THE WANGANUI CHRONICLE AND RANGITIKEI MESSENGER. “Véritè saus peur.” Wanganui, January 3, 1861.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 5, Issue 216, 3 January 1861, Page 2

THE WANGANUI CHRONICLE AND RANGITIKEI MESSENGER. “ Véritè saus peur.” Wanganui, January 3, 1861.

The dates from Taranaki are to the 21st nit., but there is nothing of importance except. the addition to W. Kingrs party of Tami-bana-fWm. Thompson), a powerful and intelligent Waikato chief.

The prospect of our hate General Assembly representative. Mr. Fox. being again among us this week, naturally recalls to recollection Ins last visit nearly eight, months since, shortTy after the appearance of the letter which at the time created so great a sensation in this district. We then expressed our opinion as to the propriety of publishing the letter, and to that opinion we still adhere— -although on reading it now, it appears to us to be more unbiassed than we then thought, it. moderate as was our suspicion in this respect in comparison with that generally entertained. Much that was stated in it has turned out only too true ; ami it does not now wear so much ths appearance of a foregone conclusion.” Wo then stated, that llie question of the justice or injustice of the war seemed to depend on the right Wi iiingi had to stop the sale. On this footing the Native Minister, Mr. Richmond, (put the question at-the beginning of the de-

bate on the subject in the General //ssembly. Teira’s title,” sa nl lie, “is one thing; the (Governor’s refusal to submit to the dictation of the Taranaki land league is another” —-and he argued the point on the latter ground.. In doing "so lie . assumed, - what he should have proved—that AVi Kingi was instigated by the Taranaki land league ,to the course On which he had entered, and that the determination to stop all sales of (laridG.was..his'\sole 'for resisting the sale at Waitara. 7’he evidence adduced in the.. Government papers does not bear out this assei’tioq. " There' is ’direct testimony that, King’had declared his willingness to sell lahd so soon as the 'natives interested liad settled their own’ disputes regarding it, Rut apart from this, Wi Kingi was in the first place .acting for others. The Ngatiawas at Otaki and Waikanae, who claimed pieces of land in the Waitara block, looked to him as their representative, and wished him to' preVent thp sale. Next,'he. claimed to be‘proprietor of part of the land sold, last.pf all, he asserted his right to stop the sale in virtue of his being the representative of the tribe to which it belonged ; and that there is such a thing as tribal right, there seems little

doubt. In addition to the proof brought forward in the. course of the debate, there may he mentioned the opinion on this point of the Provincial Council of New Plymouth, in a petition to the house of dated I.9th May, 1858, in which they say, in reference to a piece of,;land given to Ihaia by Arama Karaka for his assistance against Katafcnre,—“ Ihaia held the land at. Tkamoana (the price of his assistance to the Ninia people - ), hut his claim was not assented to by Katatorp, for the land iii question was the common pr-'pertf/ of the tribe , and Katatore, himself a claimant, was at war with the majority when the cession was .made.” It must in fairness, we think, be a.dmittel, that rightly or wrongly Kingi grounded his right of interference on his ' connection with the land in these three ways.

There.is, indeed. a question raised as to this, and'it is asserted by some that Wi Kingi has never brought forward a claim on any of these grounds; hut the best iV/aori scholars—-those longest and most thoroughly acquainted with the native customs and habits of thought—are in favour at least of allowing that such a claim was made. Rut there has been.* as yet no sufficient proof that , the claim was made on adequate grounds. The evidence regarding the status of W., Kingi is conflicting, and he lias never had an opportunity of proving his assertions The Governor indeed, when at Taranaki, asked him to meet with him ; but this was after martial law—the law, of fighting —had been proclaimed, and we may pardon \ the non-compliance of ICingi with the Go ] vernor’s request. Mr. Parris, too, was on the snot; to whom lie might have preferred any claim ; hut the commissioner and he were at enmity, and his unwillingness to lay his claims before Mr. Parris is .intelligible. In the article already, referred sto, we took occasion 1 to condemn King because lie had not applied * as a Rritish subject to a court of law for re- I dress of his grievances, instead of appealing to 1 arms. But it appears that there is no court 1 to which lie could apply. In order to show * this, we cannot do better than quote the words £ of the Chief Justice, who is reported to have s said,—“ If he had been asked to express an

opinion 'at that time (before .the; survey), he might have advised temnorary submission to the pretensions of W. Kingi. It had been said, that the dispute should have been referred to . a tribunal. What tribunal ? If it he said, the commissioners, lie would again ask, what commissioners ? The position of the native was a, most extraordinary ami anomalous one. T’hey were as a people tractable, capable of a high degree of civilization, easily convinced by reasonable argument, neither factious nor unruly, possessing little to tempt the cupidity of unscrupulous persons excppt, indeed, their land; and yet a period of twenty years had elapsed since their country first became a British settlement, and not a shadow of a court of justice had ever been erected for the settlement of their differences. The General of England had decided, that the natives could have no sort of appeal because they had no legal property title. The question of native title was not capable of being recognized by a British court of law. Even supposing Crown grants were issued to the natives, who, he would ask, was to adjudicate on their title? Not only were the natives unprovided with tribunals for the .

adjustment of questions of property, but even in matters affecting the safety of'-‘their lives they were equally unprotected by courts of taw. They might, justly say, ‘ Foil.give us no courts'of justice for the settlement of our disputes. What alternative have we but to fight?’” 7’his position of lawlessness in which the natives have been thus Teft, materially alters the character of Kingi’s opposi- ; (ion. Even though all his pretensions to a 1 right of interference turn out to be groundless, we do not see on what plea lie could be con- 1 demited as a rebel. That these pretensions 1 were not thoroughly sifted before the beginning of the war is now undoubted. Had they been I brought before a tribunal of his own country-,* men (since it appears they could not be sop

before a brif.is.li court of law), the Governor’s desire to do justice, so manifested, would.'have iuul a moral influence that might have induced the natives to acquiesce in fhetlecision, hacked us it would have been by the influence of their countrymen who had assisted ihe Government, in the investigation. However that may be, it is clear that, no proper investigation has been made into the'nature'of Kingi’s claims, the only” inquiry having been instituted by a district^commissioner, - with whom Kingi was not on friendly terras, and who, being human, was liable to bo biassed by the expressed anx* kiy of many of - tlic settlers in Taranaki to

acquire land.' On this ground alouo, his Excellency the Governor may be fairly consideredj to have acted precipitately in beginning hos-' tilities. - That-he had great provocation to do so we admit. - The long-continued native feuds in Taranaki, the apparent insolence' of Kingi, the growth of the King movement, were all reasons for not allowing British 'authority to be set aside; But the occasion to exert that authority should have been taken in a case the justice of which was as clear as noonday. It is grievous indeed to arrive at the conclusion, that a contest, in which so many valuable lives have been lost and such an amount, of property destroyed, has been entered into without due deliberation.