THE TARANAKI QUESTION.

41

E—No. 2

ous instances of conflicting opinions among high authorities on the subject, the Governor said : "No one of my predecessors has ventured to lay down any precise theory on the subject of Native " Tenure, nor could I pretend to do so : on the contrary, I have endeavoured to follow in the path " traced out by them, and have studied to preserve as much consistency and uniformity of action " as circumstances would permit, in all dealings with Native proprietors It must be " remembered that the ancient customs of the Natives with respect to land had been materially " affected by engrafting upon them the new practice of alienation since the first irregular settlement "of the country. We found that the Natives had no fixed rules applicable to all the tribes and to ." every locality, and we adopted as our guide in each district the customs which in that district " were in force among the people themselves, where the right of alienation had followed the old " right of property, whether in the tribe or the family."— [See Notes Nos. 3. 4, 7.] It may be as well to give some instances of the conflict of opinion on many material points of Native Tenure. There is reason to think that an indepond- In the Bay of Islands, whore land purchases ent right to alienate land without the consent of were first made, the Native of every degree of the Tribe is unknown in New Zealand. — [Bishop rank sold his land without reference to any of N.Z.~] other authority. — [Rev. J. Ilamlin.] The rights of ownership, whether in one or Often there will be only one main proprietor many joint proprietors, were not alienable with- or take [source of title] ; but if he be not a Out the consent of the tribe. — [Bishop of N,Z.~] Chief of rank, the head man will take upon him to dispose of the spot. Often, and more frequently, there will be several take, and one of them will sell without consulting the others.— , [Archdeacon Maunsell.] Over the uncultivated portions of territory The lands of a Tribe do not form one nnbroheld by a Tribe in common, every individual ken district over which all members of the member has the right of fishing and shooting. — Tribe may wander. On the contrary, they are [W. Swainson.~\ divided into a number of districts appertaining to the several sub-tribes. — [Sir W. Martini] Ordinary freemen (tutua) cannot alienate When any member of a Tribe cultivates a that land, which is absolutely their own for all portion of the common waste, he acquires an practical purposes, but is not to be disposed of in individual right to what he has subdued by his a manner contrary to the supposed interests of labour ; and in case of a sale, he is recognised the tribe.— [Archdeacon Hadfield.] as the sole proprietor.—[ W. Swainson.] A Tribe never ceases to maintain their title The title or claim to land by Tribes existed to the lands of their fathers.—[ Chief Protector no longer than it could be defended from other Clarke.~\ Tribes,— [Native Board.] The right of each Tribe to land extends over No Tribe has, in all instances, a well-defined the whole of the tribal territory, and entirely boundary to its land as against adjoining tribes; precludes the right of any other Tribe over it. and the members of several other Tribes are [Archdeacon Hadfield.~\ likely to have claims within its limits. — [Native Board.'] Conquest, unless followed by possession, gives Conquest alienates the land, but it has its no title. So distinctly is this principle recog- quibbles. Conquest and occupation give a valid nized, that I have no doubt that any attempt to title ; conquest without occupation is doubtful, support and maintain the validity of titles de- If the conquered party return, occupy and hold rived from conquest only, would be met by a the land from which they were driven, the land most determined resistance, even if attempted is theirs. If the conquered people return to by Her Majesty's Government. — [Chief Pro- their land by permission of the conqueror, the tector Clarhe.~\ land does not become theirs unless a transfer of the land is made to them by the conqueror.—i [Rev. J. Hamlin.] Their right [of individual members of the Whatever piece of ground an individual tribe] was a good holding title as against every cultivates for the first time, it becomes his own other member of the tribe. They might ex- private property if he be a claimant of the land change land among themselves, but no one j n which it is situated : and when sold he only could alienate without the consent of the tribe. wou ld be entitled to receive the amount.— [Rev. —[Archdeacon Hadfield.~] _ft. Taylor.] The individual claim to land does not exist The New Zealander has no law that I am among the New Zealanders according to our aware of, by which he is debarred from asserting acceptation of that term. — [J. White.] his individual right to land : it may be a small portion, nevertheless it is an individual right.— < [C. O.Davis.]