Politics of the New Zealand Maori: protest and cooperation, 1891-1909 k35694617

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
ONE Introduction (page 3)
TWO The Maoris and European Settlement (page 9)
THREE Postwar Maori Protest Movements, 1870‐97 (page 33)
FOUR The Maori Parliament, 1891‐97 (page 48)
FIVE Maori Reaction to the Laws, 1891‐99 (page 68)
SIX Maori Committees, 1891‐97 (page 80)
SEVEN Conflicts in Maori Politics, 1898‐1902 (page 98)
EIGHT The Trail of the 1900 Legislation, 1901‐8 (page 113)
NINE The Renewal of Organized Maori Protest, 1905‐9 (page 130)
TEN The Role of European Justice and Maori Cooperation (page 145)
ELEVEN Conclusion (page 158)
Notes (page 165)
Glossary (page 181)
Bibliography (page 183)
Index (page 194)

Citation preview

Politics of the

New Zealand Maori Protest and Cooperation, 1891-1909

BLANK PAGE.

Politics of the New Zealand Maorl1 Protest and Cooperation, 1891-1909

John A. Williams

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PRESS Seattle and London

The photographs of Apirana Ngata and Hone Heke are reproduced courtesy of the Auckland Institute and Museum; the photograph of Koroniti courtesy of the Dominion Museum. All other illustrations are repro-

duced courtesy of the Alexander Turnbull Library. Copyright © 1969 by the University of Washington Press Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 69-14208 Printed in the United States of America

To the memory of M. W. Standish

BLANK PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wave accumulated a great many debts in preparing this study. A Fulbright grant from the United States Educational Foundation in New Zealand made possible a year of research in New Zealand. I have many obligations to my hosts

at the University of Auckland, especially to W. T. G. Airey, Bruce Biggs, Robert M. Chapman, P. W. Hohepa, John Miller, J. C. Reid, and Keith Sinclair. I also received generous assistance

from M. Te Hau of the Adult Education School and Miss E. Evans of the Auckland Institute and Museum. My debts in Wellington are great. My considerate hosts at

Victoria University of Wellington were Professor F. L. W. Wood, W. H. Oliver, and Mrs. Mary Boyd. I am greatly indebted also to C. R. H. Taylor of the Alexander Turnbull Library and to his efficient reference staff. I owe much too to the

late Michael Standish of the National Archives, whose premature death was a great loss to New Zealand scholarship. Thanks go also to Dr. T. Barrow of the Dominion Museum, Pamela Cocks, Arthur Helm, R. J. Martin, John Pascoe, and J. O. Wilson of the General Assembly Library. Mrs. B. Ranapia of the Education Department Correspondence School generously provided me with several translations from Maori documents.

In my travels around New Zealand I received generous assistance and informative conversation from W. J. Gardner and Professor J. G. A. Pocock of Canterbury University, E. J.

Hamlin of Hastings, R. R. Parata of Ruatoria, and Rangipo Mete-Kingi of Marton.

My supervisor at the University of Wisconsin, Professor vii

vit Acknowledgments Philip D. Curtin, was a strict but generous taskmaster, and Professor Andrew H. Clark of the Department of Geography and Peter J. Coleman of the Wisconsin State Historical Society were of great assistance. Final revision and typing at the University of Washington were aided by a grant from the Agnes Anderson Research Fund, for which I want to thank the Graduate School. Alice Alden prepared the maps. If errors or omissions still mar the text, it is not the fault of these generous friends and colleagues, but my own. JAW

Seattle, Washington July, 1968

CONTENTS

ONE Introduction 3

two ‘The Maoris and European Settlement 9 THREE Postwar Maori Protest Movements, 1870-97 33

FouR ‘The Maori Parliament, 1891-97 48 FIVE Maori Reaction to the Laws, 1891-99 68

SIX Maori Committees, 1891-97 80 SEVEN Conflicts in Maori Politics, 1898-1902 98 EIGHT ‘The Trial of the 1900 Legislation, 1901-8 113

1905-9 130

NINE ‘The Renewal of Organized Maori Protest,

Cooperation 145 ELEVEN Conclusion 158 TEN The Role of European Justice and Maori

Notes 165 Glossary 181 Bibliography 183 Index 194 1x

BLANK PAGE

ILLUSTRATIONS

Map 1: Principal Maori tribes 28 Map 2: Maori villages important in Maori politics 54 Title page of pamphlet recording debates

of the Maori parliament 59

Following 100 Family group at Parihaka Parihaka

Wi Parata Wi Pere Takarangi Mete Kingi Keepa Taitoko (Major Kemp) Apirana Ngata Hone Heke Te Heuheu Tukino V Henare Tomoana Parihaka Koroniti

x4

BLANK PAGE

Politics of the New Zealand Maori Protest and Cooperation, 1891-1909

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The attitude of the Maori mind towards the new

| conceptions of sovereignty, personified by the Queen, Government, as embodied in the Governor and his officials, the ownership of land according to custom and usage as guaranteed by the Treaty,

and finally, towards the abstract idea of legal equality with the representatives of the new culture, is a subject well worth the attention of the

ethnologist. Sir Apirana N gata, 1929 *

Tue euroreans who settled the New World lands of North America, Australia, and New Zealand in the massive migrations of the nineteenth century largely displaced the indigenous inhabitants. American Indians, Australian Aborigines, and New Zealand Maoris alike lost their land and their independence and were reduced in numbers, some groups, such as the Tasmanians,’ becoming entirely extinct. These are the defeated peoples of the process of European expansion. The peoples of Europe’s Asian and African dependencies, who lost their independence in the nineteenth century, are regaining it in the twentieth. The defeat of Maoris, Aborigines, and Indians has been more complete and more permanent. Beyond the adventurous stages of their initial resistance, usually viewed from the

standpoint of the heroic pioneers, their history has therefore attracted little attention.

The job of reconstructing the history of these peoples has 3

4 | Politics of the New Zealand Maort seemed difficult and unprofitable for two main reasons. First, they were preliterate societies, and they left little documentation of the process of their destruction. Second, these peoples, Indians

and Aborigines in particular, were divided into many small groups, scattered along the periphery of the moving frontier of European settlement. The study of single groups involves the

historian in the minutiae of local history. The story of the “defeated peoples” is not one story but is inevitably many small stories, no one of them very significant to the general picture. One of the most difficult and neglected jobs for the historian of these local events, therefore, is to distinguish between the unique details of one episode and the significant events that may be fitted into a general pattern.” This study will examine a short period of the history of one of these “defeated peoples,” the New Zealand Maoris. The Maoris

are a Polynesian people, closely related to the Tahitians and Samoans. The question of the timing and circumstances of their

arrival in New Zealand is controversial, their own traditions indicating that they migrated from the land of “Hawaiki” possi-

bly in the fourteenth century. Modern scholars, fitting these traditions into a broader body of evidence, have shown that Polynesians occupied the islands much earlier, before a.p. 1000. Maori migration traditions refer, then, not to the original inhabitants but to later arrivals. ‘The most recent arguments have also swung away from the idea of the planned migration of a fleet, and have raised the possibility of accidental voyages by isolated canoes.”

Maori population before the arrival of the Europeans was probably about 200,000 but has been estimated as high as 500,000 and as low as 100,000,’ a population divided into kinship groups, extended families, clans, and tribes. Their culture—in particular their carving, agriculture, religion, and music—was an interesting and unique variant of the general Polynesian type.”

Though the Maoris were in many ways unique, their experience provides a case study of the impact of European settlement

Introduction p) on a New World people. Compared with other cases, the history of the Maoris’ reaction to settlement is exceptionally well documented. From the early days of European settlement, the Maoris made speeches, wrote letters, drafted petitions, held meetings, and published newspapers. This activity, of course, is not typical of the New World people. It may, therefore, be objected that the Maoris, generally successful in adjusting to European settlement,

are not at all comparable to the Indians and Aborigines, who have largely failed to make this adjustment. But a study of the Maoris may contribute insight into the general history of the “defeated peoples,” even though their situations are dissimilar. If the success of the Maoris can be defined and explained in con-

crete terms, the result may furnish the criteria to account for failure elsewhere. One obstacle in interpreting Maori history is the vagueness and

ambiguity of the term “success.” Success can only be measured

relative to a goal. Whose goal, then, should be fixed as the standard—that of the Maoris or that of the European settlers? The answer is not obvious; nor is it clear whether the preservation of traditional Maori culture or the thorough assimilation of

the Maoris to European culture should be judged the more desirable alternative, the more successful adjustment. In a given political context, these questions may perhaps be answered. Some historians and most anthropologists have preferred to avoid giving absolute answers but have guarded themselves with a shield of skeptical relativism. ‘The question to be posed in this study is a more limited one: what were the Maori goals, and how successful were the Maoris in achieving them?

This study will avoid as far as possible the sort of moral judgments often made by the historians of Maori, Indian, and Aborigine. It is tempting and easy to blame the settlers for the fate of the Indians, to label the destruction of Indian culture a crime, or, among the realists, to deplore the results of settlement for the Indians as unfortunate but inevitable. By analogy, it seems to be common in New Zealand for the descendants of settlers to

| 6 Politics of the New Zealand Maori | take credit themselves for the good position of the Maoris. It is

true, of course, that many of the crimes perpetrated against

| Indians and Aborigines were not repeated in New Zealand. But the aggressive conduct of the settlers does not in itself account for —

the fate of the American Indian, nor does the New Zealand

Maori people. |

settlers’ less violent behavior account for the better position of the

_ The attitudes and actions of the settlers are only one factor in a complex set of causes and circumstances. The special regard of

many Europeans for the Maoris, the strength of humanitarianism, the feeling that no injustice should be done to the Maoris— these are pervasive and important facts in New Zealand history. The importance of these attitudes, however, is not that they led the settlers always to safeguard Maori interests. The interest of settler and Maori conflicted constantly, but the Maoris were never

driven to the wall. Because of settler attitudes the Maoris had a chance to make something of their new situation; that they did

so is to their credit.

The Maoris have used two main approaches, which I term

| protest and cooperation, to the problem of improving their position in the new society. Since the early days of settlement, some

Maoris have believed that their interests were best served by cooperation with the Europeans. They have seen European settlement as an opportunity for the Maoris; they have seen a harmony

of interests; they have trusted the assurances of the Europeans and have found a satisfactory safeguard for their interests in the exercise of the rights and privileges of British subjects through the political institutions established by the settlers; finally they have in some cases accepted the paternal protection of the government as genuine and as necessary to the Maori people. But protest has always been present as a contrasting attitude in Maori pollitics. Maori protest movements have seen European settlement as

-a threat and have emphasized the conflict between Maori and European interests; they have tended to mistrust the settlers, to be dissatisfied with their limited political power in the settler-

Introduction / dominated government, and to fall back on their tribal institu-

tions and their mana Maori. They have in general rejected paternalism and asserted Maori capabilities to be equal to those of the Europeans. These distinctions are here overdrawn, and there has actually been a constant interplay between the two attitudes and an ambivalence in given movements and even in individual Maoris. An aim of this study is to focus more than previously on

Maori protest, while avoiding, if possible, an overcorrection by which the important role of cooperation would be overlooked. To emphasize the conflicting interests of Maori and settler and to stress the efforts of the Maoris to better their situation through

protest should not be taken as an attempt to decry the record of New Zealand race relations, or to play up injustice and conflict. The aim of this study is to correct the previous overemphasis on cooperation and harmony in Maori-settler relations, but not in order to show that these relations were therefore bad. Minority protest need not be a sign of bad race relations any more than political controversy is a sign of an unhealthy state of politics. The American southern governors and mayors who insisted that race relations were excellent so long as things were quiet and agitators were kept out were merely trying to conceal injustice. The apparent tranquillity meant fear rather than justice, and the noisy demonstrations brought improvement. Similarly in New Zealand, conflict or protest can often be taken as a sign of health in race relations and not necessarily as an “incident” indicating a bad situation.

In examining the Maori efforts to better their condition in New Zealand society, this study will focus on the years from 1890

to 1910, a period often regarded as a turning point in Maori history. By this time the Maoris, defeated militarily in the 1860’s, had come to accept the permanence of European settlement. By

1890 the Maoris were becoming aware of the significance of European political power, and from 1890 on they rapidly became more articulate, better organized, and more effective in their use of political techniques borrowed from the settlers. The Maoris

8 Politics of the New Zealand Maort also recognized more fully the opportunities they had within the new society. Their goals came to be more and more to improve their position within the developing society rather than to

resist its encroachment. During these years, then, the Maoris developed and defined their means and their ends. New organizations combined with traditional leadership, and new economic

enterprise combined with traditional social values, to form a pattern of Maori development that was to persist for several decades after 1900. Maori cultural change by no means slowed down in the first half of the twentieth century, but the Maori ideas of what was desirable in their own and in European culture

remained fairly fixed until after the middle of the twentieth century.

