Maori Religion and Mythology Part 14

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 chief67 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.

67 Paora Te Ahuru.

68 "_Hei whakahe mo Wiremu Kingi_" was the expression used.

The land thus offered for sale was estimated to contain about six hundred acres, the whole of which had, in 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 a.s.serting 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 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.

When the Te Ati-awa tribes determined to abandon Cook's Straits and return to the lands of their ancestors about Taranaki, they were still in dread of their old enemies the Ngatimaniapoto. It was therefore arranged among them, for their better security, that they should form one united settlement on the south bank of the Waitara-thus placing the river between themselves and the common enemy. Supposing, therefore, that Wi Kingi and his division of the tribe had no land actually their own by ancient right at the place thus occupied, they had acquired a right by virtue of the arrangement made, a right recognised by old native custom, on the faith of which they had expended their labour in building houses, as well as in fencing and cultivating the land, to disturb which, in a summary manner, could only be looked on as an offensive act. We have seen also how in relation to the dispute between Tapuika and the Arawa tribes it was adjudged by general consent that the latter had acquired a permanent right to the lands which they had occupied under somewhat similar circ.u.mstances.

There appears little reason to doubt that Teira's proposal to sell Waitara was prompted by a vindictive feeling towards Wi Kingi; for he knew well that by such mode of proceeding he would embroil those who would not consent with their European neighbours. At the same time it is a rather mortifying reflection that the astute policy of a _Maori_ chief should have prevailed to drag the Colony and Her Majesty's Government into a long and expensive war to avenge his own private quarrel.