HOUSE OF RPRESENTATIVES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XIV, Issue 829, 20 October 1860, Page 2

HOUSE OF RPRESENTATIVES.

Tuesday, August 14,1860. 'evidence eelative to,the..'obi gin of the native insubeection. : . The Order of the Day,—'? That the house do resolve itself into committee, and that the Venerable Archdeacon Hadfield be requested to attend at the bar of the house, to give evidence as to the causes of the Taranaki war, and be subject to question as to the same: and that the Chief Land Commissioner, Mr. M'Lean, shall also be summoned as a witness; and examined on the same subject,"—being read: The Venerable Archdeacon Hadfield was introduced by the Serjeant-at-Arms. Ordered, that Mr. Chairman do request tlie witness to state whether he would prefer to make a general statement as to the causes which led to the Taranaki >war, or reply to specific questions posed to him on that subject. ' : Witness stated in reply that he had not come prepared to make an independent statement, not having understood from the summons he had received from Mr. Speaker that he would be expected to do so, but that in obedience to the order of the house, lie was prepared to reply to any questions that should be submitted to him. 1. Mr. Filzheriert.'] How long have you known William King, and under what circumstances?—l have known William King since December, 1839, when I went to Cook's Straits and took up my abode at Waikanae. 2. What do you know of Wm. King's personal character and of his public character in his relations to the British Government previously to the commencement of the present war ?—During the four years I resided at Waikanae I formed a high opinion of his personal character. I am not aware of any act of violence of which he was guilty except on one occasion when, during my absence, he struck a man down for attempting to burn my house. With reference to his public character, he gave most material assistance to the Government after the unfortunate massacre at Wairai:. He rejected the proposal of Te Kauparaha and Te Rangihaeata that he should join with them in an attack on Wellington; and exercised the whole of his influence to prevent any of his tribe from doing so. During my absence from Waikanae for a few days, an attempt was again made by Te Kauparaha and others to unite William King and his tribe with others in a hostile attack on Wellington, but he again positively declined to take any part in such a proceeding. In the war with Te Bangihaeata he co-operated with the Government against that chief, though he was a near relation of his. Sir George Grey, who was on board a vessel at Kapiti, asked: his assistance; he returned the same day to Waikanae, and proceeded with 140 men to Te Paripari, when oa the following day he captured eight prisoners who were in arms against the Government, and handed them over to the authorities. They were tried by martial law, and seven were transported, I believe they were sent to Hobart Town. Without going into further particulars, I believe that his conduct at that time gave universal satisfaction. He assisted the British Government on all occasions when his assistance was required. I could name other instances. 3. How long were Wm. Kingi and his party absent from the Waitara?-—To the best of my belief about 20 years; (as far as I have been able to obtain dates prior to the year 1838), the first migration from "Waitara under Wm. King's father, when he was accompanied by many of the leading chiefs, took place about the year 1827 or 1828; they returned in 1848. 4. What happened at the Waitara during their absence?— After Wm. King and nearly all the principal chiefs residing at Waitara had left to assist Te Eauparahain his war in Cook's Straits, the Waikato came down and attacked the remnant of that portion of the Ngatiaw a who remained at Waitara in their pah Pukerangiora, they besieged and took the pah, also a number of prisoners, and,dispersed the remnant of the tribe. The Waikatos subsequently proceeded to attack Ngamotu, they were resisted by Te Puni and other of their chiefs, they were then repulsed at Moturoa. The Waikatos "never held possession of Waitara and never acquired any right to it. A few members of the Ngatiawa remained on the land and cultivated. There was only one, Waikato (Pekitahi) who ever cultivated, he had married into the Ngatiawa and cultivated by virtue of that marriage. 5. How were their individual rights or their tribal rights to the Waitara land affected by what took place during their absence? —I conceive that the leading members of the Ngatiawa having voluntarily migrated to Cook's Straits, and as the Waikato never held possession of Waitara, neither the right ot the tribe nor of the individual members of it •were at all affected by their absence from Waitara. :'■'■' ;

6. Do you know the circumstances under which they returned from Waikanae to Waitara, and whether that return had been long contemplated by them?— They had contemplated such' return from the time when they originally left. I first heard of their contemplated return on my arrival at Waikanae in the year 1839. One reason was that a collision had taken place a few weeks before with Ngatiraukawa, supposed to be at the instigation of Te Rauparaha. Another reason for their return was that the limits' of the land in their possession at Waikanae were very narrow. From my first acquaintance with them they always spoke of their return to Waitara as only a question of time. The immediate: circumstances which led to their return in 1848 arose out of the disturbances at the Hutt.

7. Was any one occupying the land when they went back?— Not being at Waitara at the time I can only give secondary evidence on that point. I: have never heard of any other occupation of Waitara prior to the arrival of the English colonists, and certainly not since, than that which I have previously alluded to. ■

€. To whom did the land belong at the time bf their return ?—From my reply to a previous question to the effect that Waikato never occupied the Waitara country, consequently it follows that in my opinion at the time of their return it belonged exclusively to the tribe under Win. King and that portion.of the Ngatiawa who returned with him. '