The Maori response to European culture can be viewed as an attempt to select advantageous elements and reject disadvantages, and to preserve and strengthen the best traditions while abandoning others. The importance of the period from 1890 to 1910 was

that by this time the Maori choice of traditional and European traits was blending into an enduring synthesis. ‘This process of selective change, in which the Maoris tried to control the impact of European culture, can be seen operating from the first stages of

European contact. But each generation of Maoris experiencing European contact, except perhaps the first, had to live in a society in which many changes had already been made. By 1890, changes

were very extensive, and the Maoris of that generation did not have the free choice that they believed or wished they had of accepting or rejecting change. A brief survey of the stages of Maori cultural change before 1890, and a description of the state of Maori society about 1890, is therefore a necessary background to the analysis of the period from 1890 to 1910.

CHAPTER TWO

THE MAORIS AND EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT

You brought us your cwilization, and you dectmated our ranks with strange diseases and modern

armaments. You supplied us with firearms, and when in the lust of war we had slain almost half of the flower of our race (and a few of yours), you punished us as rebels and confiscated our lands. You gave us the Bible and you broke its precepts.

You taught us ethics and you had no scruples in your transactions with us. You gave us alcohol and

then punished us and gave us an evil name for using it. Our fathers destred to be civilized, but because of your inconsistencies they abandoned your teaching and opposed it with their hearts’ blood. We retrograded, and the gap between us widened. You have had to make up the ground lost by the bad example of your fathers: we have

had to overcome the distrust and suspicion engendered in the hearts of ours and transmitted to us, ere we could once more take up the broken

thread of progress. Arawa chiefs, 1907 *

9

10 Politics of the New Zealand Maori

‘Tue FIRST sTAGE of European contact with the Maoris extended from 1769 to 1840, from the time of Captain Cook’s visit to the beginning of large-scale European settlement.

During this period the Europeans came in small numbers as whalers, traders, missionaries, and casual visitors. Permanent set-

tlers were few, and the Maoris were dominant in the country, their culture remaining relatively intact. These first Europeans did not carry with them the full range and variety of European culture, and the Maoris borrowed specific goods and customs, fitting them into the context of their own culture. Thus, during this period they began to use European clothing, blankets, iron

tools, and muskets. These borrowings began the process of change, and Maori society was changing at an accelerating pace in the 1820’s and 1830's, both because the numbers of Europeans were increasing and because each change reacted on Maori society in unexpected and manifold ways. To acquire the manufactured goods they desired in increasing quantities, the Maoris took up new economic activities. They cut timber and flax and dug kauri gum, the amber-like pitch of the kauri tree which was prized by the Europeans for varnish. Many of them about this time moved their village sites from the hilltops

to the river-fronts and valleys, closer to the marshes and the gumfields. Their desire for the convenience of European goods was thus changing Maori work patterns and village life. This accelerating process of change would soon no longer be under their choice or control.

The unexpected ramifications of European techniques on Maori society is best illustrated by the episode of the musket wars. In the 1820’s and early 1830's, first the northern and then the

central and southern tribes of the North Island acquired muskets and ravaged their neighbors in a long series of tribal wars. At first the muskets seemed simply to be a more efficient method of

The Maoris and European Settlement I] carrying on traditional Maori warfare, waged for such traditional reasons as utu, or revenge. But the wars were soon out of control.

There seemed no indigenous solution for the endless cycle of attack and revenge. The increased loss of life from war and new diseases, as well as the increased enslavement and cannibalism, caused a drastic population decline and a severe disruption of traditional social organization. When traditional methods failed to solve these new problems, the Maoris had perforce to turn to further changes in their search for solutions. This accelerating pace of cultural change marks a second stage of the Maori reaction to European contact, beginning about 1835 and extending through the 1850’s. This period is characterized by

the enthusiastic and wholesale adoption of European cultural forms. The period began with extensive conversion to Christianity, which the Maoris saw as a possible solution to the problems of war, disease, cannibalism, and slavery. The Maori conversion therefore proceeded rapidly from the late 1830’s; Anglican, Meth-

odist, and other missions flourished, and to some degree the Maoris converted themselves even before the arrival of white missionaries to their districts.” Another major reason for the increased pace of change was the

beginning of large-scale European settlement in 1840. In that year, some Maori chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi, ceding sovereignty to the queen. As this event was taking place in the north, the ships of the New Zealand Company were bringing several thousand colonists to the Cook Strait region. New Zealand had become a British colony, a colony for settlers as well as

Maoris. Now the Maoris were exposed not merely to isolated European goods and practices but to European society as a whole. Next to religion, the resulting cultural changes were most notable

in Maori economic life, as settlement brought the Maoris fully into a market economy. By the 1850’s, several tribes had begun to

practice commercial agriculture. They not only raised large quantities of grain, but some of them built their own flour mills and acquired their own ocean-going vessels.”

12 Politics of the New Zealand Maori The growth of the settlement, however, meant not only new and richer sources of European influence but also a control and limitation of Maori opportunities. Before 1840 the Maoris had dominated and the Europeans had been guests, useful people to have around a village. Now the Europeans were a self-contained

and aggressively growing society, threatening to outstrip the Maoris in power, and definitely becoming rivals for land and resources. Ten years after the beginning of settlement the colony was firmly established, with a population of about 25,000. During the 1850’s the European population surpassed the declining Maori population, reaching 79,000 by 1860. The Maori population of

about 55,000 was concentrated in the North Island, where the Maoris were in a majority for a few more years. After 1860 the growth of the settlement accelerated, and by 1870 there were 250,000 settlers; by 1880, 485,000; by 1890, 625,500. The Maori population, declining to a low point of about 40,000 in 1896, was left far behind.” The Maori challenge to what had become a threat rather than an opportunity came with the Maori land wars of the 1860’s, in which the tribes of the central North Island fought the settlers in a series of sporadic campaigns lasting over a decade. These wars

interrupted the rapid adjustment of the Maoris to European economic practices, ushering in what has been called a “mood of reaction,” in which some of the Maoris reacted against European ways and revived some of their recently abandoned traditional

customs. Several historians of the Maori have argued that this mood of reaction dominated the Maori people until the 1890's and that a feeling of discouragement and psychological defeat leading to population decline was the prevalent condition of the people.” This idea has now largely been rejected by scholars. Raymond Firth, for example, argues that the “mood of reaction” was over by 1880.° M. P. K. Sorrenson, going farther, shows that there was no loss of the will to live among those Maoris defeated in the wars of the 1860’s and that population decline was more prevalent among Maoris who had not fought against the Europe-

The Maorts and European Settlement 13 ans. As we shall see, the defeated tribes were often better off than the loyal or neutral tribes. Maori suspicion caused political and religious opposition, and sometimes even social withdrawal,

but the economic and cultural adjustment to European ways continued. The flour mills and sailing ships were no longer in use, mainly because as European settlement advanced, European firms offered these services more cheaply and efficiently. Capital losses the Maoris sustained during the wars also probably prevented them from replacing or maintaining these expensive facilities. The confiscation of three million acres of land, only partly from the “rebel” tribes, also disrupted the Maori economic adjustment. Some of the European observations of Maori isolation and backwardness during the period following the wars can therefore be accepted in a political but not in a cultural or economic sense.

Maori progress during the period from 1870 to 1890 was slowed, then, not so much by a “mood of reaction” as by the fact

that Maori control over decisions affecting Maori welfare was steadily being lost. From 1840 to 1852, under governors Hobson, FitzRoy, and Grey, New Zealand was a Crown Colony. Power was centered in the governor, who was the representative of the queen with whom the Maoris had signed the Treaty of Waitangi. But by the Constitution Act of 1852 the colony received represent-

ative institutions. For the time being the governor reserved Maori affairs as part of the queen’s prerogative, but finally during the 1860’s the extension of full internal self-government gave the

settlers full, or nearly full, control over the Maoris. The Maoris were subjects of the queen, but the cabinet in Wellington (the capital from 1865) had become the queen’s responsible ministers. And because the Treaty of Waitangi had given the Maoris all the rights and privileges of British subjects, they could not be barred from political participation. At a time, therefore, when the boon meant little to most Maoris and at a time when the Maoris were

still militarily dangerous, they were given the franchise. The Maori Representation Act of 1867 created four Maori parliamentary seats, Northern, Western, Southern, and Eastern, each to be

14 Politics of the New Zealand Maort elected in an open ballot by Maori electors by manhood suffrage.

The four Maori members faced an overwhelming European membership of ninety-one in the 1880's, seventy in the 1890’s, and

seventy-six since 1902. The number of Maori members has not varied, though they did at times hold seats in the upper house. Since the Maoris were represented in Parliament, the settlers could argue, laws affecting them involved no oppression or alien rule. The guarantee of the Treaty of Waitangi that the Maoris would be ruled by their own chiefs was simply no longer relevant; and Section 72 of the Constitution Act, which empowered the governor to set up special self-governing Maori districts, had become outdated and unnecessary.

The New Zealand Parliament, therefore, could and did pass laws affecting Maori land. In fact, Maori land legislation was a key factor in New Zealand politics in the decades from 1860 to 1890. Political issues during these years were issues of economic

development. There were no organized political parties but rather groups of politicians supporting local and regional economic interests, or the interests of a particular industry or business enterprise. The powerful politicians, the men who formed ministries, tended to be the powerful speculators, whose legislative program and economic policy might be bent to serve their private interest. Their system of speculation and development was fed from two vital sources, overseas borrowing and Maori land. The 1870's, in particular, were the great years of borrowing,

but the depth and duration of depression in the 1880’s brought the colony to the end of its credit, driving politicians to tinker

constantly with the tax system.” To keep Maori land on the market, legally and without force or fraud, required, during these

same years, a similar tinkering and experimentation with the land laws.

The Maori representatives sat in the House and watched the progress of legislation which vitally affected the interests of their people; yet they were too few in number to influence the results,

except in an occasional deadlocked House, and they did not

The Maorts and European Settlement 15 always fully understand the proceedings. They were not, therefore, effective in safeguarding Maori interests, while on these

issues of land purchase the European members were singleminded and effective. By 1890 a massive and complicated body of legislation existed concerning Maori land, the result of a half-century search for an

easy and effective way of alienating Maori land to European settlers. Land held by traditional Maori tenure was not easily alienable. It belonged to the whole tribe, whose title was based on

conquest, discovery, gift, and use. Within the system of tribal ownership, families and individuals had specific rights to cultivation grounds, eel weirs, territories for bird-snaring and rat-catch-

ing, and for other economic uses. The chief alone could not alienate the land of the tribe, nor could any individual dispose of his own rights to an outsider. The land could be alienated only with the consent of all the owners, acting through the chief.”

The European settlers found these rules of land tenure very inconvenient, and in their efforts to apply European assumptions about land transactions ran into several difficulties. At times the

Maori sellers, not understanding the nature of the transaction, might sell for a trifle, and the tribe might then repudiate the sale. In other cases, the seller might not be one of the true owners at all. He might be taking advantage of the European purchaser’s ignorance by selling land that belonged to another tribe. In the

confusing aftermath of the musket wars such frauds could be easily accomplished. In some areas, indeed, no one could say who owned the land. The Maoris themselves could not have resolved these disputes without further resort to force.”

A major purpose of the Treaty of Waitangi was to bring land transactions under the law and thus avoid racial conflict over land. The second article guaranteed to the Maoris possession of their property “so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession.” But if they should desire to sell their land the Crown claimed the exclusive right to buy it: “The Chiefs

of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her

16 Politics of the New Zealand Maori Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as

may be agreed upon... .”” This provision of Crown pre-emption had always been contro-

versial, for it did not by itself guarantee the easy transfer of Maori land to settlers. It could in fact be used as a means of protecting the Maoris’ land. Governor FitzRoy waived the power in 1844, but Governor Grey resumed it in 1846. In 1862 the New

Zealand Parliament waived it once again, opening the way for private purchasers to “free trade” in Maori land. This change alone was not enough for the settlers. The system of purchasing the traditional title from the Maoris was slow and cumbersome and enabled the Maoris to withhold land from sale. To solve this

problem the New Zealand Parliament created the Native Land Court in 1865. The court had three jobs. First it had simply to determine the traditional Maori title as it had stood in 1840, so

that the land would be purchased from the rightful owners. Second, it had to issue legal Crown grants to replace the traditional title. By the 1865 act ten names were placed on each Crown grant. The Maoris regarded these ten as trustees for the tribe, but

in law they were the owners and could sell the land. This patently unfair feature was removed in 1873. Thenceforth, all the owners were placed on the Crown grant for each block. Finally, the court was given the job of turning the communal tribal titles into individual Crown titles. Any individual Maori could apply

to have his share of the communal block partitioned off. This step smoothed the way for private purchasers and, incidentally, removed one of the main props of Maori social organization and traditional authority.” In the 1870’s and 1880’s the operation of these laws made possible a system of legalized land grabbing. And yet, although the system was exposed and condemned by a Royal Commission in 1891, most of the European settlers insisted that no injustice ought to be done to the Maoris and that indeed no injustice was

being done. The Auckland Chamber of Commerce stated in

The Maoris and European Settlement 17 1891, for example, that it was “necessary ... that the Maoris should be equitably dealt with if their land were taken.” “ Much of their land already had been taken. But the continued flow of

new land onto the market was considered vital to continued development, and the public attitude was emphatic. As long as the Maoris were protected against fraud and the public against monopolist speculators, no injustice would be done. Governments were misguided if they delayed the purchase of Maori land out of regard for the Maoris. As of 1891, 40 per cent of the North Island was still owned by Maoris, nearly 11,000,000 of the 28,400,000 acres. But nearly a

quarter of this eleven million acres was leased to European settlers and only about half of it was held by titles awarded by the

