E—No. 2

18

FURTHER PAPERS RELATIVE TO

Even if he accepted it, how was he to go? The safe conduct itself required him to appear " unarmed." {Pap. E. No. 3«, p. 4.) Yet, was he safe without arms? On alike occasion, formerly, William Kinghad dreaded Te Rauparaha's fate, (Dr. Thomson, vol. 2, p. 226,) whose capture has become a proverb among the Natives. But a far greater risk was apparent. Ihaia, his deadly enemy, was now amongst the allies of the Government. It was Ihaia that laid the plot, which issued in the murder of Katatore, William King's ally. Those persons who find in this conduct of Wfliiam King a justification for resorting to force, appear to overlook the fact that the resort to force had been alreadydetermined on, and that that determination had been publicly notified. I do not desire to travel further into the questions that have been raised about this matter. William King has been blamtd for speaking roughly or insolently. Again, he has been blamed for not taking away from the Governor's feet the mat which Teira laid there. Had he taken it away, he would probably have been blamed still more. There has been a notirg of tone and demeanour, complaints of abruptness and incivility, to a length, which appears to me unworthy and un-English. It is needless to attempt a nice measurement of such things. If our case be good in itself, we do not need the aid of such considerations : if otherwise, the want of right on our part cannot be supplied by foolishness or lack of temper on the other side ? Moreover, William King was not the only person interested. There were many adverse claimants who had nothing to do with the Governor's message: some were not even on the ground. Was their land to be taken because William King was uncivil? 4. On the sth March the troops were moved down to the Waitara, and occupied a position on the disputed block. The Officer commanding the troops was instructed to confine the operations of the force at Waitara within the bounds of the block. It is stated in the Official document {Pap. E. No. 3, p. 23) that "on the 13th and 14th March, the sellers pointed out the boundaries of the block, which were duly surveyed and the lines cut; the sellers aiding in the work." It now appears that only the southern boundary of the block was then cut, and that the inland or eastern limit of the block is still undefined. The Government thus undertook to obtaiu possession of the disputed land by force; to awe the opponents into submission by a display of military force. We, the English subjects of the Queen, dislike nothing so much as being intimidated into therelinquishment of a right Why should a Maori dislike it less? On the contrary, the pride and paasion of the race, the patriotism of each clan, has always centred on this point To fight for their land, to resist encroachment even to the death, this has been their point of honour. A Chief who should yield to intimidation in such a case would be degraded in the eyes of his people. On the night of the 15th March, a pa was built by some of William King's people, within the bounds of the block. The next day they pulled up the survey stakes and burnt them. On the 17th March, the conflict began. 5. Let us now review the relative position of the Government and the Natives. There had been a quiet and peaceable prohibition by them of an entrance on their land. S<> far they were right, but this involves no censure of the attempt made by the Government to survey the land. A sort of usage had existed from the beginning of our land purchasing, that the outside boundaries should be laid down before the money was paid. Latterly it had become customary to pay the first instalment before the survey. The survey then was not taken as an assertion that all parties had consented, but rather that all known claimants had consented. The survey itself would probably bring out those claimants who were as yet unknown. If they came forward, an endeavour was made to satisfy them. If the endeavour failed, the transaction stood over. The entrance on the land with this view, to lay out the outside boundary, was not to be blamed. But when the preliminary survey, or attempt at a survey, had served its proper purpose, and brought out a large number of adverse claimants, it then became the duty of the Government to take one of two courses: either to stay its hand for a time (57), after the manner of former Governments, until the adverse claimants agreed to the sale; or, if it was thought wise and necessary to proceed, notwithstanding the adverse claimants, in that case to disprove their claims and establish its own right before some competent tribunal. The Government was bound to do in this case, that which, in the case of one of ourselves being the adverse claimant, it must have done. The course of the Colonial Government was to be guided by one consideration only, namely, what was lawful and just. The one question to be asked was this :—was it lawful for the Government, under the circumstances, to take possession of the land by armed force ? There could be only one answer. It was not lawful. 6. It is unnecessary to point out the practical difficulties in the way of the Native claimants, supposing they desired to protect themselves by legal means against this invasion of their land, or to consider the circumstances which disable men without knowledge of our language and our customs, and with little money, from applying to a remote Court. Nor is it necessary to inquire whether they could have proceeded effectually against officers who would have justified their acts under the authority of the Governor ; the Governor himself not being liable to an action in the Colony for any act done in his public capacity: nor whether any proceedings at all could practically be carried on under Martial Law. But it is necessary to notice the view which has been lately taken of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of this Colony. In December, 1859, the opinion of the Law ofFcers of the Crown in England was obtained upon the question, whether the Aboriginal Natives of New Zealand are entitled to the Electoral Franchise under the Constitution Act. In their opinion the following passage occurs : " Could he (one Native) bring an action of Ejectment or Trespass in the Queen's Court in New Zealand ? Does the Queen's Court ever exercise any jurisdiction over real property in a Native District ? We presume, these