9. It has been stated that Win, King returned to| Waitara in defiance of Sir, George Grey,'are you aware whether Wm.' King was in any way bound to remain at Waikanae, and whether Governor Grey had any right to dictate to him as to what part "of his possessions he should reside in?—l have heard that Wm. King returned to Waitara in defi-; ancie of Sir George Grey's expressed wish to the contrary. I never did hear from Sir George Greyj himself that' he had made any official cdmmunica-, tion to Wm. King to that effect. 1 know as a factthat Wm. King in opposition to the expressed wish! of the Resident Magistrate at Waikanae took his guns, gunpowder and ammunition with him. He did this as a necessity for he expected that he might be engaged in war with the Waikato. I have no! reason to suppose Sir George Grey had the right to? dictate to Wm. King as to whether he should reside*

at Wuikanao, or Waitava. I pco in some m m , which have been laid.before <;his bouse a Wuinr digncil by Major Ilicfomoml, then Snperinten lent t Wellii.gton, in which he staled thnt he paidav to Wm. King in July, 1547, and tiiat 1-e (W Ki,?\ expressed himself as beins anxious to do notlii' 8 ■which woul'l l:e offensive to the Government i he would be sorry ti> do anything wliicli would" 1? displeasing to the authorities. At the same ti m . r hiivf.' licard fc!'afc Sir Ge"iv»e Grey had expi'fc Wo i°, wish thnt he nb'-vl-l -ri'..reti'rn there. " "'

10. An; you ac-painted with thy nature ofnili tenure of lontl?—I ought to exnrcss Home »lifjj { L, in .reply ing fen timt cjucslion, but I n>ay observe r referenirc to'tliv tenure ackn wledged by the'naf of the soiif hern Jiall' <f this island -wit li vA.'h-), j , V°s acq-iainte",) t'-,at there is little or no difficulty' 1"1 tiie subject. y <J"

11. What opportunities have you had of becomin acquainted with the subject?— The opportunity r have had of becoming acquainted with the subie! arose from the fact of my having resided for f years in a Maori pah in which there were from fi Ur to six hundred men. My attention was narticnlarl- 0 called to the subject at that time by the consta t disputes about the purchases of land made by tl New Zealand Company in Cook's Straits. I was (, quently applied to by Mr. Commissioner Spain T assist him in elucidating Maori customs about lam? I may further state that after the collision at Wa rau I made it part of my business to inquire into the subject, and after careful enquiry I came • 1845,;t0 a conclusion on the subject, which \hl experience of the last fifteen years has not tended in the slightest degree to alter.

' 12. Stat« what you think to be the rights of tl tribe in respect to land belonging to it?—-I think that the right of each tribe to lands extends over the whole of the tribal territory and entirely p re eludes the right of any otLer tribes over it. Such absolute tribal right may be classed under two heads:—lst. The territory which has been in nog session of the tribe for several generations, and to which no other claim had been previously known 2nd. The territory acquired by conquest, occupation' or possession., '

, 13. State what you understand to be the rights of individual members of the tribe in respect to land?—l believe that the rights of the individual members of the tribes are 'limited to those portions of the lands of the tribe which they have either cultivated or occupied, or on which they have'exercised some act of ownership which is acknowledged as such by the tribe. I must be understood to° mean that their title to such lands was simply that of holding for their own use and benefit. Their right was a good holding title as against every other member of the tribe. They might exchange land among themselves, but no one could alienate without the consent of the tribe. In the year 18451 drew up a paper on the tenure of native lands which I gave to Sir George Grey, who promised to return it. He told me he sent a copy of it to the Colonial Office. He did not return the original to me. I understand that it was burnt with otherpapers at Auckland.

14. What do you understand to be the rights of the chief of the tribe in respect to land belonging to the tribe?— While looking over some papers a few weeks ago I accidentally discovered my original pencil notes, which formed the rough draft of the paper on this subject to which I have just alluded; which I now produce, and with the permission of the committee will read, as they must be conclusive as to what my opinion as to individual title was in the year 1845:—

" The chief of the tribe, since he has no absolute right over the territory of the various hapu, nor over the lands of individual freemen of his own hapu, cannot sell any lands but his own, or those belonging to the tribe which are undoubtedly waste lands; nor can he do this in opposition to the opinion of the chiefs of the hapu of the tribe, if they consider the territory and thus the independence of the tribe impaired by so doing. Allowing this very questionable right of the chief to alienate any part of the territory of a tribe, it can scarcely be allowed to any chief of a hapu, even should he act in accordance with the various individuals of the hapu. It must be remembered that a tribe, however subdivided into hapu, is one, and canuot allow its integrity and strength to be impaired by the independent act of one hapu, which it is bound to identify with itself in all things, and to protect, if involved in any quarrels or difficulties. These remarks are more decidedly applicable in the case of ordinary freemen —tutua, who cannot alienate that land which is absolutely their own for all practical purposes, but is not to be disposed of in a manner contrary to the supposed interests of the tribe. There can be no doubt on this subject."

—The notes which I have now read to the committee imply that the chiefs have power over some portions bf the land. Fifteen years ago, I set it down as a questionable right or power; I view it in the same light now. I limit such rights of chiefs to deal with lands obtained by conquest only; and do not consider that it extends to any land which lias become vested in the tribe by long possession. I wish to guard myself in reference to what I am saying on this subject, by premising that I am speaking of tenure to land as it existed prior to the establishment of the British Government in the colony, and not since that event. The chief of a tribe must be regarded as holding his position by a double title. His just title must arise from his undoubted descent through a long line of well known ancestors from the original head of the tribe. His second title depends on a more democratic principle, that is, lie must be the acknowledged and the elected head of the tribe. The chief is the representative of the territorial right of the tribe, not because lie is descended from numerous ancestors of noble blood, but because he has been acknowledged as such on account of his personal qualifications and influence, and has in fact been recognised as the guardian as well as the mouth-piece of the rights of the tribe. I have no doubt whatever on this subject. I understand that whatever rights to land existed previous to the treaty tof Waitangi among the uatives are still rights with them, being guaranteed by that treaty. I investigated Maori titles to land irrespective of the influence which may have been exercised by the Government, and eight or ten years previous to the establishment of British sovereignty.

