When foreigners, called by the natives Pakeha, first came to New Zealand, they were admitted readily by the Maori to dwell among them. They were allowed to acquire land by purchase, and to form alliances with their families; and the children of such connections were considered as belonging to the tribe of their mother. They were never treated as belonging to a stranger tribe—as tangata ke. Tăku pakeha, toku matua, my own pakeha, my father, were the common terms used to denote their sentiment of relationship.
It is not to be wondered at that every tribe in these islands was at first anxious to have Pakeha settlers dwelling with them, and was ready to admit them to the privileges of tribesmen, for through them they could obtain what they most valued of the world’s goods. But [pg 101] when dissensions arose between the two races, notably about land, and issued in war, the feelings of those who took up arms became modified, and their old friends, the Pakeha, were no longer looked on as [matua] or fathers, but rather as tangata ke, or strangers.
THE WAITARA DISPUTE.
It is a recognised mode of action among the Maori, if a chief has been treated with indignity by others of his own tribe, and no ready means of redress can be obtained, for the former to do some act which will bring trouble on the whole tribe. This mode of obtaining redress is termed “whakahe,” and means putting the other in the wrong. Strange to say, this very dangerous principle of action, by whatever great evils it may be followed, obtains the respect and not the censure of the whole tribe for the person who adopts it.
Being in the neighbourhood of Matamata some years ago, not long before the war broke out in Waikato, I heard in conversation with a chief[67] of Ngatihaua, who had taken part in the war at Taranaki, that the reason why Teira proposed to sell Waitara was to obtain satisfaction for a slight put upon him by Wi Kingi in connection with a private quarrel.[68] I never had an opportunity to verify the facts narrated, but there was in them nothing improbable, and according to Maori usage they accounted for Teira having acted as he did.
The land thus offered for sale was estimated to contain about six hundred acres, the whole of which had, in [pg 102] former years, been thickly inhabited, and apportioned among a great many individuals and families. It was therefore of the character comprised under our division No. 1. Teira and those more nearly allied to him offered to sell the whole six hundred acres, in opposition to the wish of Wi Kingi and others who claimed rights in the land.
That Kingi and his party had substantial claims to portions of this land, and that such was the original ground of his opposition to the sale appears from several letters written by natives at the time as a kind of protest, particularly from one written by Riwai Te Ahu in which he says: “The reason why Wiremu Kingi and his party made so much objection, when Teira proposed that the place should be sold to the Governor, was the fear lest their land and ours should be all taken as belonging to Teira.”
A chief of great influence well supported has no doubt frequently acted as if he could dispose of large tracts of land without consulting others who had rights included therein. But he never thought of asserting a right to ignore in toto the rights of others not parties to the sale. On the contrary, the chief and they who had shared the purchase money would say to other claimants who had not received any part of the payment, either that they should be satisfied out of a future payment (for it was a general, though an impolitic and bad custom, to pay by instalments in such transactions), or that they might themselves apply to the purchaser for payment of their interests, or that they might hold fast to their own.
If before paying any part of the purchase money to [pg 103] Teira, he had been required to mark out the boundaries of those portions of the six hundred acres which he and his party claimed, the onus probandi would have been placed on the right man. It would then have been discovered that those portions were detached and of various shapes and sizes, and in some cases only to be approached by narrow paths, and that some of his boundaries were disputed. For all which reasons what he could have rightfully sold would have been of little value for the occupation of our colonists.
But in addition to any claim of Wi Kingi and others whom he represented to the ownership of portions of the six hundred acres offered for sale by Teira, they had a further right not to be disturbed in their holdings, which does not appear to have been considered at the time.