Native Land Court, the remainder being held under customary title, the papatupu lands. Nearly all of the larger South Island, where there were few Maoris, was in European hands. But in the

North, from the settler point of view, much remained to be done,” and the government in the 1890’s had to be sensitive to the charge that large amounts of Maori land were unproductive. The pressure of the settlers was in fact increasing. The Liberal party won the election of 1890 with the support of

the small farmers and workers, forming the first coherent party government in New Zealand history. Under John Ballance and Richard John Seddon, the Liberals passed the welfare and labor legislation that first gave New Zealand its reputation as a radical

utopia. They also passed new land laws to encourage closer settlement, to break up the great speculative estates, and to provide cheap state credit and transportation for the small dairy and sheep farms. Technical innovations, such as refrigeration, the Babcock butterfat test, and the centrifugal cream separator, accompanied the legal innovations. These changes combined to

make the production and export of cheese, butter, and frozen lamb economically feasible, just after 1890. Their technical problems solved, encouraged by favorable laws and by rising prices from 1895, the small farmers flocked onto the rich, narrow plains

18 , Politics of the New Zealand Maort and the rolling, forested hills of New Zealand’s North Island. By the end of the 1890’s, the population of the North Island surpassed that of the South, and it has been pulling away ever since.’® The result of this economic transformation was inevitably to increase

the pressure on Maori land, for the extension of dairying was carrying settlement rapidly into the most heavily populated Maori districts. In the 1890’s, therefore, one of Parliament’s big jobs continued to be to open up Maori land; yet statements of concern for the welfare of the Maoris became more frequent than ever. As one Member of Parliament typically said, “I think we all have the kindliest feelings for the Natives, and I do not think any Parliament would ever permit the Natives to be ill-treated.” *’ Under the Liberal government, the job of reconciling justice with interest fell to James Carroll. Carroll’s ancestry was Irish and Maori, and politically he stood between the two races. He entered Parliament in 1887 as the Member for Eastern Maori, but after 1893 he sat for a regular European constituency. The Lib-

erals made him a Member of the Executive representing the Native Race, and he later held various cabinet posts. Carroll’s

erals. :

lofty position seemed to prove that even high places were open to

Maoris and that Maori interests were well guarded by the LibYet Carroll’s position was one of great difficulty. It was not easy to reconcile the demands of justice with the demands of political expediency, and the many contradictions in Carroll’s position leave doubt whether he was primarily the spokesman of the Maoris in the government or merely the spokesman of the government to the Maoris. In his report as a member of the Native Land Commission of 1891, for example, he supported the

idea that the Maoris should remain a distinct people with their own institutions for local self-government. Their “only hope and outlook,” he wrote, “is centred in the prospect of the Legislature

granting them the power . . . to control their own affairs.” Yet within a couple of years, Carroll was contradicting these views and calling for assimilation. He warmed to the prospect of Maori

The Maorts and European Settlement 19 and European alike becoming settlers and hoped that “there might be some method of sandwiching the Native and the European settlements throughout the country.” Such a system would give the Maoris_ the benefit of the European settlers’ example and, concluded Carroll, “the old ways of living of the Natives could then be entirely obliterated without any violent wrench.” *°

Carroll, it seems clear, had genuine sympathy and understanding for the Maoris, but he also had to look after his position as a Liberal politician. The Liberals’ great aim was to put the small settler on the land, and the continued purchasing of Maori land was vital to this aim. Carroll’s job was to implement the policy of the government and to persuade the Maoris to accept it. In turn, he undoubtedly worked within the government to mitigate any harsh features of the Liberal Maori land proposals.

The overwhelming public concern for Maori land purchase raises the question of how genuine the many expressions of concern for Maori welfare really were. Had not the Maoris been deprived of most of their land? Was the dispossession not con-

tinuing, with the alienation of a further three and one half million acres in the twenty years following 1891, the years of James Carroll’s greatest influence? “ Had not their population declined so that their very survival was in doubt? Was not their independent life and traditional social organization being destroyed by the encroachment of Europeans? These changes had taken place, but they were not events that most Europeans would have blamed on the conduct of the settlers. If the settlement of New Zealand by European colonists was desirable, and no settler questioned that, the life of the Maoris was bound to be affected. Some suffering was inevitable when an advanced met a primitive society. And many of the changes were truly not harmful to the

Maoris, but beneficial. By their faith that settlement would, in balance, be a benefit to the Maoris, the settlers could reconcile their desire for justice and their greater desire for Maori land. The popular picture of the Maori future envisaged the Maoris

20 Politics of the New Zealand Maori participating fully in the European economy. As of 1890 the Maoris had much more land than they would ever need—by European standards of pastoral and agricultural occupation. They should be allowed to sell it freely, and the government should not interfere. Then the labor of the settlers would raise the value of all land, and the Maoris would be able to use the

roads and bridges paid for by the settlers. Furthermore, the Maoris could imitate the example of their European neighbors by putting their remaining land into profitable production, or they could take jobs as wage laborers on the farms of settlers who had

purchased their land. One writer proposed to overcome the ree luctance of the Maoris to accept these conditions by inspiring — them with a desire for the more moderate luxuries of European civilization, which the Maoris would have to work to acquire.” Standing in the way of Maori progress was the Maoris’ communal social system. Individualism was the basis of European progress and would be the basis for Maori progress. Such was the

attitude of most of the European public in New Zealand. To abolish the communal Maori land tenure system was the first essential step toward individual betterment for the Maoris. As long as the land remained under communal title, enterprising individuals would have no incentive to make improvements, for the fruits of their labor would go equally to the least industrious of the common owners. To individualize the titles, as provided in

the act of 1873, would, it was believed, set the most energetic _ Maoris free from the shackles of Maori communalism.

Evidence of the so-called indolence of the Maoris was fre-

: quently cited to show that the Maoris needed the incentive of | individual responsibility to spur them on. It was observed that

they worked in groups, sporadically, and only in pursuit of immediate needs. G. T. Wilkinson, the Resident Magistrate in the King Country, commented in 1892, for example, that “the Natives throughout the King-country are not a very industrious class—that is, they do not grow more food than is required for their own consumption.” ** Another observer noticed that “the

The Maoris and European Settlement 21 younger Maoris prefer football to cricket, and the older ones _ sheepshearing to regular farming.” ”

The poor social conditions fostered by the Maori system of communal village life, it was argued, were responsible in no small

degree for the calamitous decline in Maori population. Condemned most often were the Awis, large social gatherings, and the

tangis, or Maori funerals. At these meetings the overcrowding and lack of sanitation of the Maori village were accentuated by the presence of hundreds of visitors. The hosts of these meetings

were often impoverished by the requirements of hospitality, while the visitors neglected their own homes, children, and cultivations.

The European settlers, then, did not accept responsibility for the Maori population decline. Some argued that it had begun even before the arrival of the white man. Others postulated an inexorable law that caused less advanced peoples to decline when they came into contact with the superior Europeans. The Maoris, according to this theory, had been psychologically defeated and had lost the will to live. But those better informed did not regard the Maori situation as hopeless. As James H. Pope pointed out in

his influential manual, Health for the Maori, social conditions among the Maoris were not very different from those of seventeenth-century England: Two hundred years ago the English used to crowd themselves close together into close, foul places, where no fresh air could be got: so do the Maoris. The English took no pains to get thoroughly pure water

for drinking: neither do the Maoris. When fever broke out, the English took little trouble to prevent the disease from spreading: so do the Maoris. The English were not careful enough about keeping away from the bodies of people that had died: neither are the Maoris.

The English used to drink too much strong drink: so do the Maoris.. . . The English were not careful to choose dry, well-drained sites for their houses: nor are the Maoris. Many of the English were

ignorant and foolish, and believed in witches, and in foolish and dangerous plans for curing the sick: so do many of the Maoris. The

22 Politics of the New Zealand Maort English people sometimes used to die off very fast indeed: so do the Maoris.”°

The Maoris had only to be set on the same path of progress the English had taken. The Maoris’ problems would be solved, the

Europeans of New Zealand believed, if the Maoris would, in economics, society, and culture, virtually become Europeans. The

system of education for the Maoris was designed to further this aim. Building on what the missionaries had accomplished since

1814, the government had set up a system of Maori village primary schools in 1871. By 1889 there were seventy-two Maori village schools in operation with two thousand Maori students.“

In addition the churches had provided a number of secondary boarding schools, including Hukarere and Te Aute colleges in Hawke’s Bay, and St. Stephen’s and Three Kings’ schools in Auckland. The primary schools, at least, touched the life of most

of the tribes, and were a most powerful source of European influence acting on the younger generation.

Believing that economic opportunity and education would solve most problems, the government made no systematic effort before 1900 to improve Maori social conditions. Schemes to deal with the Maoris’ condition as a social problem rather than as a

series of individual problems had not yet found favor. The government did give financial assistance to many indigent individuals. In emergencies, such as the Waikato floods of 1893, the state provided wage labor on public works. The most extensive public aid to Maoris during the 1890’s was the payment of doctors for giving free medical attention. But this service reached only those Maoris near European settlements. The Maoris of Porirua or Hastings were well served, but those of North Cape, Tokaanu, or the Urewera country were neglected. The idea of encouraging

the Maoris to help themselves on a communal basis was also unpopular at this time. John M. Grace suggested in 1884, for example, that the Maoris should form “Local Boards of Health” under their chiefs, to clean up the villages and improve health

The Maoris and European Settlement 23 and sanitation. But he cautioned that such boards might become

“the thin end of the wedge for ‘local self-government for Maoris.’” *° This objection was apparently decisive, and no more

was heard of this scheme. Anything enabling the Maoris to remain a distinct communal people was to be avoided. The settlers’ statements of concern for Maori justice and welfare, and the European prescription for Maori problems, were not

merely a series of rationalizations to justify land grabbing, though such rationalization probably occurred. As part of a highly ethnocentric society, the Europeans in New Zealand believed that their own way of life was the only progressive way. An essential part of that way of life was self-reliance and selfhelp. If the Maoris wanted to amount to something it was up to

them. Their proper goal should be to become Europeans. In setting this aim for the Maoris, the settlers were paying them a

high compliment, for not every colored race was considered capable of acquiring European culture. The Maoris were in fact considered a cut above other non-European races and were worthy of being assimilated into European society. The test of the

sincerity of these statements would be the willingness of the Europeans to accept the full implications of this assimilation, intermarriage, and some of them did accept this possibility. “I look forward to the next hundred years or so,” said one Member of Parliament, “to the time when we shall have no Maoris at all,

but a white race with a dash of the finest coloured race in the world.” *°

This special regard for the Maoris is of basic importance in understanding New Zealand history, yet the reasons for it can only be guessed. In the first place, Europeans found the Polynesian type attractive and admired the Polynesian social traits of hospitality and independence. Second, the strong influence of the Evangelical missionaries of the early nineteenth century carried over into later New Zealand history. New Zealand attitudes were

established before the vogue of “scientific” racism in the later nineteenth century. Finally, the economic system was also impor-

24 Politics of the New Zealand Maori tant: the European settlers created dairy farms and sheep stations, rather than plantations, and therefore did not reduce the Maoris into a subject labor supply. Because the Maoris were economically independent, the Pakehas did not develop the racial attitudes of “white masters.” The Maori bravery in war and cheerful adaptability also commanded the admiration of Europeans. A survey of the actual state of the Maori people around 1890 reveals that the European impression of the Maoris was misleading in at least two ways. First, many European observations were colored by a desire to obtain Maori land and therefore laid stress on Maori cultural conservatism, arguing that the Maoris should

not be allowed to hold up the progress of the colony. Such an argument ignored the steady adoption of European material culture by the Maoris, even at a time of political resistance to the

Europeans. In their food and clothing, houses, transportation, and agriculture, the Maoris of the 1890’s had conspicuously gone over to European ways. In the second place, with their decided notion of what the Maoris ought to do, many European observers condemned anything Maori as backward and any sort of European contact as progressive for the Maoris. Yet many Maoris and a few Europeans believed that certain traditional practices provided cohesion and a basis for Maori progress, and that much of

the European influence was threatening and disruptive. There was much in the Maori social scene of about 1890 to bear them out.