15. Who is the acknowledged chief of that portion of the Ngatiawa tribe resident at Waitara?—l have no hesitation in stating positively that Win. King is the acknowledged chief of that portion of the Ngatiawa at Waitara. - 16. Are there any other chiefs of that portion of the tribe who possess equal or nearly equal powers with Wm. King?— The only other chief who, were Wm. King to die, and in whose power it would be to forbid such a sale of land is Te Patukakariki-ft man older than Wm. King and head of the Ngatihinga and Ngatituaho hapu. 17. What' rank does Te Teira hold in the tribe? — The only rank Te Teira holds is simply thatot a freeman of. the tribe, called by the natives tutua; ne could not by any stretch of language be called a duet; I knew him and his father four or five years, and during that time I never heard him or his father attempt to speak at any runanga or meeting of tue natives. . •■' 18.' To what hapu does he belong, and who is tne principal chief in that hapu?—Te Teira belongs to Ngatilringa and Ngatituaho hapu, and Te Patusakariki is the chief. . , . 19. Do you know the position of the block of w«w in dispute at the Waitara?—The only difficulty a have in answering that question arises, from vay never having seen the official survey boundaries. It has been described as a block of land contain"'*. about 600 acres situated on the south bank of iikWaitara; this land I have seen and been over; out I do not know the precise boundary line ot tn Government. It is three years since I was on in(( land. , . t 20. Can you state who were the owners of tiiat block of land,previous to the present dispute t— I will state: what I have heard on the subject. * have direct information from persons stating ti • they are claimants to that land, and I a<n ony giving iay opinion on that information. I have hesitation in saying that the land belongs to t » portion of the Ngatiawa tribe of which Win. is the ch'iefe* This portion of Ngatiawa is divide* into four hapus namely—Ngatikura, NgatiuenuK". Ngatihinga, and Ngatituaho, who hare pnnopwj

—oITTt Wiiitara since 1848 under Wra. King. Srii regard to the block of COO acres (apart from Si tribal right as represented by Wm. King,) I i .p been informed (speaking within .tho mark,) i\ there are a hundred claimants who assort rights tlifttlindf it having been the land of their anto tors and having been in ages past, in some part Cfi P «mt defined by stone marks. I know the names f number of claimants. I could quote a great l licr lam prepared to prove that tlvere are a i lirod persons now living at Waikanae, Port v"Son, Queen Charlotte's Sound, and Massacre ii v having valid claims. oV l)o you know any of them personally, and "f" is your opinion of thuir veracity?—T have v own the greater number of them personally. I f c had "0 communication with them since this r-nutc'has arisen, except with those in my own •' mediate neighbourhood. The veracity of those tives 1 believe there is no room to question. 11 oo Have all the owners of that land with whom •nuare acquainted agreed to the sale of it?—l was ktpk informed by two persons at Waikanae, who \ \ iust returned from Waitara, that many of those Arsons with whom they had held conversation had ot consented to the sale of the land; I believe that Jl pre are say ninety out of a hundred claimants ho have not consented to the sale of the land. W 03 Can you say bow many have agreed, and how * ' ] uu -e not agreed, to the sale of the land in miestion?— According to the information. which I hive received, there are only ten or twelve persons v'ho having any valid claims, have consented to the Inle of the land. There are eighty or ninety, perhaps *hundred others, who have never consented to it. , ,' ' 04 You have stated that certain owners of the disputed land did not agree to the sale of it, do you know whether their consent has been asked?—l; have been positively told by two or three claimants that their consent was never asked. 25 Do you know anything about any investigation of their claims?—l have been positively assured that no investigation whatever bad been made at i o 6 d 0 you think that any of these claimants vould now refuse to sell their interest in the block \ of land under dispute?—l think that some would [ now refuse to sell their claims; my reason for thinking ; so is, that one of them, Hohepa Ngapaki, a nephew of the late chief Te Hawe told me so. He further stated that when the Chief Commissioner was in Cook's Straits he appeared to express surprise at his having a claim, and said that the Government would compensate him for it. He (Hohepa) replied that he was not prepared to take compensation, or be forcibly driven from the land, which he had inherited from his father. , 27. Can you say what proportion of the disputed land belonged to those who have agreed to the sale o f it?—l understand the question to mean the proportion of the individual rights as distinct from the tribal rights. I believe that those individuals who sold the land owned about one-fifth of the block, and that four-fifths were the actual property of those who refused to sell, or whose claims were never investigated. : 28. What do you conceive would be the effect on the native mind of commencing the survey of a block of disputed land?—l have no difficulty in answering this question—such an attempt to survey the land in dispute was a taking possession of the land according to the native view, it being quite aualagous to a custom of their own, when they want to take possession of disputed land they go and set up a post upon it; this is often done when they want to force on a collision between tribes. 29. Had the survey of the block of land at Waitara alleged to have been sold by Teira to the Government, been delayed for six or twelve months, is it your opinion that these claimants might have been then more favourably disposed to part with their interests in the block? —My only reason for not giving a distinct answer in the affirmative to this question is my knowledge of the existence of the promise given by Wm. King to his father that he would not alienate any portion of Waitara. With the exception of that, I have no reason to suppose that any other .'claimant, if proper time for investigation had been given, and the feelings of discontent which had been caused by the manner in which Taylor had persevered in his endeavour to dispose of the land had been allowed to subside, would have objected to the sale or that the consent of the whole tribe would have been withheld. . When I wa3 at New Plymouth, at the request of Mr. Parris I had a conversation with Win. King. He came into the town where, he had not been for two years before, and,spent .the night at the inn with me. He then stated that he really had no objection to the pakehas getting land; if they would only allow them (the natives) to settle their own differences and define their own boundaries, he would be prepared to negotiate with them for the sale of the land. I stated the result in the morning to Mr. Parris with the understanding that it was Wm. King's wish that this intention of sale should not be made publicly known, I have however no doubt that had six or twelve months been allowed to elapse without molestation a sale might have been effected with general consent. ; .. 30. Here is a letter signed " Kiwai Te Ahu," do you know the handwriting?—l do know the handwriting. [The letter—in the Maori tongue—was here read.] " " 31. Who is the writer, and how long have you known him?—Riwai Te Ahu is the writer; I have been acquainted with him since 1839. 32. What do you know about him ?—I have known him quite intimately for twenty years ; I appointed him to act as native teacher; I have formed the highest possible opinion of him; his great influence and veracity was such that he held unquestionably a higher character than any other native in Cook's Straits. I recommended him to the Bishop of New Zealand for ordination in the year 1848, and I believe he was ordained four or five years ago, after having lived for a considerable time at Archdeacon Kissling's house. He is a man of the most scrupulous veracity. 33. Will you be good enough to compare this translation of that letter with the original, and say whether it is in your opinion a correct translation, and.if not in what part or particular is it incorrect ?—I have already seen this letter, and have compared it with the original. I helieve it to be a fair translation, perhaps not a literal one in the strict sense of the word. 1 have seen letters eloquently written by natives translated into bad English, with what object I know not, unless it were to produce an impression on the public mind that the natives were incapable of expressing their opinions in proper language, which is the reverse of the fact. I believe that to be a fair translation.

