Martin, Richard John2012-01-312022-11-012012-01-312022-11-0119561956https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/27451The Legislature's attempt to overcome difficulties associated with Native title, brought into prominence by the Waitara wars, departed from the Native corporate method of dealing with property and eventually established the principle of individual title where no such title in fact existed. Despite an early recognition that this principle was proving the foundation of further difficulties, Parliament did not abandon the principle, but tried to deal with the increasing number of problems which arose by continually resorting to special legislation. In a predominantly land-owning Parliament, Hirini Taiwhanga, the member for Northern Maori who became notorious for his stonewalling, stated in 1888 that he had a return showing that members were 'interested in Maori land to the extent of some two and a half million acres. I, therefore, do not blame the members … for forcing these Bills down my people's throats.' (P.D., 62 (1888), p. 448.) No one was ready to deny the accusation. the desire to continue purchasing land from the Natives overruled all other considerations. And under the system controlled in its operations by the Native Land Court and practising the individualization of Native land title, the alienation of Native land 'took its very worst form and its most disastrous tendency.' 'The crowds of owners .… mostly ignorant barbarians … became suddenly possessed of a title to land which was a marketable commodity. The right to occupy and cultivate possessed by their fathers became in their hands an estate which could be sold.' Report of the Royal Commission on Native Land Laws, A. to J. , 1891, G. - i, p.x.)pdfen-NZText