Settlers in the country towns of the North Island had a good chance to observe the Maoris in their nearby villages, where they

held frequent and large political and social meetings. These meetings were expensive, but they were also well organized, orderly, and businesslike. They revealed much to those Europeans who took the trouble to observe them. It came as a surprise to one newspaper reporter that the Maori men at one of the meetings were “in dress and general appearance. . . exactly like their white neighbours,” while another reporter added that he found

“very many of them with all the behaviour and bearing of

The Maoris and European Settlement 25 well-bred English gentlemen.” The Maori women, on the other hand, wore “European clothes, but in their own style.” The food at the meetings was Maori fare, including eels, mutton birds, pigeons and other fowl, pigs, potatoes, and kumara, but it was served in European fashion. The dishes and silver at one meeting were said to be “equal to those in use in a modern city hotel.” At another meeting meals were served on “snow-white table covers, glistening with china, glass, silver, and steel, decked out with vases, flowers, and served by faultlessly dressed waiters and waitresses, all natives.” The reporter commented on this scene “how

apt the Maori is to adopt our pakeha manners.” Liquor was excluded from these large Maori gatherings, and the Maoris held morning and evening religious services at each meeting.” Maori living conditions and economic activities of the 1890's also reveal the great extent of Europeanized domestic and economic life. The Ngati Porou tribe of the East Coast, for example, began organized commercial sheep farming in 1889. They had gained valuable experience during the 1880’s as wage laborers for European settlers, clearing, planting grass, fencing, and building stockyards. “We must be blind indeed,” said one of their leaders,

“not to see that what we can do for them we are able to do for ourselves, provided we had the money.” The Ngati Porou had difficulty in borrowing from the state or private lending agencies, but rents, wages, and the proceeds of land sales provided enough capital to make a beginning. Finally, a large loan from Archdea-

con Samuel Williams, “upon absolutely no security but the Maoris’ word of honor,” enabled these Maoris to overcome their early difficulties.”

This development was not unique. Commercial grain growing in the Bay of Plenty was well established in the 1880's. In the King Country, casual labor in flax cutting, rabbit killing, or road

making provided a living for many Maoris, but a few leaders were beginning to graze sheep on the tribal land. According to one estimate, there were six thousand sheep on the Rohe Potae block, in the heart of the King Country, in 1890. Even around

26 Politics of the New Zealand Maort Rotorua, where the influx of tourists visiting the thermal springs had caused serious social evils among the Maoris, the Maoris by 1890 were acquiring European agricultural implements, carts and horses, and bullock teams.” In North Auckland, the prevalent occupation of gum-digging was unhealthy and too irregular to provide a good living. It kept

the Maoris away from their villages, causing them to neglect cultivation and education. It was therefore condemned by some of the reformers, but a few recognized in it a valuable source of cash income during the Maoris’ transition from the traditional

economy. The villages and the surrounding pastures of this region were in marked contrast to the gumfields. Chiefs like Wi Katene and Hone Mohi Tawhai were taking up sheep farming. A New Zealand Herald reporter, traveling north in 1891, found

conditions excellent in the villages near Hokianga Harbour. Taheke was notable for its “nicely kept paddocks and good orchard.” There, he wrote, “the chief Pereniki Wharerau farms several hundred acres, has a European house, and supplies his neighborhood with meat and other farm produce.” He remarked of other villages in the district that “the social condition of the natives, and the surroundings of their homes would not disgrace European settlers.” His description of Whirinaki is idyllic: The Whirinaki stream, stocked with fish, winds through the valley and the settlement, while up the range—a streak of silver set in dark green foliage—could be seen the Whirinaki falls. The social condition of the natives was far superior to anything I had hitherto seen in this

province—comfortable dwellings, the crops securely fenced, cows browsing in the emerald green pastures, horses in the paddocks, and bullock-teams about... . The Maoris were enjoying their Saturday afternoon’s holiday. A cricket match was on in the settlement recreation ground.”

The Maoris in the southern districts of the North Island, in the plains of Manawatu, Wairarapa, and Hawke’s Bay, and along the West Coast from Porirua to Otaki were already becoming pro-

The Maoris and European Settlement 27 ductive settlers in the early 1880's. These plains dwellers, Ngatiapa, Rangitane, Ngati Raukawa, and Ngati Kahungunu, had been the victims of the ruthless land purchase system of the 1860’s

and 1870's. Disease, drink, and neglect of their cultivations dur-

ing the prolonged sittings of the Native Land Court had led during these years to a decline in population among these tribes. The little remaining land in some cases was left in almost useless “fiddle-string” blocks, several miles long and only a few rods wide. These districts became predominantly European in charac-

ter, and intermarriage was drawing some of the Maoris completely into European society. All of the Maoris in this part of the

North Island were adopting a manner of life that was more European than traditional. In their villages, such as Otaki and Waikanae on the West Coast, and Papawai, Waipatu, and Waipawa, many were already living in European-style houses by 1890.

They gained their living from their small cultivations, and from rents and wage labor on the Pakeha farms. They had, therefore, a source of capital, and with their land titles settled some of them were able to go ahead with farming on their reduced estates. In 1902 Apirana Negata testified to the prosperity of the Rangitikei Maoris, who were supplying cream to the dairy

factory at Rata; and a traveler in 1895 was surprised to notice that the Maoris at Moawhango had European employees: “The Maoris possess fine teams of horses and waggons, and we thought it somewhat singular to see a European in charge of one of these teams, taking instructions from his coloured employer.” *

In the Wairarapa, under the leadership of Tamahau Mahupuku, the Maoris used their earnings from wage labor and rents to lease Crown land that they had sold a generation before. Their transition to agriculture was not at all complete. Though less well

off, the coastal Maoris near Wellington got their living from similar sources: rents, wages, fishing, small cultivations, and a few sheep. In Hawke’s Bay, where the Maoris owned more land,

REFERENCE MAP SHOWING PRINCIPAL MAORI TRIBES

e”

%,% Bay of Islands

Hokianga Harbour

Little

Barrier island

6) AY

[e)

Poo

Auckland

waikoy? Bay of Sato R.

\ Plenty

% ; Porou King East

3, . ott ’

, %. prow? Ngati For Country & Urewera 2. Country ot Coast Th

o Gisborne Lake Neugo

yr Taranaki we Hawkes os

Bay

& \ y

Y

> SS

&

< gnowatd ry . oS

~

Wellington , Woirorapa

Map 1

The Maorts and European Settlement 29 they grew great quantities of wheat and maize for the commercial market from the early 1880’s on.

~The Maoris of Taranaki also lived in a district largely given over to close settlement by Europeans. They had been dispossessed by confiscation after the wars. Under the religious prophets

Te Whiti and Tohu of Parihaka, they rejected the influence of the government, whose paternalism seemed to them a mere mask

for land grabbing. Te Whiti’s achievement was that, while he rejected the overtures of the government, he and his followers by

their own efforts turned Parihaka into a model Maori village, which incorporated all the benefits of European material culture. They built a good macadamized road, “culverted, fenced, and as

smooth as a bicycle track,” from the main road to Parihaka. Parihaka itself had well laid out streets and modern Europeanstyle houses. Dr. Maui Pomare reported in 1902 that “the old

Native houses which have made Parihaka a place of historic interest . . . will be a thing of the past.” The larger of the new houses were elaborately provided with hot and cold running water, clean bedsteads with sheets and blankets, and washstands. The village had a bakery, slaughterhouses, blacksmith shops, and a modern communal dining room. The pride of the village was the water supply. Clear mountain water was stored in a concrete

reservoir and pumped half a mile to a hill top by means of a hydraulic ram. From a large concrete cistern on the hill top mains and pipes led to the houses, providing a strong pressure. After 1900 the overflow from the cistern was used to generate electricity to light the village.

Parihaka, for all its modern improvements, was an economic liability to those who built it. The monthly meetings and the contributions to Te Whiti’s Day of Reckoning Fund were expen-

sive to his followers and kept them away from their home settlements. The wages that they might earn in gathering mushrooms, or bush-felling and road-making, were turned over to the prophets for use at Parihaka. One critic charged that Te Whiti’s

30 Politics of the New Zealand Maort followers were impoverished by the movement “to such a degree that they could not, if they would, make similar improvements in

their own surroundings.” “The great objection to Parihaka,” added another observer, “is that it has not developed to its present

wealthiness on its own industrial efforts. ... What is more required is self-supporting Maori settlements.” But such settlements had difficulty getting started within the range of Parihaka’s influence.”

This extensive adoption of European cultural traits and economic activities was common to most of the tribes, even though the tribes varied widely in their political attitudes and in the extent of changes in their social organization. Neither the Maori people in general nor even any group of them were demoralized

and discouraged to the point of giving up the struggle for survival. Their leaders were, on the contrary, fully aware of the opportunities opened by the introduction of the European economy. This postwar generation was, in short, adaptive and progressive, not sunk into the “dark ages.” If, then, the old view of the “dark ages” is no longer acceptable, the significance of the post-1890 “renaissance” must also be reexamined. The usual account of this period tells of a small group of vigorous young Maori reformers who introduced to the Maoris

the gospel of work and the practice of sanitation to avert their threatened extinction. Confidence returned. The Maori population began to rise. The Maoris, under this influence, became economically productive and at the same time reaffirmed faith in

their traditions by reviving their traditional arts, woodcarving,

and singing and dancing.” |

This picture of the 1890’s is too simple, first, because it exagger-

ates the connection between reform efforts and demographic changes. However desirable the reforms of Maori village life introduced after 1900 may have been, other factors such as the growth of resistance to European diseases and the gradual return to more normal age and sex structure were perhaps more important in ending the Maori population decline.”

The Maorts and European Settlement 3] The emergence of an educated generation of Maoris, and the graduation of a handful of Maori lawyers and doctors, seems to mark a new departure in Maori history. Likewise, the striking advances in Maori housing and health were on a new scale. But

these advances were not the achievement only of the young Maori reformers, nor of the government. The older generation, the traditional leaders, were already facing up to the needs of the Maori people before 1890. Without their support of the Maori village schools in the 1870’s and 1880’s, no Maori lawyer could have been admitted to the bar in 1896.

Most Europeans believed that if the Maoris cooperated with the government, sought education, and consented to individualize their land titles, they were sure to progress. The big job was to overcome the causes of Maori backwardness: ignorance and complacency. These were indeed causes of backwardness, and some of the young Maori reformers concentrated on overcoming them. But the Maoris who had admitted Europeans freely, coop-

erated with the government and its Native Land Court, had found this way to progress difficult. Part of the process had been

disorganization and dispossession; part of the price had been serious population decline. Other tribes, who had not yet received

the full impact of settlement, were not eager to repeat this experience.

But this reluctance to cooperate did not mean they rejected European culture. They too, as we have seen, were adopting many traits of European economy and material culture. They belied the European critics by doing this successfully while preserving their communal social organization and their attitude of political opposition. But the cry of the 1890’s was to open up the North Island to close settlement, and the government presumed that the settlers would be Europeans. Every tribe in the North Island knew that its lands were threatened by this movement and realized that the process of expropriation would be political and not military. The overwhelming political power of the Europeans was the greatest threat to their interests, and they misunderstood

32 Politics of the New Zealand Maori and feared the ways of European politics. Increasingly after 1890, the Maori people sought to meet this political threat by entering politics themselves and by organizing and exerting new political power of their own. The keynote of Maori history in the 1890’s,

then, was not cooperation but protest. |

CHAPTER THREE

POSTWAR MAORI PROTEST MOVEMENTS, 1870-97

The land was given to Potatau, after Potatau to Tawhiao to protect for his people. But shortley after the same Land 1s taken away by each Nations Tribes and Chiefs and ts evuntually sold for Colo-

nial Gold and Silver, and their daughters penny, what is the end of it; the Land 1s still there, and you are no better off, perhaps this kind of work would be right for Tawhtao to do, and it would also benefit the Maort race. Te Paki o Matariki, July 25, 1893 *

In rue periop following the Maori land wars, the 1870’s and 1880's, as the European settlers encroached more and more into the Maoris’ land, the Maoris had neither an agreed policy, a unified leadership, nor an over-all allegiance with which to oppose the Europeans. ‘The Maoris were agreed that military

resistance was futile and not to be contemplated. They recognized increasingly that the Maori Members of Parliament were ineffective. They also found that their traditional political and social structure was inadequate to meet the threat of dispossession. Some groups of Maoris therefore withdrew, reacting against some aspects of European culture and reasserting Maori customs. But this reaction was neither hopeless nor blindly conservative.

The Maoris rejected only those elements of European culture 33

34 Politics of the New Zealand Maort which they associated with the threats of dispossession and political subjugation. They continued to borrow European techniques

in their search for effective means of resistance. The mood of reaction in one field was thus accompanied by active borrowing in another. During the 1890’s, indeed, Maori political protest, usually associated with cultural conservatism, was ultimately di-

rected toward gaining or preserving favorable conditions for organized commercial agriculture.

The greatest obstacle to effective Maori political action was lack of unity, a problem stemming from the divisions of Maori society in pre-European times. In traditional Maori society, the structure of society at all levels was based on kinship. Within a village, the basic unit was the whanau, or extended family, the few dozen parents, children, and grandchildren whose kinship was closest. The Aapu, composed sometimes of several hundred people, was made up of closely related families, descendants of a single common ancestor who had lived, perhaps, six generations

previously. Membership of a hAapu was traced through both parents, and marriage took place either within the Aapu or outside of it. The determination of an individual’s membership was thus very complex, and, in practice, the rights were lost unless

a member kept them “warm” through use and residence. The hapu, therefore, can properly be thought of in terms of geography as well as kinship. It usually was a village unit.

Just as several whanau made up a hapu, so several closely related hapu formed an 11, or tribe. This kinship organization was in constant evolution, as new groups were constantly formed by splitting from existing ones, while old groups were reabsorbed by war or migration. The existing tribes, formed after the arrival of the Maoris in New Zealand, each consisted of the descendants of a single ancestor whose name was preserved in the name of the tribe. Ngati Tuwharetoa, for example, denotes the descendants of the leader Tuwharetoa, who lived twelve generations before Te Heuheu Tukino V (d. 1921).’