[Translation.] Eiwai te Ahu,

Otaki, June 23,1860

Mr. Superintendent,—Greeting. This is what I have to say. I have much to say; perhaps you will be tired reading; but I write fully because I hear such erroneous statements about the land at Waitara and about Wm. King. Do not think that it is oat of any ill feeling to Teiru that I write ho fully, or that Teira is a more distant relation of mine than Wm. King. No, it is because I wish to explain to you that you may understand all particulars concerning the land, and the tribes and the people to whom the land belonged, because the trouble has increased. Teira is a near relation of mine, and Wm. King only a distant one. ' . ■

We never imagined that this Governor would adopt a course different from that of other Governors. They, failing in their •mdeavours to obtain that laud, desisted. Now, we are altogether pwplexed (and exclaim), Alas ! this is a new proceeding on the part of our Queen. But we think that the Governor must have been deceived by Teira and those acting with him, and the Lund Commissioner of Taranaki, and that is why he was ho hasty in sending his soldiers to Waitara to frighten the men and women who turned his surveyors off their own pieces of land, a»d laud belonging to ns, in order that he might seize those. luiklh. For instance, Mr. C. W. Richmond writes:—Taranaki, March, IB6o—which ha* been heard by everybody—" Teira'tf title Ims been fully investigated, and is perfectly good ; there is no one to deny his title." Yes, his title is good to his own pieces within the boundaries of that land—two or three pieces. Our title is equally good to our own pieces—some have one, or two, or throe, or four within that block. Wm. King stated this ; but what he said has been misinterpreted by the Land Commissioner of Taranaki, who asserts that Wm. King said the whole of the land was Toiras. It was his determination to take the land by force, and his ignorance of the Maori language which made him Pervert what Wm. King said. From this statement put but not proved by Mr. C. W. Richmond, we conclude that the Land Commissioner only enquired of those who worn on Teim's side of the question ; even when they.enquired at Queen Charlotte's Souud, they did not seek for information from any who wore on Wm. King's side; nor would they even listen to what they had to say, for Wm. King writes—"He (Mr. Parris) says: the pakehag will not hear what I hate to nay;" but I did not

boliuve whnt ho wrote last year, for I did not think it possible the Government could act In this way. Information wus not soiiglit from us. If inquiries had boon made on both sides of tho question, if what tluty (Win. King's party) had to say hud hcou heard, and their inquiries had likewise extended to us (at Wdikimuo, *v.) it would havo boon evident that Toira and his party wore in tho wrong; hud such inquiries boon made thoy must havo oxclaimod—Wull ! tlniir pieces are dotted about amongst thosio belonging to porsons who refuse to sell, and amongst ours who dwell hero. Wm. Kino writes again—" This is what I blame tho pukehas for—Mr. Parris, Mr. Whitoloy, and tho Governor, thoy say tho land all belongs to Toira. No, that land belongs to us all, to orphans and to widows." His letter is horo' If they had sought for infermutiou, tho Governor's Laud Commissioners would not have falsely represented to him that after full investigation they found the land belonged to Teira, When wo first hoard that thoro was no union as 600 acres in tho hind claimed by Teira and his party, wo thought it could not bis tho land at Waitara, but some now land that Tuira and his party hud discovered. Tho reason why Win. King and his party objected so ■strongly when Toira first offered the land for sale to tho Governor, was because they found that their laiids and ours would all bo included in tho one block; and what they found has come true. Wm. King wrote and told us that—"The Land Commissioner of Taranaki said that though only one man wished to sell the land, the pakehas would at once assent to purchase."

