W. T. L. Travers.—The Life and Times of Te Rauparaha. 25 
each individual of their family, which division and alienation, however unfairly 
made, has never been contested. (2.) By their ancient transfers (gifts or 
sales) of land made by individuals of one tribe to individuals of another, as 
related by themselves ; and from which gift or alienation, in many instances, 
they deduce their present claims. (3.) By their earliest (untampered) sales and 
transfers of land to Missionaries and to others, which were not unfrequently 
done by one native (as was notably the case in the first alienation of land by 
deed to Mr. Marsden, at the Bay of Islands, in 1815). Although the foreign 
transferees (not knowing the native custom) often wished others, being 
co-proprietors, to sign the document of transfer ; and this, bye-the-bye, came to 
be looked upon as the New Zealand custom ; whence came the modern belief 
that all must unite in a sale ; and thence it followed that one could not sell his 
own land! But such is not of New Zealand origin. 
It will be observed, that there is some difference of opinion between the 
. two writers from whom I have quoted, as to the existence of definite individual , 
rights of property in land, as distinguished from tribal, or common, or 
indefinite rights ; but as this is a point which little concerns the purpose of my 
narrative, I shall do no more than refer to it here. The extracts above given, 
at all events sufficiently show that the Maoris always attached the greatest 
value to the ownership of the soil, and took the utmost care to preserve an 
accurate knowledge of the boundaries of the tribal estate. The very value, 
however, attached to the possession of land naturally led to aggression and to 
the use of various other means of acquiring title to it ; and not only in many 
of their traditions, but also in all other accounts of the habits of the race, we 
find mention of wars undertaken for purposes of conquest, and of marriage 
alliances being contracted, and other devices resorted to, for the purpose of 
peacefully securing additions to the tribal territory. Upon the first of these 
points, Mr. White tells us that a tribe, in going to war, had one or more of 
three objects in view :—1l. To take revenge for some real or supposed injury. 
2. To obtain as many slaves as possible. 3. To extend its territory. “ A tribe,” 
he says, “ seldom became extinct in consequence of war, but when this resulted, 
the conquering tribe took all their lands, and from the slaves taken in war the 
conquerors learnt the boundaries of the land thus taken. But, if a portion of 
the tribe escaped, their claim held good to as great an extent of land as they 
had the courage to occupy. If, however, they could manage to keep within 
their own tribal boundary, and elude their enemy, their right to the whole of 
the land held good. Hence the meaning of a sentence so often used by old 
chiefs in their land disputes: Z ko tonu taku ahi i runga i taku whenua (my 
fire has been kept burning on my land); meaning that other tribes in war had 
never been able to drive them entirely off their ancestral claims. The right 
to lands taken by conquest rests solely on the conquering party actually 
D 
