governor safely stands upon King's contumacious refusal to when solemnly challenged. But though the Governor's sUnd was taken as I have already explained, it was not without anxious inquiry whether King might not conceal a real claim under the blanket of a Maori land league. And this leads me to the second part of my subject, the grounds of Te Teira's title. The honourable member showed here very fully the tribal position of the families of Te Teira and WI Kingi, the former being descended through a male and the latter through a female line from & common ancestor. He then went on to narrate the circumstances which occurreiat a meeting «f

the natives at Taranaki, in March 1859,' when Te Teira first offered to dispose of his land to the Governor, who was present. , Te Teira, after minutely describing the boundaries of the land at Waitara which he wished to dispose of, asked the Governor in the presence of Wi Kingi, "Will you consent to buy my land ?" His Excellency replied, " If the land is yours, I consent to buy it :'* upon which Teira walked' up to nis Excellency with a Kaitaka mat, and laid it down at his feet, a* a token that the land had departed from- him. Seeing there was no interruption, aome natives present, said. " Kua riro Waitara," [Waitara is gone], when William King rose, and in a very d srespectfiil and sullen tone, said, "Governor there is no land for you," and left most abruptly and unceremoniously, with his followers, without offering the slightest explanation." Now, according to native ideas, according to common sense, this striking scene is, in itself, powerful evidence in the way of admission of Teira's title. The hort. member then contended at great length, that tht power of TCtoing land sales, claimed by Wi Kingi, is altogether new, and that this mana, of which so much has lately been talked, was nothing but the right of the strong arm over the weak. The Government had, in their instructions to Mr. Parria, the district Commissioner, regarding the Purchase of Te Teira's land, been most careful so as not to be led into a false position ; and to show the opinion of the Chief Conmrnsioaer on Te Teira's title, the honourable member read the following fiom papers about to be laid on the table of the House : — Government House, July 23, 1860. In order to complete the document! about to be printed for both Hrfuses of Assembly, the Governor requests the Chief Land Purchase Commissioner to answer the following questions:— First, HadTamati Paru, Rawiri, Rauponga, and their people, such a title v the block of land recently purchased at th» Waitara, as justifie d them in selling it to the Queen? Second, Had William King any right to interfere to preient the sale of the above block of land at the Waitara to the Queen i The Chief Commissioner replies aj follows:— Auckland, July 23, 1860. Sir,— ln reply to your Excellency's memoran* dum of the 20th instant, I have the honor to state with reference to the first-mentioned question, aa to whether Tamati Rnru, Rawiri," Rnuporfga, and their people, had such a title to the block of land recently purchased at Waitara as justified them in selling it to the Queen. I believe that the above chiefs, conjointly with others at the South, associated with them in the sale, had an undoubted right of disposal of the land in question. With refeience to the second enquiry, " Had William King any right to interfere to prevent the sale of the above block of land at the Waitara to the Queen ?" The question of title has been carefully investigated. All the evidence that has come before me, including Wm. King's own testimony, that the land belonged to the above parties, goe's to prove that he had no right to interfere. The interference assumed by him has been obviously based upon opposition to land sales in the Taranaki Province generally, as a prominent member of an anti-land selling league. I have, &c, Donaxd M'Least, Chief Land Purchase Commissioner. His Excellency Colonel Gore Browne, C 8., &c. Now, said the hon. gentleman, if any party in this * House shall think that a prima facie ease for inquiry is made out, and shall satisfy themselves that* the House can usefully enter, and ought to enter, upon such an enquiry, we shall not oppose that view. We shall leave that question of inquiry, Ay, or No, to be settled without our intervention. But this we do absolutely say and insist, that no right on the part of Wiremu Kingi, or his adherents in arms against the Queen, can possibly be entertained. Kingi's title (if he had the best in the world) is merged in his rebellion. At all events, it will be time to hear him when he submits to the • jurisdiction. l£ seems to be assumed by tome people that the discovery of a single unsatisfied claimant would upset the whole purchase. This, it is thought, justice imperatively requires. But is it really so? Is this, I ask, substantial justice f We did not mean, it is true, to buy without the consent of all. But suppose that, through their own contumacy, or say, even our neglect, some are left out, what does common sense tell U3 it substantial justice ? I