Now wo deny the following statements which havo been put forth—That the land in Teira's, that it belongs to his tribes to Ngatihinga—and that they allowed Wm. King to live on that land after his return from Waikanae—that his ocenpation of it was unjustifiable, and that he had never before occupied it. Do they moan to say that the land did not belong to Wm. King, and that he had no right to object to the sale? Listen. This statement would only be believed by pakehas, and tribes who are strangers to the facts of the case; but we of Ngutiawa, who live at Waikanae and Wellington, Queen Charlotte's Sound and Massacre Bay, we will never allow Teira's title, or say that W. King has put forward an unfounded claim. Only those members of Ngatiawa who are deceiving the Government and the pakehas, will deny Win. King's claim or uphold Teira's. The Land Commissioner of Turauaki veeraed to imagine that Teira and his party are the only members of the Ngatihinga and Ngatiuaho; they did not seem to know that Wiremu Te Patukakariki is the chief of that • hapu.' Besides Nopera Te Kaoma and others who are of those ' hapu, 1 who" did not consent and whose objections Were not listened to by the Land Commissioner at Taranaki. Listen. It was Wiremu Te Patukakariki's wife and their two daught >rs with some other women of that ♦ hapu ' who turned the Government surveyors off their own pieces of laud.

Now this land was not divided into diffnrent portions for the different 'hapu' for Ngatihinga and Ngatiuaho, and for Ngatikura and Ngatinenaku aud other • hapu,' holding within the, block which hag been purchased by the Governor. No, they were all intermingled j the boundaries of each individual's land having been marked by stone posts by onr ancestors; besides these • hapu' are not of two different tribes; they are all of one tribe. : ■. ■

All of these different portions of land have names given them by pur ancestors : the name of Wm. King's is ' Te Poropore.' One portion of land belonging to his son and daughter, which was the property of their mother, is that ou which Te Hurirapa'n pah stood, which was burnt by the soldiers. Another portion of land is at Orapa, to the south of where their old pah stood. All these portions are contained in the block asserted to be Teira's; and have all been taken by the Governor.

All the portions of land belonging to us and those who opposed the sale—Ngatikura and NgateuDnuku and some of Ngatihinga and Ngatituaho, besides portions which belong to the hapu, have all been included in the block of land which the Laud Comminsioner of Taranaki asserts to belong to Teira alone. What can be the meaning of this expression—"Wm. King was permitted to live on that land by their consent, when he . returned from Waikanae ?" Who can venture to make such an assertion ? It was no such thing; each man knew the portion of land inherited from his ancestors. Was it by their own permission that Te Hurirapa became the property of his children when they returned from Waikanae—which has been taken away by the soldiers ? Was it by their permission that our lands inherited from our ancestors, became our property which lands have all been taken from ns at the point of the sword? In my opinion,such an assertion is like deadly poison. According to the opinion of the Land Commissioner of Taranaki, Teira was quite justified in asserting his right to sell the whole of that block, and Wm. King was utterly wrong (in denying it). In our opinion, Teira's act was a graat crime, and nothing can be said in hU behalf which can hide his unjust act.

In conclusion, I must say that I am unable to suggest anything to my people to pacify them in their sorrow about our lands ; they are very much grieved about the seizure of the lands of our ancestors.. If that land should be permanently wrested from them, then this saying will be handed down through all future generations—that land was forcibly and unlawfully taken away by a Governor appointed by the Queen of England.

If William King had been a murderer, he would have shown it to Mr. Parris, Land Commissioner of Taranaki for saying that—" He (W. X.) would be shot and his body would be put under ground in their cultivations, and not taken to a burial ground." Now, to ns Maories this is a very bad language (a curse) to use about a chief. It would immediately occasion war (his title is here.) .

In 1837, Reretawhangawhanga was cursed by Ngatimaru. A large hostile party of Ngatiawa, consisting of four hundred men, went from Waikanae to Whareroa; but owing to that chief's moderation none of the Whareroa people were killed— their potato crops only were injured.: I formed one of that paity. Was it because Wm. King was (asserted to be) a drunkard and a murderer that the Land Commissioner of Taranaki thought that land belonged only to Teira and his party ? Is that the reason why it was taken from him ? There is a murderer living with the Land Commissioner and his party at Taranaki; but.they do not call him a murderer, he is called " our friend " —why did they not take away his lands ?

Wm. King arid his party wished to avoid war when the first instalment of money waß paid to Teira for Waitara.

On of them wrote to ask whether" I thonght it would be well to collect money among themselves and return the Governor the money, \£i 00, which he had paid to Teira, hut when our lands should be taken on account of that money having been paid, they should resist, and their resistance should be made a pretext for the Governor.to make war with them.(his letter is here.)

I myself formerly heard the private language of Reretawhangawhanga, Wm. King's father, in the pah Waikanae, in 1840, in reference to Waitara, not to sell it to the pakeha. And he continued to express the same determination until his death, in 1844. And he left a strict injunction to Wm. King to carry out his,wishes after death. „-, ■ .

When Te Reretawhangawhanga and the other chiefs at Waikane heard that Nuitone Te Pakaru chief of Ngatimaniapoto had come to clear a place for cultivation on the south bank of the Waitara (Wharonui was the name of the piece of laud), they said that he must return to his own place and leave Waitara for us. I heard him say this (in 1842-3). Nobody belonging to Waikato or Ngatimanipoto lived at Waitara before the pakehan went to settle at Njsamotu. Nuitone Te Pakaru wan the first who attempted to live, there, and this induced one of those chiefs]—Ngaraurukau to go there from Waikanae, to hold possession, and prevent any Ngatimaniapoto men from returning to Waitura. Ngatimaniapoto now returning to Waitara during the interval between that and Win, King's return there. I make no mention of Peketahi, he was allowed to remain there because of his wife (who was a Ngatiawa).