Postwar Maori Protest Movements, 1870-97 35 The size and territorial extent of the tribes varied greatly. One of the largest tribes, Ngati Kahungunu, occupied the long stretch of country from Mohaka to the southern end of the Wairarapa

and numbered over four thousand in the 1890’s. Other large tribes were the Ngapuhi of North Auckland (ca. six thousand), and the Ngati Porou of the East Coast. Many of the tribes of the West Coast, such as the Taranaki, Ngati Ruanui, Rangitane, and others, occupied much more limited territories and numbered only a few hundred people each.”

A practical, sustained unity broader than the tribe was rare. The canoe (waka), composed of those Maoris who traced their ancestry back to a given canoe on the voyage from Hawaiki, was

only a tenuous bond of kinship and not a basis for unity. The confederation of nearly all the tribes of the Arawa canoe was a post-European development. Other broader groupings, such as of the Waikato or Whanganui peoples, have usually been considered tribes and not groups of tribes.

The political leaders of tribe and hapu were chosen in a number of ways. Primogeniture was most important. The eldest son by the male line in the senior family was an ariki and would

lead his people if he were an able man. The members of the younger branches of the tribe, who traced their descent from the common ancestor through his younger sons, were in a subordinate position, but they were still kinsmen. If the eldest son of the senior family should be unfit for some reason to take the leader-

ship, a younger kinsman might become leader, although he would not pass the leadership to his children. Paora Tuhaere, who led the Orakei branch of Ngati Whatua for over fifty years

in the nineteenth century, was chosen leader ahead of senior kinsmen,* and Tamahau Mahupuku, leader of the Ngati Kahungunu at Papawai, gained his power through marriage and force of character rather than through birth. Women also sometimes inherited leadership. For example, when the renowned Whanganui warrior, Major Kemp, died in 1898, his daughter Wikitoria

36 Politics of the New Zealand Maori Taitoko inherited much of his influence. In the same period among the Ngati Kahungunu, Airini Donnelly and Niniwa Kiterangi held positions of leadership. The chief of the tribe or hapu, once installed, was in a position

of great influence as guardian, spokesman, and protector of his people. Te Heuheu Tukino V, the descendant of an exalted line, felt able to say in 1905: “I am Ngatituwharetoa. Whatever I say they will listen to and abide by, and if I say to them, Let us do

this, they will do it.”° But the leader was by no means an autocrat. Although his mana—prestige, power, or authority— might be great, his power to act independently of his tribe was severely limited by custom. He was always obliged to consult his people, and he always had to conduct himself with the dignity, wisdom, and virtue of a rangatira.

Divided into a great number of political units, with strong leadership only on a local basis, the Maoris were unable to present a united resistance to the Europeans. Nor did the long series of wars precipitated by the introduction of firearms serve to establish a unified Polynesian monarchy, as in Hawaii or Tahiti. The country was too large, and the military advantage of the first

tribes to get muskets was too temporary. The campaigns of Hongi Hika, Te Wherowhero, Te Waharoa, and Te Rauparaha, extending from 1822 to the middle 1830's, increased the disunity of the Maoris and compromised later attempts at joint action.

They left the bitter memory of unavenged defeats, and the conquests, enslavements, and migrations caused by these wars, unparalleled in Maori history, rendered the later determination of land ownership difficult and in some areas almost impossible.

The first widespread efforts to overcome these obstacles and

unite in response to the Europeans came in the 1850’s, and resulted in the election of the Waikato chief Potatau Te Wherowhero as Maori king in 1858. By this time, the Maoris had agreed to become subjects of the queen, they had become Christians, and they had made enthusiastic beginnings in agriculture and commerce. European settlement on a large scale had been proceeding

Postwar Maori Protest Movements, 1870-97 37 for more than a decade. The threat to their land, the political interference of the Europeans, and a feeling of disillusionment with some aspects of the new culture, which had failed to solve

their problems, were the factors inducing them to unite. The king movement had three important aspects. It was an attempt to unite against the Europeans by withholding land from the market. It was a further step in cultural change: the kingship was an institution borrowed from the Europeans. Paradoxically, it was also a reaction against European influence, in which the Maoris

revived some of the customs they had abandoned since about 1835.

The movement met commonly felt problems, and yet it failed to achieve unity. In some places, such as Hawke’s Bay, factions of sellers and nonsellers were engaged in violent disputes. Some chiefs refused to follow the new king because their structure of kinship did not admit such differences in status. Others believed that the Maori kingship was incompatible with the loyalty to the queen pledged in 1840. Finally, having accepted Christianity, the Maoris could not agree, even within the king movement, whether to adopt a defensive or aggressive stand against the Europeans. These differences were accentuated with the beginning of the wars of the 1860’s. Especially in the later stages of these wars, some Maoris fought on the side of the queen against the rebels, and some took the side of the queen out of a desire to settle the scores of earlier years. At the end of the wars the Maoris were more divided than ever.” After the wars there were two movements of organized protest among the defeated Maoris, neither more than regional in scope. In the Waikato, the king movement continued under Tawhiao, the second Maori king, successor to Potatau. The other movement, beginning about 1869 in Taranaki, was led by the Parihaka

prophet, Te Whiti. |

Taranaki Maoris bitterly expressed a variety of grievances.

Many of them, their land confiscated, showed their suspicion of the Pakeha by rejecting missionary Christianity. The Methodist

38 Politics of the New Zealand Maori missionary, T. G. Hammond, reported the bitter taunts of former

adherents there: “One man shows wounds received in war; another says, “You killed my father.’ One woman always reminds me that I killed her mother; another will say, “You have stolen all __

my land.’”* Te Whiti’s role was to temper this bitterness with discipline and hope. He taught that the Maoris were one of the

lost tribes, and that “the Bible said the Israelites would be established again.” The Pakehas had ousted the Maoris from their heritage, but the Maori warriors would rise from the dead and regain the land. Te Whiti’s millennium, however, receded into the future and was no more immediate than that of orthodox Christians. He quoted the authority of Peter that “a day is as a thousand years with the Lord; a thousand years is as one day,” __

departing from the text toadd,“Iamthe Lord.”* Te Whiti was primarily a political leader with rational aims which he pursued against an opponent possessing the preponder- —

ance of military and political power. Using the only practical means open to those who struggle against such odds, he rejected the use of force and depended on boycott, protest, and passive _ resistance. There is no evidence that his political activities were directed toward bringing about millennial goals. His prophecies — rather seemed to be directed toward rallying support and bolstering morale in his nearly hopeless political struggle. Maui Pomare,

who deplored Te Whiti’s suspicion of the government, called | _ him a Christian in the greatest sense of the word, adding, “But for Te Whiti there would have been bloodshed between the Europeans and the Natives long ago.” On one occasion Te Whiti

| specifically denied that his prophecies meant that the Pakehas would be driven out. “What I said and wished to convey,” he — told William Baucke, “was, that the two races should live side by | side in peace; the Maori to learn the white man’s wisdom, yet be

the dominant ruler. Even as our fathers thought and expected, the white man to live among us—not we to be subservient to his immoderate greed.” * Te Whiti, according to this evidence, ac-

cepted the presence of the Europeans but desired to restore a

Postwar Maori Protest Movements, 1870-97 39 Maori dominance such as had existed in the years before 1840, when the Europeans were present by Maori sufferance and did not rule. His minimum goal was to recover the confiscated land. The great years of Te Whiti’s resistance were 1879 to 1881, when the government was surveying, roading, and selling what

remained of the confiscated land in Taranaki. It incurred Te Whiti’s hostility by proceeding with this work without granting or even publicizing the reserves that were to be given the Maoris

in compensation. It made matters worse by tearing up some Maori cultivations to build roads, and by leaving other roads unfenced so that stock could stray onto the Maoris’ fields. In protest, Te Whiti’s followers illegally ploughed land leased to settlers. Two years of struggle ended when government troops invaded Parihaka, tore down the village, dispersed the people, and arrested the leaders Te Whiti and Tohu, holding them for two years without trial. In 1883, after two years in the South Island, Te Whiti returned to Parihaka, his mana greater than ever. He rebuilt his village on the small reserve and continued his former policy of boycott and resistance. In 1886 he was jailed for trespassing and in 1889 for

defaulting on a debt. He and his people consistently refused to allow the creation of a government village school for their chil-

dren. In one case he harbored a Maori fugitive because he “trusted not the soulless law to be merciful.” Like Maoris elsewhere in New Zealand, his followers refused to pay the dog tax, and in 1892 the local authorities reverted to the old methods of force by staging a surprise dawn raid on Parihaka to arrest the defaulters. Despite these provocations, Te Whiti remained a man of peace. After the raid, “the utmost good will prevailed,” and Te Whiti invited the Inspector to breakfast.” In the 1890’s the land grievance of the Taranaki Maoris continued in a new form. Under John Ballance’s West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892, which affected more than 200,000 acres,

the Public Trustee took full administrative control of the land, granting renewable 21-year leases to the Paheka settlers. The

40 Politics of the New Zealand Maori Maoris still owned the land and received rents based on the value

of improvements. Ballance claimed that these provisions did “ample justice to the Natives,” “ but no one was satisfied, least of

all the Maori owners. With the Pakehas in possession and the Public Trustee in control, legal ownership meant little. Te Whiti therefore refused to accept rents from the Public Trustee. In 1897 he made a more active protest. His followers illegally ploughed the leasehold lands in order to “find out who was right, Te Whiti or the Governor.” Ninety-two Maoris were arrested and tried at

prison.” |

New Plymouth, where they were sentenced to two months in

To the European public of the day, Te Whiti’s attitude of “sullen isolation” and stubborn conservatism seemed fanatical and sinister. Accusations were frequently made that Parihaka was a center of the sly-grog traffic, that the people were allowing

their land to lie idle while they awaited the outcome of prophecies, and that Te Whiti was swindling his followers and amassing a great fortune. None of them was proved. These charges stemmed from the belief that by his resistance to political influence, including missions and schools. Te Whiti was holding his

people back. But, as we have seen, Te Whiti did not. reject European material culture, and his followers, like the Maoris from other closely settled districts, had already adopted European housing and had partially adopted European food and clothing.

Through his charismatic appeal Te Whiti preserved and strengthened communal loyalty among his followers, giving it a

basis that could reach beyond the tribe. He thus enabled his followers to reject individualism and social assimilation, which were following the loss of the land in other closely settled dis-

tricts. He was holding out against the changes that European theorists believed were essential to the Maoris. For this reason, blind to his real achievements, they condemned him.

- The Maori king movement, under king Tawhiao, was the second Maori protest organization of the postwar years. The kingites’ reaction to defeat, confiscation, and the pressure of

Postwar Maori Protest Movements, 1870-97 4] settlement was in several respects similar to Te Whiti’s. Suspicion

and bitterness continued after the war among the Waikato Maoris as among the Taranaki Maoris; “the skins of the Maori people were still shy of the bites of the European’s guns.” ** The grievance of the confiscated land provided a binding force for both movements. Apirana Ngata, writing in 1900, believed that but for confiscation, “the King Movement would have long since been overthrown.” * The movements were also alike in their rejection of Pakeha law, justice, and politics. Tawhiao told the government and the Maoris to cease “surveying, cease selling, cease Land-Courts’s, cease gold prospecting, cease erecting telegraphs, cease erecting Schools. . . .”** These activities were the means by which the Maoris would lose their land and independence, and he saw no reason why they could not forego them. He, like Te Whiti, tried to reject any actions which were a symbol of subjugation to Pakeha authority, or which involved participation in laws that were made by the Pakehas in their own interest. _ Like Te Whiti’s followers, the kingites preserved the communal basis of society. They rejected the Native Land Court, “the Serpent who swallowed the Land,” because it divided the land and granted it to individuals. Communal land was for them the basis of communal society. In addition to this traditional foundation, they had their kingship, which provided a stronger and broader focus for loyalty than the traditional chief. Although King Tawhiao lacked the charismatic appeal of Te Whiti, his position gave him a strong hold over his followers. ‘This strong communal organization enabled the kingites, in spite of their political isolation, to borrow elements of European material culture and retain a healthy and prosperous community, much as Te Whiti had done at Parihaka. The kingites had no counterpart for Te Whiti as a prophet, but in other respects the religious attitudes of the two movements were similar. The kingites’ occasional prediction that the Pakehas

would be miraculously removed was, according to one Maori friend of the government, not a prophetic belief but “a mere

42 Politics of the New Zealand Maori expression of what they wish for.” The Maori king’s Tariao faith was a mixture of Maori and Christian elements, but with Christianity predominant. Suspicion of the Pakeha rather than rejection of the Bible governed their religious conduct. William Gittos, a Methodist missionary who knew them well, wrote in 1891 that “Tawhiao and his people have no set form of worship that we are aware of.” In 1895, Gittos succeeded in persuading the kingites to

return to complete orthodoxy, though they still insisted on an autonomous “Maori church of New Zealand.” *®

The government was not similarly satisfied with the kingites’ political position. Regarding Tawhiao’s opposition as a threat to

the progress of settlement, the government again and again offered him land, a house, or a pension, to serve as a symbol that

he had given up his pretensions and had accepted the mana of the queen and the rule of the New Zealand Government. Sir Donald McLean offered Tawhiao land in 1876, and Sir George Grey made further offers during his premiership of 1877-79." Tawhiao, although sorely tempted, refused these offers and the similar offers of Bryce and Ballance. He wanted all the confiscated land to be returned, but he found his position growing weaker. When Edwin Mitchelson offered land in 1888, Tawhiao wanted to accept but balked at the required oath of loyalty to the queen: was not this oath superfluous? His father had already signed the Treaty of Waitangi. Tawhiao complained that the offers of McLean and Grey had not contained such onerous conditions.”* In 1892 the Liberal Native Minister, A. J. Cadman, made still another attempt to end Tawhiao’s opposition by offering a pension, but Tawhiao countered by asking for the renewal

of the offers he had previously refused. Finally he accepted. Cadman telegraphed triumphantly to Ballance that “his acceptance can be looked upon as the withdrawal of Great obstacles to

native land purchases in Auckland District & will in a great

measure remove many other obstacles.” *° | | This is just what the kingites were afraid of, and they denounced Tawhiao’s surrender and induced him to pay back the

Postwar Maori Protest Movements, 1870-97 43 money already received. They wanted real power and authority,

separate from the New Zealand Government, not bribes and personal favors for their leader. Three ways were open to them, and, putting practical necessity before logical consistency, they tried all at once. The first possibility was to appeal to England. They believed that the queen retained her obligations under the

Treaty of Waitangi to watch over their interests and that she could grant them separate political powers. They could also ask for the desired powers from the New Zealand Parliament, which

had usurped them. Finally, they could exercise what they believed to be their rights without any fresh sanction at all.