say substantial justice if partition ; and if they can't agree amongst themselves, their boundaries ought to be settled foe them by a higher power. That is what a substautial justice demands. It is not just that the minority should condemn the majority, who wish to escape f>om it, to the tribal life, to the beastly communism of the pah, to the slough of barbarism from which they are striving to emerge. That is what English law would give them. Aay joint owner is entitled to a'partition of the commoa property. The fanatic opinion), the monstrous notion, that the Governor should cry peccavi, and sue for peace to King and his murderous crew, will find no voice, no echo in this House. Sir, I am confident in the justice of my cause, or I could not endure the prospect of what the chances of war may bring to this colony. There be leaders in Israel of -whom I would always apeak with the ut-* most tenderness and respect, and yet I am- bound to say of them that they are more prompt to thunder anathema from Ebal than to breathe blessings from Gerizim. An ugly word was launched at the Legislature of tins Colony when it was said to be ' " interested in spoliation." But you will never say that harsh saying. You will not take so base, so false a view of interest as to suppose it consit- - tent with injustice. But let us be sure, very sure, what justice is. Let us take no partial or microscopic view. Let us beware of mere scrupulosity, lest wnile tithing the mint, auite, and'cutnmin of technicality, we omit the weightier matters of the law, essential justice, right judgment, aud true mercy — (great applause.) The Colonial Secretary seconded the motion. Mr. Carleton (Bay of Islands) disclaimed all intention to embarrass the Government at the present time, or so long as the .country was in difficulties. The honourable gentleman, in a speech of so.ne length, questioned the wisdom of the Governor's dealings with Te Teira for the land at Waitara, in so hasty a manner, and thought a further attempt should have been made to settle the" question of title before proceeding to extremities. The hon. member concluded by commenting on the translation of the proclamation of martial lawi •' the law of fighting is come in now a days/ Of course the natives said, " AH right, let us have it out." It might be said that a question of tribal right had now become a piece of antiquarianism. Perhaps so ; from the time of firing the first shot King had become a rebel. He would admit that ; hut still enquiry as to the original cause of quarrel was necessary. Rebellion was a hanging matter ; but if it weie shewn that we were wrong in Ihe first' instance, that fact would make all the difference in the treatment of the prisoners (Hear, hear.) Mr. FotisAiTH f (Ciiy of Auckland) stated the " case " for Wi Kingi, having had his brief piepared by Archdeacon Hadfield, who from hit intimate acquaintance with that chief (he having formerly lived under the Archdeacon's spiritual tuition) was perhaps better able than any one else to state all that could possibly be said in his favour. After alluding to the sad effects produced by the war, Mr. Forsaith went on to say— Now, Sir, viction with the MinisteribT^a^v^n^rlrW'W^the incontrovertibility of his facts, and consequently of the wisdom of the advice he has tendered to hit Excellency, I am thoroughly convinced of this, that at a crisis like the present it i* the duty of every loyal man to uphold the authority of the* Crown. Hon. members will doubtless agree with me in saying that on- this matter there can be but one opinion. We cannot treat with, men while they are arrayed in amis. The supremacy of th« Queen must be maintained, and submission to-her ' authority enforced. But, Sir, while we all agrei* in this, are we thereby precluded from instituting an examination into the justice and unavoidable necessity of this war ? Surely not. I think, while it in our duty to do all in our power to enforc« obedience to the authority of the Crown, it is equally our duty tq inquire into the origin of this war — to look back, and from the experience of the past endeavour to gather lessons of instruction for the future. After describing Wi Kingi's antecedents, especially as an ally in the war with Rangihateata, he contended that the Governor had not acted consistently with his promise to refuse the purchm of disputed land. When his Excellency the Governor visited Taranaki, in March last; he distinctly laid down two propositions, and published them to the natives as the principles by which he would bs guided in the futura acquisition of land. The first was that he never would consent to buy land without an undisputed title. The second, that be would not permit any one to preventthe sale.of land that did not belong to himself. Ministers laid great stress upon the minor proposition; whyVa.B -,*»?* equal stress laid upon tne major 1 If this hi4 been .. < done, in all probability we should not hiyebeea precipitated into this war. 1 - This land was m Mis- - ;- pute, and therefore- Teira's offer might pibpeilf / {Continued on Supplement.) . v *'" .