Win. King acted like a friend to tho white people of Wellington, in 1843. We went from Waikanae (with Archdeacon Hadfield). We saw Haerewhaho tried by Mr. Halswell in the Court House at Wellington. He wnß found guilty and : taken to prison. There all the natives of Wellington rose aiid wished to kill the pakehas in the • town. Wm. King at once exerted himself to pnt down the movement; and it ended. „ '. The second timo was in'lß46. Governor Grey sent for Wm. King to go to him on board H.M.B. Cantor, which was anchored at Kapiti. He went, Governor Grey then asked him whether he would go to Te Paripari, to assist against his: foe Te Rangihaeata. William King immediately assented (he did- not raise any objection on the ground that Te Rangihaeata was.his relation). In the morning we returned to Waikanae. ,Wm. King at once enmrnoned his various hapu, and told them that they were to go to Te Taripari. We slept that night on the road to Wareroa. In the morning we reached Te Paripari. He took one hundrel and forty men with him. I accompanied them, and then returned to WaiUanae. They made prisoners of eight men belonging to Wanganui, who had joined Te Rangihaeata. (Whea these men were taken, they said: to those who captured them—wait, who knows whether you will not be served hereafter in the samp way. I dare say Wm. King now remembers this saying.) They were brought to Waikanae, and then oh board Governor Grey's steamer. I have ho doubt there' arc pakchns who saw these men whom Wm. King captured. What return does the Governor now make to Wm. King for these acts? Wm. King always upheld the authority of the Government; he always refused to have any connection with the Maori King up to the very time when hostilities took place at Waitura. I cud here. From your friend, (Signed) Riwai Tis Ahu. 34. Here is a document signed by several natives, do you know their handwriting?— There are seven of them whose handwriting I know, I see that the others have put their marks which accounts for my not recognising their signatures. The letter is in the handwriting of ltiwai Te Ahu. (This letter in the Maori tongue was here read.) 35. Who are the writers, and how long have you , known them?—l have known them all from my first acquaintance with the tribe; there is not one of them under 40 years of age. 36. What do you know about them?— Two of those spoken of. I esteem as being honest and straightforward men, incapable of any want of I veracity. But I have no reason to doubt the veracity of any of them. 37. Will you be good enough to compare this translation of that letter with the original, and say whether it is in your opinion a correct translation, and if not, in what particular it is incorrect?—l believe it to be a fair and honest translation of the ■, letter. [Translation."] HOHEPA NGAPAKI AND OTHERS. Waikn.no, Juno 29, 1860. Mr. Superintendent,—Greeting—listen—We •■wish you to declare these words in the presence of tho Gover-

nor. Wo havo portions of land at Waitara within tho boundaries of tho land which Toira wrongfully sold to the Govornor j this land belongs to us, and to thosowho havo boon driven off that land; and belonging to tho ancestors of us all. Wo have never heard from the older men, who aro now dead, that tho laud belonged to Ngatituaho and Ngatihinga only, or to tho ancestors of .Toira, and thoso whoso pedigreo ho has published with his own, or to his father; and that they gavo it to our ancestors and our fathers to cultivate food upon for tho ancestors of Toira and his party, or his father, and the fathers of his party. This is not land newly discovered by Toira, or his party, or his father, that there should bo any doubt about our statements (in reference to it) or that they should protend to such an undoubted claim to that land or should justify tho donial of our claims, and that of thoso who havo been forcibly driven from it. It, is not so. The land is an anciont possession transmitted from ancestors. We have heard tho justification (put forth in defence) of Mr. Parris's wrong act in.reference to our portions of land. It is as follows—" A long timo was allowed to elapse; no objections were made to (the sale) of the land. Mr. Parris, Laud Commissioner at Taranaki carefully inquired in order to ascertain who were the owners of the land offered to him. Mr. Paris made inquiry and was satisfied as to the right," We presume this statement is put forth that all men may wonder at the carefulness of his proceedings; that people may be led to believe that he did really make inquiries! Listen. We are living at Waikanae-y-one at Otaki. Mr. Parris never came to make inquiries of us as to whether we had lands there or not (nor did any of his fellow Land Commissioners come to make inquiries). He did not even write to inquire. He did not during" the whole of that year advertise in the newspaper his wish to ascertain what claimants there were: to that land. He did nothing of the kind. One of the Land Commissioners inquired of some persons in Queen Charlotte's Sound; but he passed us by and made no inquiries of us. The first we heard, was the payment of money to Teira. Bnt we had no doubt or anxiety about our lands—we had no fear that we should lose them,1 hecause we were distinctly informed of Wm. King's determination to keep possession of our lands—he being the chief to protect* our lands there.