The major appeal to the queen came in 1884, when King Tawhiao led a delegation to England to present his petition. In the petition he asked the queen to “grant a government to your

Maori subjects, to those who are living on their own lands... that they may have power to make laws regarding their own lands, and race, lest they perish by the ills which have come upon

them.” Lord Derby, the Secretary of State, received the Maoris

politely but informed them that the power to remedy their grievances lay only with the New Zealand Government. He expressed. his confidence that the “Government of New Zealand will not fail to protect and promote the welfare of the Natives by a just administration of the law, and by a generous consideration of all their reasonable representations.” The Maoris mistook this

sympathetic statement for a promise that Lord Derby would induce the New Zealand Government to grant the requests of the petition, which were, after all, “reasonable.” When nothing was done to fulfill this promise, ‘Tawhiao and Major Te Wheoro, a member of the delegation, appealed again to England in 1887, but to no avail.”

In 1886 Tawhiao tried to get similar powers by appealing directly to John Ballance, and asked for a Maori council, “for all

the chiefs of this Island,” under his leadership. The proposed council would administer “all the rights and lands confirmed by the Treaty of Waitangi.” *

44 Politics of the New Zealand Maori These efforts to get official confirmation of the Maori king’s mana failed. But the efforts of the government to reduce Tawhiao to the status of a dependent pensioner had also failed. Tawhiao’s independence still might be made to count for something. Although he wanted the government’s sanction, he believed that the existing government authority over the Maoris had been usurped and that the Maoris could legitimately assume governmental authority for themselves under Section Seventyone of the Constitution Act, 1852. The kingite newspaper, Te Paki o Matartki, urged the Maoris to reject Pakeha government

and “take up the work of your ancestors and forefathers and work it yourselves in the Maori way.” According to the newspaper, “Our committees and chiefs still have the power and authority to investigate our own Maori affairs; but it is us who is idle, and through the word of our king to start and conduct our own Maori affairs, the great Council was built upon this island. . . to work and investigate all affairs of the Maori race towards land,

man goods, and food.” ” | |

The constitution of the Great Council (Kauhanganui), published in 1894, defined the powers assumed by the Maori kingdom. First, it outlined the procedures for leasing land under Tawhiao’s authority. Special permission was needed to place Pakehas on the land, and each lease was limited to twenty-two years. Tawhiao retained the right to work minerals or build roads on Maori land. The premier of the kingdom would decide

the title of customary (papatupu) land, but land already put through the Pakeha’s Native Land Court was still subject to the laws of the kingdom and might even be subjected to rehearing. Another provision forbade an individual to have single shares of

land partitioned off and sold on his own authority. Under the new constitution such matters would be decided by all the people and confirmed by the Maori premier. King Tawhiao’s govern-

ment, indeed, assumed full powers over disputes of any kind, admitting only that the “European Government may take part in

any such enquiry should it so desire, and it makes written

Postwar Maort Protest Movements, 1870-97 45 application to, and obtains permission from, the Maori Premier.” The Great Council consisted of two elected houses, which were scheduled to meet at Maungakawa, near Cambridge, on May 2 of

each year. Over the council, the premier, Tana Taingakawa, a son of Wiremu Tamihana, appointed a cabinet of about twelve members, including ministers for lands, laws, justice, and taxes. Te Whakakure was appointed the minister for Pakeha affairs, with responsibility for “all events between Pakehas and Maori people.” **

This constitution was used as the basis for actual governmental activities. The kingites raised revenue by a levy of two shillings for each Maori above the age of four years. The tax was actually

collected, as is shown by the fact that at least one group of Waikato Maoris refused to pay. Tawhiao also collected his own dog tax. On several occasions, when European local bodies at-

tempted to collect this tax, the Maoris claimed that they had already paid. Additional revenue came from fines. The constitution provided for ten Maori justices of the peace, “all being good men and true,” who could, among other things, levy fines of five pounds on offenders against Tawhiao’s prohibition of intoxicat-

ing liquors. In 1890, kingite committees were assuming the powers of magistrate’s courts by hearing cases, levying fines, and sending Maori constables to seize property when the fines were not paid. In acts passed by the council at its annual sessions, the movement tried to take care of specific problems. The acts of 1894, for example, provided for the settlement of Maori land (by Maoris), the restriction of sales of Maori land, the prevention of cruelty to

animals, and the prohibition of rabbit poison in Maori settlements.

In 1893 the kingites posted notices which warned Europeans that they too were subject to “the laws of the Government of the Kingdom of Aotearoa.” Under these laws, the Maoris claimed, stray stock could be impounded by the Maori constables and held

until fines were paid. Hunters were warned that they must

46 Politics of the New Zealand Maori purchase licenses from Tawhiao’s authorities and keep their dogs

away from sheep, or be liable to a fine. The culmination of Tawhiao’s pretensions to rule over the Europeans came in 1893, when he banished them from New Zealand: “The Governor and the Government, and all Government officers,” he proclaimed, “must leave this island. This island is mine. The blacksmiths, the carpenters, and the store keepers may remain; I will look after them. All other pakehas must leave this island and go back to England.” ” The Maoris would govern, because New Zealand was theirs, and the subordinate Europeans would provide goods and skills. Te Whiti also desired this state of affairs, but the kingites went far beyond Te Whiti in actually trying to govern. Their attempt, at a time when the pressure of European settlement was increasing, made some conflict between the races inevitable. The danger

of war was long past, and ‘Tawhiao was above all a man of peaceful intent; but the king movement was sustained by the belief that the confiscated land by right belonged to the Maoris. In 1892 Kerei Kaihau, one of Tawhiao’s followers, decided to make a public stand by reasserting Tawhiao’s mana over three blocks of land already occupied by Europeans. He tore down a survey marker, was arrested and convicted, and after his release repeated the action. In 1894 Kerei Kaihau again challenged the government by publicly announcing that he was going to Opua-

tia in the western Waikato, to destroy the survey pegs on a government road. The laws he was breaking, he said, “were made by the pakeha, administered by the pakeha, and were solely in the interest of the European race.” He himself “recognized no laws but King Tawhiao’s.” Kerei Kaihau’s followers resisted the police sent to arrest them, and, even with forty armed constables

present on the second attempt, it took a wrestling match to complete the arrests. With about eighteen of his followers, Kerei Kaihau again was lodged in the Auckland jail at Mount Eden.” As Kerei Kaihau had discovered, the advance of settlement and government was inexorable and backed by overwhelming force.

Postwar Maori Protest Movements, 1870-97 47 Tawhiao could not prevent the government from reaching into his kingdom and enforcing the laws of the colony. Furthermore the Maoris could not themselves agree to abide by a self-constituted Maori authority. Other tribes did not recognize Tawhiao’s

claim to govern the entire North Island, and even within the Waikato district many Maoris refused to acknowledge his authority. Even though the Maoris believed that they were within their rights, these problems could only be overcome by a formal

recognition of their authority and a formal definition of the limits of Pakeha and Maori jurisdiction.

Accordingly when Richard John Seddon visited the Waikato in 1894, Tana Taingakawa asked for several concessions, including the removal of taxes from Maori land, repeal of the dog tax,

and abolition of the Native Land Court. He asked also that Europeans be stopped from giving credit to Maoris. In the judicial field he asked that offences by Maoris against Maoris should be dealt with by the Maoris alone, and disputes involving both races settled by a mixed tribunal.** These proposals were well calculated to reduce the force of European law among the

Maoris and thereby clear the way for the king movement to assume a more effective jurisdiction. Seddon of course rejected

these requests, since he knew that any concession would strengthen the movement. The kingites, lacking general Maori support, were too weak even to exact a compromise. With the

death of the old king, Tawhiao, later in 1894, some people thought the movement would finally end. But it was actually more alive than many Europeans believed.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE MAORI PARLIAMENT, 1891-97 It was only lately discovered that we had these privileges; and it was found out by poor people whose coats were out at their elbows. Major Kemp, 1893 *

‘Tue toyat and neutral tribes, inhabiting especially the southern, eastern, and northern districts of the North Island, followed neither Te Whiti nor Tawhiao during the two decades after the Maori wars. In some respects their acceptance of European rule and assimilation into European culture seemed to

be proceeding smoothly. Much of their land had gone through

the Native Land Court. Their children attended the village schools. They mingled and sometimes intermarried with the local Europeans. Unlike Te Whiti and Tawhiao, they participated in the Pakeha world of politics by sending Maori representatives to Parliament. In spite of such signs of adjustment, however, these tribes had many grievances; they were victims not of the Pakehas’ war but

of the Pakehas’ peace. They were rapidly losing their land, autonomy, and tribal organization. Like members of the king movement, therefore, they sought to keep their rights under the Treaty of Waitangi and the Constitution Act. Tawhiao’s 1884 petition to England, requesting a separate system of government,

represented the wishes of Maoris from all parts of the North 48

The Maori Parliament, 1891-97 49 Island, though the government had dismissed it as the action of a small minority. Hori Ropiha, who had accompanied Tawhiao to England, carried Lord Derby’s promise back to Hawke’s Bay, and Topia Turoa of Wanganui, another member of the deputation, convened a large meeting at Rotoaira in August, 1885, to formulate resolutions for Maori autonomy. Hirini Taiwhanga took up similar work in North Auckland after returning from

England, winning the Northern Maori parliamentary seat in 1887."

Common sentiment was not enough, however, to unify all of the Maoris under Tawhiao’s leadership. Suspicion between the tribes was still strong after the wars, and no additional tribes were willing to join the king movement, since that would mean

placing their land under the mana of Tawhiao. Lacking an over-all organization of their own, they used several different channels of protest. They continued to depend on the four Maori

Members in Parliament, but these Members, overwhelmingly outnumbered by the Pakehas, were helpless. On the basis of population they should have had five or six Members, and Lord Derby supported such an increase in 1885. But even the eight or nine Members they claimed in 1892 would have been little more effective than the existing four. Another channel of protest was the large, intertribal meetings held each year at Waitangi. There

the Maoris exchanged views, defined their goals, and drafted petitions. The tribes also cooperated occasionally with the king movement, as in 1884. From about 1888 the Maori leaders engaged in a self-conscious

search for a basis of unity that would at once attract wide loyalty and provide an effective political vehicle. They emphasized the fact that their intentions were peaceful and that they accepted the presence of the Europeans. Paora Tuhaere, for example, said in

1889 that “peaceful argument was by far the best and most advantageous method of settling all disputes,” and Major Kemp

of Wanganui added that “it was only by working in friendly relations to the pakeha that they could attain their desired ends.”