The next we heard, was the survey, and the arrival of troops to take possession. What opportunity had we of speaking? ! When there was actual war, then Mr. Parris published a statement, saying that he had made full in- , quiries. . • ; -..■■ What we wish to ask is this—What are we to do, who ! are persons living quietly, and take no part in war,—when the Governor wrongfully takes away our lands P Should we look to the Queen ? or to whom? We had always ■ thought thought that the Law afforded protection from \ wrong. We are at the present time wholly at a loss as to what course to adopt. ; We conclude here. [ This is from some members of Ifgatiawa to whom the j land above referred to belongs. i (Signed) \ ~Na Hohepa Ngapaki JN"a Patihana Tikara ! Epiha Paikau Tupoki x, PinarapeTe Neke x, ' Henere Te Marau x, Paora Matuawaka, Hutana Arawatia, Wiperahama Putiki, Teretui Tamaka, Eiwai Te Ahu. Kiripata Pake, [Here Mr. Fitzherbert with the leave of the Committee put in the following translation of a Maori letter, the original document being missing.] (Translation..) H. N. Whitikau. : ' Waikahae, July 9, 1860. ■ This is a letter in explanation of one which Ropoaraa wrote to Mr. M'Lean and to which he clandestinely attached our names to make it appear that a large number of people assented to the sale of Waitara. These men whose names were written in that letter did not consent to have their names written clown, nor did they see the letter written which contained their names. Ropoama Te Once wrote it quite clandestinely, in order to have a number of names affixed to his letter to Mr. M'Lean. I, Ropata Nutana Whitikau, did not see that letter written or my name; I was hero at Waikanao. When I returned to Queen Charlotte's Sound I asked Ropoama about this letter, and he gave me no answer : I wast very sad. When Inia and others at Queen Charlotte's Sound heard that Ropoama had written their names without their consent in his letter to Mr. M'Lean, Tuia Tuwhata also wrote a letter to Mr. M'Lean to have their names erased from Ropoama's letter to him. The Rev. Mr. Butt took their letter and gave it to Mr. M'Lean and he received this (that is Tuia's) before he received Ropoama's. The names of fifty people were written by Ropoama without their consent in his letter to Mr. M'Lean; even the names of people living at Waikauae were written by Ropoama in his letter. This is ours. (Signed) Ropata Nutana Whitikau, Wiremu Te Hono. Witnessed— . ■ . : Riwai Te Ahu, Hohepa Nsapaki, Anabu Maweto. , 38. Who is the writer and how long have you known him ? —E. If. Whitikau. I have known him a long time. He is a leading chief at Queen Charlotte's Sound. I have not had such personal acquaintance with him as with some of the others whose names'have been just mentioned. He is a man of considerable note among his tribe. I have no doubt but he was the author of that letter, judging from the names of the Avitnesses attached. - 39. Where does he, now reside?—He was lately at Waikanae, when I left Cook's Straits. He usually resides in Queen Charlotte's Sound, where, with the exception of an occasional visit for a few weeks to Waikanae,*he has been residing for twenty years. 40. In what sense, so far as you know, did the natives understand the Maori proclamation of Martial Law ?— There could be but one opinion as to the effect upon the native mind of the proclamation of martial law, as published in the native language. The interpretation so put upon it by all natives who have come under my notice was the same. They were all in a great state of excitement. They looked upon it as a declaration of war, on the part of the Government, against all the natives of Taranaki. The Proclamation conveyed even more than that, for the impression it left on the natives was that it was lawful to take up arms. That was the impression in my part of the country. The mail came up on the Tuesday, and with it a newspaper (the 'Independent') of the previous Saturday, containing the proclamation of martial law. At about half-past nine o'clock, several of the natives very unceremoniously came into my room, with a paper in their hands. They may have knocked, but I did not hear them. They asked me, pointing to the proclamation, " What really does this mean?" I looked at it, and read the Maori version before I saw the English. I was astonished; but looking above I caught sight of the English, and ■ then> being aware of its import, I said to them that the Proclamation was all right in the English, but that the translation was very bad. I said that it was the result of its having been put into the hands of some blockhead who did not know the Maori language. There are one or two English persons in the district who know the native language as well as myself. The natives went to them also, and got from them the same explanations. This Proclamation had a similar effect in exciting the native minds over the whole district of Wellington. One of the Euro- j peans was a Mr. Wm. Dodds, the others Mr. Eagar's sons, but of them I am riot quite positive. ! 41. What, in your opinion, is the effect on the native ; mind of the present Land Purchase System ?—I believe ■'< that the effect of the present Land Purchase System is the means of creating the principal part of the dissaffection ; throughout the Southern part of this Island. I have no hesitation in saying that its proceedings have created the greater part of the disaffection which exists. Ido not know whether I should be justified in stating to the Committee that when Mr. Eichmond (the present Native Minister) was at Wellington, about two and a half years ago, I requested an interview with him for the purpose of ; discussing the question. (I beg to be informed by the committee whether I am out of; order in alluding to this ; interview.) (Hear, hear.) I then expressed feelings of great alarm, and stated that there was a considerable ' uneasiness and disquietude manifested by the natives in my district. I then pointed out the cause which, in ; my mind, hacl created it; that it arose from the manner in which the native title was attempted to be extinguished by the Chief Commissioner; that the natives never felt themselves secure; that he was guided by no fixed principles in acquiring the land ; that sometimes he dealt with the conquerors when they were inclined to sell, at other times with the conquered, sometimes with the leading chief, at other with an inferior one; that I have heard of instances in which an inferior member of the tribe hacl been treated with. Under these circumstances, I pointed out to him the absolute evil there was in continuing the same course. This was at the conclusion of the year 1857. The evil has been aggravated. The want of a distinct principle laid down to guide tho Commissioners in the acquisition of land had been severely felt by the natives. They did not know what was law and what was not. During'thc last eighteen years, I have never lost an opportunity of communicating my opinion to the Government on that subject, and I have pointed out the absolute necessity of defining what constituted a native title to land, and not leaving this point to the knowledge or mere caprice of the Chief Commissioner. I pointed out, in several instances, that tho blocks of land in which tho native title had boon extinguished in my district, and which had become tho subject of dispute, would never have occasioned such disputes under a proper scheme of land purchase. •■..,... 42. Are you acquainted with the circumstance of Eawiri

. • . Litorallytlint which affords "shade •' iv protection, &8 the Rata tree to the underwood boncuth it.