50 Politics of the New Zealand Maori But with these self-imposed limits, they found little they could do. The only tangible result of the intertribal meetings of 1889 was a document which received five hundred signatures proposing a “Maori union of Waitangi,” with the power to administer Maori internal affairs. But they still had no means of gaining this end in Parliament. They realized that they could accomplish little if the government was unsympathetic. Paora Tuhaere concluded, therefore, on a decidedly discouraging note, saying, “The Maoris wished to bring various matters before the House, but there is no use troubling it, therefore it must remain for us ourselves to do what we can.” *

They continued their efforts to convert the government to their views. In 1891 they appointed a committee of thirty members to follow the course of Maori legislation in Wellington. Led by Wi Parata Te Kakakura, a Waikanae chief, the committee proposed a bill to give mana to Maori district committees, and to create a general committee to investigate interracial land disputes, oppressive laws, and “all purchases, leases, and judgments, and all other

grievances since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.” It instructed the Maori Members of Parliament: “If these principles

are not considered and agreed to, then you ought to withdraw and take no part in passing the measure now before the House.” *

This threat was unsuccessful. The Maori Members were not prepared to give up their seats. In the House they could at least raise verbal protests, but if they withdrew, the Maori case would

not be heard at all. |

Gradually, Maori ideas took more definite form. Meetings at

Waiomatatini, Omahu, and in the Wairarapa and Wanganui districts, during 1890 and 1891, developed the sentiment of unity, though they failed to create a unified political movement. But the

course such a movement would take had become clear: the Europeans had failed to make good laws, and, as the West Coast

leader Wiremu Kiriwehi put it, “the Government therefore should allow the Maoris to try what they can do in that direction, seeing that it is they who are vitally affected by them.” ®

The Maori Parliament, 1891-97 51 The proposal for a separate Maori parliament was given explicit form in an Arawa petition to the queen, presented in 1891. This petition requested “the formation of a representative council, to be elected by your Maori subjects, as a mountain of rest from which all measures affecting the Maori people can be clearly reviewed, and all measures also affecting the Natives can be dealt

with by that council.” The petitioners went one step beyond Tawhiao’s petition of 1884 by insisting that their petition was “not only made on behalf of the Natives resident in districts free from European laws, but also on behalf of those residing among

Europeans, they being still more burdened by the laws.” The petitioners tempered their sweeping request for independence by conceding that the decisions of their council might be forwarded to the queen and the New Zealand Parliament for consideration. They expressly denied any intention to disregard the mana of the queen or to separate the two races. They hoped, rather, that “the members of the Native race may become still more united under you our Queen; as your Majesty has already concluded with us a glorious bond of union in the Treaty of Waitangi.” They merely wanted to give full effect to the terms of that treaty.”

After this petition failed, as it was bound to do, the Maori intertribal meetings of 1892 concluded that they would have to

found their representative council without permission of the government. The first meeting was at Parekino, on the lower Wanganui River, in January, 1892. Expressing his exasperation with the indifference of the government, Major Kemp stated: “It is no use as of old putting our words on paper and sending that to the government . . . as we would be replied to by deceit, and

by words intended to make us believe one thing, when the contrary is meant.” Wi Parata added: “If all feel pain then all will unite in seeking a remedy.” Dissent was shouted down and doubt cast aside. More from enthusiasm than practical intent, the

meeting agreed to put no more land through the Native Land Court and to refrain from land sales. A representative committee of eighty was formed to draft suitable legislation. Major Kemp,

D2 Politics of the New Zealand Maori to gain support for these decisions, promised to “travel all over the country,” to “go to Ngapuhi and speak these words to them

too; to Waikato and other places.” ’

About the time of the Parekino meeting, similar activities were being undertaken in the North. At Christmastime of 1891, “all

the chiefs of Ngapuhi” assembled at Waima to arrange the agenda for the Waitangi meeting to be held in April, 1892. They proposed the formation of “a committee of chiefs chosen from the

Middle Island as far as the Northern extremity of the North Island,” and a discussion of the Treaty of Waitangi itself. Invitations were sent to A. J. Cadman, the Native Minister, and to the

leaders of all the tribes. |

Accordingly, at Waitangi in April, 1892, Maori leaders from all parts of the North Island met to carry out the resolutions passed

at Waima. Heta Te Haara (of the Ngapuhi tribe) and Major Kemp took charge of the meeting. Capitalizing on the general unity of sentiment that had been building up in past years, the Maoris at the meeting agreed to form a kotahitanga, or union, which could present tribal and general intertribal grievances to the government and protect Maori rights “under the Treaty of Waitangi.” James Carroll gave the proposal generous encouragement. “Europeans,” he said, “banded themselves together when they had great aims to accomplish,” and he hoped “they would lay down some platform which would be right in its nature, and within the limits of practicability.” He recommended thrift and industry as important means toward their goal.’ But the Maoris wanted more than a union through which to lobby in Wellington. They had had that in 1889, and little had come of it. They also wanted to accomplish more than could be done merely by holding one great meeting each year. They needed an organization, an institution that would exist between annual meetings, to

attract and hold the loyalty of the people. | | The leaders found precedents for kotahitanga, or unity, in the

earlier unity movements of Maori history. They traced their

The Maori Parliament, 1891-97 53 movement back to the “Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand,” whose chiefs had declared their independence in 1835 and agreed to the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. The unity of 1835 and 1840 had been an invention of the missionaries and not a reality, but to the Maoris establishing the Kotahitanga of 1892, this invention provided a convenient historical myth. The meetings of the 1850's, at which the election of the Maori king was being discussed, were mentioned as another precedent for united action. The adherents of the Kotahitanga claimed historical continuity from these meetings and from the Kohimarama meeting of 1860, regarding the king movement as an offshoot. They exaggerated their previous unity and the continuity of their history, but these historical claims gave the new movement a more solid base on which to build. In another respect the new organization, as Major Kemp said, “has been decided upon by the Natives lately, and does not follow

out the customers of their ancestors.” At Waitangi the members established a Maori parliament, with electoral districts based

on tribal boundaries and with the debates limited to elected members, who were to follow parliamentary rules. The lower house was to have ninety-six elected members, who in turn were to choose the fifty members of the upper house.” If the government could ever be persuaded to grant Maori legislative powers, here would be a body capable of using them. The Hawke’s Bay leaders gained the consent of the Ngapuhi

—the hosts at Waitangi—to hold the first session at Waipatu, near Hastings, in June of 1892; thus began the Maori parliament that was to last for the next eleven years. After another meeting at Waipatu in 1893, the annual meeting moved year by year to various Maori villages, most of them near European provincial towns. From 1894 to 1896 the Maori parlia-

ment met successively at Pakirikiri, near Gisborne; at Rotorua; and at Tokaanu, on Lake Taupo. The 1897 and 1898 meetings

were held at Papawai, in the Wairarapa district. In 1899 the

: MAORI VILLAGES IMPORTANT IN MAORI POLITICS

Waitangie 1899 . F,waime a . , | -

Dates Refer To Meetings Of The Maori Parliament |

Bo oO RI

_ Orakei . } eWaahi ; . ®*Maungakawa i902

Waiomatatini ©

*Rotorua-1895, I900, I90I :

. 1894 f 1896 | | Maungapohotu® | , Pokirikiri®

*Parihako , *Tokaanu

*Roto Aira | |

: Putiki ) sreki Waipatue

——— SParekino 1892, 1693 |

| Otaki

‘Papawaie 1897, 1898 ) -,

Map 2 , |

The Maori Parliament, 1891-97 55 meeting moved to Waitangi and in 1900 and 1901 it returned to Rotorua. The final meeting of the movement was at Waiomatatini, on the East Coast, in 1902.

The Maori parliament did not, like King Tawhiao’s council, simply assume authority. It based its rights more on the guarantees of the treaty and the Constitution Act defining the Maoris’ position in relation to the Europeans, and less on rights deriving from their traditional autonomy. Also, as a movement embracing most parts of the North Island and not one self-contained district, it was much more likely than the king movement to run afoul of authority in any exercise of extralegal power. Therefore, although

they did take on a few of the functions of government, the leaders depended on persuading the government to grant the powers they wanted.

The Federated Maori Assembly Empowering Bill, drafted at the second meeting of the Maori parliament, in 1893, was the first

detailed statement of what they wanted. Henare Tomoana and other leaders presented the bill, and a long petition listing their grievances, to the Native Minister, A. J. Cadman, in June, 1893.

The bill proposed that the “power to govern the Natives be delegated to the Federated Maori Assembly of New Zealand,” which would be identical to the existing Maori parliament. The upper house would be composed of “the chiefs by birth,” and the lower house of Maoris “elected by the different tribes.” The bill also gave the assembly power to appoint and regulate committees of local government for Maori districts and placed it, within its field of competence, on a par with the New Zealand Parliament and subject only to the governor.” This bill was not passed; it was not even debated. The Maoris had wanted a definite reply from the House “either in favour of it or a decided negative,” but all they received was a reply from the Ministry acknowledging their petition. They would try again. Parliament still had not spoken; their wishes had still not been considered on their merits.” In 1894 the Maori parliament drafted another measure, a sim-

56 Politics of the New Zealand Maori ple and direct Native Rights Bill. This bill provided for a consti-

tution to be “granted to all the persons of the Maori race... providing for the enactment of laws by a Parliament elected by such persons. Such laws shall relate to and exclusively deal with the personal rights and with the lands and all other property of the aboriginal native inhabitants of New Zealand.” This bill left the constitutional details of the Maori parliament to be worked out later. It was meant to make the Maoris and Pakehas equal in status under the queen, with neither one subordinate to the other. As Wi Pere, the Eastern Maori Member, put it, “the Natives ask to be emancipated from their present state, so that they may in future look to the Queen only.” But the Maoris were not asking for “dominion status” for a separate Maori state; they apparently meant to limit the powers of their parliament to personal, land,

and property rights.* | | The Northern Maori Member, Hone Heke, introduced the

Native Rights Bill in the House in 1894, and a Maori committee led by Te Heuheu supported it from outside. But again the hopes of the Maori parliament were thwarted. As the debate on the bill proceeded, Member after Member got up and walked out of the House. A quorum was not present and debate was adjourned. At their 1895 session, the Maori parliament decided to try again. Even if the House rejected the bill, the Maoris “would have the satisfaction of knowing it.” Since 1893 the Maori parliament had been trying to get a clear commitment from Parliament either for or against their constitutional claims. Finally, during the session of 1896, Parliament defeated the Native Rights Bill. From that time, the Maoris had to look for other ways of achieving their

goals.”° |

The men active in the Maori parliament, who were asking for a legalized Maori parliament, were the tribal chiefs, the traditional leaders of Maori society. Biographical details for most of these men are scanty, but what is known of the most prominent

of them forms a consistent picture. Many of them came from districts of dense European settlement and had been in close

The Maori Parliament, 1891-97 57 contact with Europeans all their lives. Some of them had been employed by the government. They were literate in Maori but not fully at home in both languages and cultures as the leaders of the next generation were to be. Among the most important leaders of the movement were the former and current Maori Members of Parliament, whose experience was a vital source of knowledge in setting up and running

the Maori parliament. A prominent former Northern Member was Hone Mohi Tawhai of Waima, who had sat from 1879 to 1884. The proposal for a kotahitanga had been drawn up at his village, and he was present at the first two sessions of the Maori parliament. Another former Member, Wi Katene, and the sitting Member, Eparaima Kapa, were also active, and both attended the sessions of 1892 and 1893. Kapa’s successor, Hone Heke, who was later to become one of the leaders, was not active at the beginning

of the movement. He attended the first meeting as an observer

for A. J. Cadman, the Native Minister. “There are no great speeches,” he wired to Cadman; “all the rangatiras refer to the

treaty entirely. ... I will let you know fully when I get back.” ** In spite of his connection with the government, Hone Heke must have made a good impression on the chiefs, for they chose him to be a candidate for the Northern Maori seat in 1893. Former Members for the other Maori seats were also active. Among these the most important was Wi Parata Te Kakakura of Waikanae. The sitting Western Member in 1892, Hoani Taipua, and from 1894, Ropata Te Ao, also supported the Maori parliament. Henare Tomoana, a former Member for Eastern Maori, made use of his parliamentary experience as speaker of the Maori parliament. Wi Pere, who held the seat after 1894, also belonged to the movement. The Southern Maori Member, Tame Parata, was opposed to the Maori parliament; H. K. Taiaroa, (Member of the Legislative Council) led the South Island supporters. A few leaders had had other connections with the government. The premier of the Maori parliament, Hamiora Mangakahia of Thames, had been an assessor in the Native Land Court, as had

58 Politics of the New Zealand Maori Tamahau Mahupuku, the influential leader of the Wairarapa Maoris. Some had given military service to the queen. The great Major Kemp, hero of the Hauhau campaigns and the first Maori officer to lead European troops, possessed influence far beyond his

Wanganui tribe, making him one of the most important leaders

of the Kotahitanga as a national movement. Pokiha Taranui (Major Fox), the chief of Ngati Pikiao (Arawa), had also fought for the queen in the 1860’s.

A large proportion of the most important leaders came from districts where European settlement had been established for a generation or more. The importance of Wanganui, Waikanae, and the Wairarapa has already been noted. Hawke’s Bay furnished such leaders as Mohi Te Atahikoia, chairman of the local Maori committee, and Pene Te Uamairangi. From Gisborne, a European provincial center, came Raniera Turoa, a minister of the Maori parliament and chairman of the local Maori committee. Several of the ministers of the parliament came from the South Island, where European influence was predominant: Rani-

era Erihana, Mitai Titoro, Timoti Te Whiu, and H. P. Tunuiarangi. It is not known what proportion of the leaders possessed some European ancestry, but it was probably considerable. Wi

Pere, Kipa Te Whatanui, and Wi Parata were half-castes, but information on other leaders is not available.”

Most of these leaders, and the adult Maori population in general, were literate, and the Kotahitanga brought about a spurt of activity in the Maori press. In 1892, the Kotahitanga issued a pamphlet reporting the proceedings and results of the Waitangi meeting of April, 1892, at which the movement was founded. Printed Maori pamphlets reporting the debates, petitions, bills, and division lists of the Maori parliaments held in 1892, 1893, and 1895 were also published. These reports were based on shorthand notes kept during the meetings. Such notes were also kept during the 1894 meeting, and a pamphlet containing the proceedings of that meeting may have been published, but no copy is known.”

The Maori press, like the Maori parliament, is one more

KO TE.

PUKAPUKA NAMA 5 O TE

PEREHITANGA. TUUNGA.

TUAWHA O TE PAREMATA

O TE ,

KOTAMITANGA O TE

[WI MAORI O NUI TIRENI O TE

TO MAERHE, 1895. ROTORUA NUI A KAHU.

Title page of the pamphlet recording the debates of the Maori parliament held in Rotorua in 1895

60 Polttics of the New Zealand Maori example of how the Maoris were consciously taking up European

cultural traits through imitation within their own society and rejecting cultural change through assimilation into European society. From 1893 to 1895 Ihaia Hutana edited Husa Tangata Kotahi at Hastings, and forty-nine numbers were published. Tamahau Mahupuku began a more successful paper at Papawai in December, 1897. This paper, Te Puke ki Hikurangt, survived with several changes of form down to 1913. Unlike other Maori newspapers it was, at least after 1900, published on a Maori press entirely by Maori labor. Finally, in Wanganui, H. T. Whatahoro

and Ru Reweti published The Jubilee, Maori Newspaper (Te Tiupiri) from 1898 to 1900. All of these newspapers were published by Maoris who were active in the Kotahitanga, and their pages are largely concerned with the activities of the movement. Because of their small circulation and lack of advertising or other consistent financial backing, none of these papers was a financial

success. That they were published at all, however, is eloquent evidence of the literacy and political awareness of the Maori people in the 1890’s. The Maoris themselves realized the importance of the press in politics. As The Jubilee said editorially, there were “two chief possessions of the European nation whereby it increases, on the earth and they are schools and newspapers.” The Maori race was still in darkness, and the editors of The Jubilee

proposed to use their newspaper to teach, to enlighten, and to reform.” The Maori people in general were to affirm their allegiance to the Kotahitanga by signing one of eight parchments containing the pledge that the “Native race of both Islands are to combine as one... .” Men and women above the age of fifteen were eligible to sign, the women signing a separate parchment. By 1893, a little

over one year after the founding, the leaders claimed 21,900 signatures. In 1895, they claimed 35,000, stating that the signatures had been twice counted and verified by a Maori committee, and by 1898 they claimed 37,000 adherents.

If we could conclude that these signers were full supporters,

The Maori Parliament, 1891-97 61 then the movement could claim nearly total adherence of the Maori people. The resolutions and petitions of the Maori parliament would then take on added significance as a reflection of the

attitudes of the Maori people in general. But this conclusion stretches the evidence too far. The difficulty of achieving unity stemmed partly from the fact that there was opposition to the chiefs, and perhaps from a desire of some Maoris to see chiefly power decline. Maoris signed the parchments and other petitions out of deference to the chiefs and because they shared grievances.

The Kotahitanga was more than a chiefs’ movement—but its leaders had less than the unqualified support implied by the 37,000 signatures to their declaration of allegiance.”

The movement was a protest against the Europeans and their government, with the political goal of gaining independent control over a limited range of affairs. Yet by asking Parliament for the power they wanted, the Maoris were accepting the institution they were protesting against. This ambivalence in their attitude requires explanation: did they want to withdraw from European society to their state within a state, giving primary loyalty to their own institutions? Or were they merely attempting, by gaining a limited form of autonomy, to improve their position within the existing setup?

Their frequent protestations of loyalty indicate that they accepted government and settlers and merely wanted amelioration. They denied that they wanted to oppose the government or cause racial conflict. Their purposes were to unite the tribes, gain their treaty rights, and establish self-government. They stipulated that none of these aims should ever be allowed to conflict with their paramount aim, which was “to foster and cultivate good relations and harmony between the races and also to work for the good, welfare, and continued growth of the colony.” The leaders con-

tinued to stress this aim. Hone Heke said that it was not the purpose of the movement to block European settlement but only

to improve legislation, and Wi Pere called the movement “a strong supporter of this Government.” ™

62 Politics of the New Zealand Maori Yet the Kotahitanga had undoubted anti-European aspects, and the statements of the leaders reveal not only material but emotional dissatisfaction. Some of them complained that the Pakehas were ungrateful and had forgotten the hospitality shown

to the early settlers. They reminded the Europeans that the Maoris had never been conquered and that many tribes had served the queen in war. In the Maori parliament’s petition of 1893, they went so far as to claim that “if these loyal Natives had

not fought in those wars, the authority and sovereignty of and over New Zealand would have ceased long ago, and the white people would have abandoned these islands there and then.” With great depth of feeling, they expressed self-confidence in their own ability and protested against the Europeans’ assumption of superiority. Typical is the reaction of Major Kemp to a settler’s letter charging that the Maoris were lazy: Kemp warned not to think that “the Maoris were always going to be as the Irish used to be... . The Irish were asserting themselves. . . . Perhaps after a time they would come to think that this dark-skinned race also knew something as well as the Europeans.” The Maoris were particularly insulted by the paternalistic nature of land legislation, which, they said, had made them appear “an ignorant and inferior people.” ™

These protests indicate merely a desire for amelioration and not for a basic change in the structure of society. Maori petitions

were often ignored, and this led Maori speakers to rhetorical exaggeration. Even taken at their face value, the protests did not imply the rejection of European culture, which the Maoris admired; but they wanted to choose what to borrow in their own

way and in their own time. What they objected to was full assimilation, especially assimilation legally enforced. Politically,

the Maoris were objecting to the fact that the Europeans controlled Parliament, and they were charging that the laws were bad. Rationally considered, they should have realized that. to acquire better laws was their only practical aim. But they reacted

against European arrogance as well as against the real and

The Maori Parliament, 1891-97 63 potential threat posed by Parliament. They came to see a Maori parliament as the only means of getting better laws. Their desire for a Maori parliament was, therefore, basically directed toward amelioration of their position within the existing society, and within the system of British sovereignty. It did not affect the Maoris’ basic loyalties, and the government, recognizing this fact, made no effort to suppress the movement.

The most important groups who refused to join the Maori parliament were the followers of Te Whiti and the Maori king. The Kotahitanga sent committees to these leaders on several occasions. But the kingites refused to join, arguing that the best means of achieving unity was for Maoris to unite behind the existing authority of the Maori king. Te Whiti refused on different grounds. He apparently rejected the Treaty of Waitangi as a basis for Maori rights, stating that the treaty had not saved the Maoris from tribulation. Basing his own claims on the traditional mana Maori, he associated the treaty with the loss of independ-

ence, and preferred to maintain his own form of protest, not depending on the promises of the Pakeha.”

A few Maoris refused to join the Kotahitanga for other reasons. Some rejected the new organization because they had al-

ready accepted the goals and the place in New Zealand life offered to them by the Europeans and had therefore nothing to complain about. This opinion was especially strong in the South Island. Tame Parata, the Southern Maori Member, for example, said that he favored Maori rights but he doubted that a Maori parliament was a good means of preserving them. Maori rights, he believed, would best be gained by individualizing property, improving Maori agriculture, and furthering Maori education. To support what he called “the view of a few agitators who went about the North Island holding meetings” would be to neglect these more vital matters.” The similar views expressed by Apirana Ngata, then a young

university student, were representative of the small group of young Maoris with secondary school education. Ngata emphati-

64 Politics of the New Zealand Maori cally condemned the Maori parliament resolutions of 1892 as “crude and almost ridiculous,” and as revealing “a plentiful lack of wisdom, discernment, and foresight.” He believed that the leaders had been led astray by the Treaty of Waitangi, and he opposed their constitutional proposals. But like James Carroll he applauded their efforts to overcome tribal jealousies and weld the Maoris into one people.”

Other Maoris were not reassured by the insistence of the leaders that the Kotahitanga was a loyal movement. They had already given their loyalty to the government of New Zealand as the legitimate local representative of the queen and _ therefore believed that a rival Maori parliament set up alongside the New Zealand Parliament could only be a center for disaffection and disloyalty. In 1892, for example, one hapu wrote to the government complaining that Maoris had been holding meetings “with a view to passing resolutions in opposition to the Government.”

The chief of the Aapu assured the government that his people had nothing to do with such activities: “We have not attended any of these meetings although the chiefs invited us to attend them . . . nor have we countenanced the doings of the natives for the simple reason that we have enough land and because also we

owe our preservation in the past to the Government.” A North Auckland chief, who wrote to the government about the Kotahitanga in 1897, took a somewhat different ground. He and his people shared the grievances but still believed that the Kotahitanga was a disloyal expression of them. In his petition, therefore, he warned the government that his people were becoming iden-

tified with the Kotahitanga. To counteract this tendency, he prayed “that certain taxes may not be imposed in the Manga-

muka district,’ so that his tribe could be kept loyal to the Government of New Zealand.” The reaction of Europeans to the Maori parliament was unfavorable, and it reflected their stereotyped notions of Maori society. One European, after observing the Ohinemutu meeting of 1895,

reported that it had been “more a gathering of friends and

The Maori Parliament, 1891-97 65 families than a meeting carrying out any fixed purpose of Maori socialism,” and that “pleasure was the leading character of the gathering.” Another observer, seeing beyond the surface of hospi-

tality and feasting, regarded the leaders of the movement as political agitators who were leading their people away from valuable objectives. “It is not want of legislation which prevents

the prosperity of the Maori people,” he said, “but their own innate indolence.” While the elders were away at these useless meetings, he continued, the neglected Maori children were absent from school, probably playing billiards. They should be learning

useful trades: Maori boat-builders, blacksmiths, or carpenters, could do more for the race than wasteful hospitality and political agitation.’

Europeans also ridiculed the constitutional proposals of the Maori parliament. The stories they told, even if true, reveal more about the attitude of the Europeans than about the actual significance of the Maori movement. One European Member of Parlia-

ment, for example, told how the Maoris were having trouble getting anything done because of the lack of a stable political majority. To overcome this difficulty, the Maori parliament passed

a resolution “to the effect that all questions submitted to a Committee must be decided before the Committee rose, otherwise until the question was decided, and decided in favour of the Maori Government, they would be given only one meal a day, and that meal was to consist of two potatoes.” Again, the Maori parliament passed a law at Tokaanu in 1896, according to Seddon, that “no person should gallop past their meeting-house on the public road, and that if any person galloped past he was to be arrested.” After one attempt to enforce this law, the Maori parliament was quickly forced to end its pretension. Seddon told this story to prove that the Maoris were incapable of self-government,

but his point was lost on Hone Heke, who replied that even in the United States the laws of Congress were thrown out by the courts, and that it was no disgrace for the same to happen to the Maori parliament.”

66 Politics of the New Zealand Maori The government found that the best way to deal with the Maori parliament was to express solicitude for Maori interests and opinions but to discourage its separatist aims. Prominent Liberal politicians, such as A. J. Cadman, Joseph Ward, James Carroll, and R. J. Seddon, visited the Maori gatherings, often accompanied by the governor, who had special mana with the Maoris as the representative of the queen. They asked the Maoris for practical suggestions to solve the Maori land question but

warned them against entertaining false hopes. They told the Maoris in particular not to depend on the Treaty of Waitangi, which had “been broken years ago by both parties.” In any case, Carroll told them, the Maoris already enjoyed all the rights that had been intended in the Treaty of Waitangi and the Constitution Act. And Seddon scolded them for calling their meeting a

parliament when it was really only a runanga, a meeting of chiefs. There was only one parliament in New Zealand, and it would never give up control of the Maoris or their lands.” — The defeat of their constitutional proposals convinced many of —

the Maori leaders of these truths, and they began to consider alternatives. One possibility was to bypass the New Zealand Parliament and appeal directly to England. They were still convinced, in spite of the failure of 1884, that the Treaty of Waitangi

| gave the imperial government both the right and the duty to interfere in favor of the Maoris. The Maoris also considered using some of the money raised by extralegal taxation to test in court whether the land laws passed by Parliament were in conflict with the Treaty of Waitangi. But increasingly they found that the only practical course was to shift their goals until they found something that Parliament would accept. Concentrating on gaining better laws rather than constitutional powers, they asked the government to submit all bills affecting Maori interests to the Maori assemblies before passing them. Parliament was the | source of the laws that burdened them, but there were indications

that it might concede something short of a legalized Maori parliament. James Carroll was sympathetic, and Seddon told the

The Maori Parliament, 1891-97 6/ House after reading the reports of the Maori parliaments that “in respect to some of the measures discussed they can and do show us the way.” ” Whether to place their hope in England, in New Zealand, or in their own parliament; whether the Pakehas could be trusted; and

whether they really had any grievances worth complaining about: these issues were to become the basis of Maori politics during the last four or five years of the nineteenth century.

, CHAPTER FIVE MAORI REACTION TO THE LAWS, 1891-99

The native land question 1s of more importance to the people of this colony than all the Soctalistic policy advocated by Sir Harry Atkinson and the present Ministry ..