Waiaua's violent death; and what do you conceive led to that event P—That was the first murder which took place nt -liimnnki, in connoction with the land. It took place in 1844 or 1845. Tho circumstances which led to it aro these:—l was informed that after tho proceodin<Vs of tho purchase of the 801 l Block at Taranaki had been completed, a communication wasmade to tho natives that/in future, all proceedings in reference to disputed lands should bo carried on openly, and that Mr. Bell, tho Commissioner, had promised that no purchase should bo effected without full and careful investigation of the claims, and that tho claimants should be informed that such purchase was contemplated, and that he left a memorandum in tho Land O/lice to that effect. Eawiri Waiaua had boon for a few years in possession of a field, claimed by one of Katatore s people—Topia. This man destroyed Eawiri's wheat on that field. Eawiri, in order to avongo himself on Katatore, immediately offered to sell to Mr. Cooper, tho District Land Commissioner, apiece of. land, including some belonging to Katatore, which was, by his own express wish, excluded from a previous sale, because it was claimed by Katatore. Katatore strongly objected to this sale, and frequently warned Mr. Cooper and Eawiri not to proceed with it. But, Bawiri having undertaken to cut the boundary line himself, Mr. Cooper assented. Katatore having heard that Eawiri had undertaken to cut the line, on the following day sent to him to say that he should certainly interrupt the survey, arid that he "had better come armed, and, that he might do so, sent him muskets and ammunition. Eawiri, heedless of this warning, went out and began cutting the line. A collision took place. Eawiri and several others were killed. There can be nodoubt that this collision, resulting in the deaths of several natives, was brought about through the ignorance of the Land Commissioner more immediately concerned in reference to Maori tenure of land, and by the entire absence of anjr ascertained or well defirid principles in connection' witu this question. I learnt the particulars of this important affair from several natives; but I likewise received information concerning it, while actually on the spot where the collision took place, from Mr. Parris himself. 43. Do you know, whether Wm. King took any part in the death of Eawiri ?—I believe that the attack on Eawiri wasmade without the sanction of Wm. King; that he previously, knew nothing about it; and that he had nothing whatever to,do with the transaction. Indeed I never heard the contrary asserted by any one. . 44. State what you know about the origin of the King movement?— There are some facts connected with it which I have heard dwelt upon in other quarters which I might as well pass over, that I may give my own view of. the matter. I may state that the predisposing cause of! the dissatisfaction which exists in the minds of the natives of the southern, half of this island arose from a feeling of insecurity, derived from a want of protection and a want of law. Three years ago, when I first had any attention particularly drawn to it, it struck me that the origin of it was the absence of law among the natives and the necessity of some law to govern them. The natives say, " that as far as we are able to judge the law of the pakeha existed only for- the protection of the pakeha, and for those around their districts, but we have been living under British Government and find that authority will not prevent the outrages of other tribes. The authority of the chiefs who formerly decided these disputes being gone, the absolute necessity of organizing Eunangas forced itself upon us to protect ourselves—from a feeling of insecurity under British law." Then came the question of land; their dislike to 'alienate land arises in consequence of the system which has been pursued in acquiring it. This was another cause of accelerating the King movement. I was absent from the colony about twelve months, and on my return I found that the movement had made rapid strides in the south. On my return I met a personage (whom perhaps I ought not to mention here) at Otaki: the first question I asked was, " what was the state of the King movement"? The reply was, that it was fast dying out, i that the Waikato who first originated it had given it up.: I replied that I was surprised at this, as I found it grow- ; ing at Otaki. Mr. McLean, who was also present, then j said, that the natives in the south had picked it up as a j child, did a toy that had been thrown away. The progress !■ of the King movement is- to be attributed, in my opinion, i to the action of the Land Purchase Department in the \ southern part of this island. j 45. What do you conceive has been the effect on the :, natives of their being permitted to wage wars without the ] interference of the Government ? and also of the principle '; laid down by the Governor that he would only repress \ native outrages inter se, if committed within the boundaries of lands belonging to Europeans?—l slightly alluded to > this in answering a previous question. I may state my opinion positively and distinctly, that nothing could be more calculated to alienate the feelings of the natives, j than the practical denial of Government protection, and i the entire duty of protection being cast back upon the ' chiefs. . Nothing could have tendered more thoroughly • to alienate their feelings than that. When: murders have been committed, and the parties have applied to the Government for protection, they have been plainly and distinctly told that they must protect themselves. This has compelled them to establish an organization for the purpose of punishing criminals. The greatest step towards alienating the feelings of the natives from the Government was taken when they were denied the protection and the justice to which they clearly had a right. When natives are told that they may carry on a war with one another, in order to protect themselves, I am not surprised that they should go up and down with arms in their hands, and that they should lose that respect forthe Government which they othenyise would have had. 46. Do you know in what light'the natives of the South regard the Taranaki war, that is, whether they regard it as undertaken in vindication of the Queen's authority, or if not, in what other light ?—All of those with whom I have conversed, and who are acquainted with the facts of the case, being in some instances near relations of the persons concerned, having themselves resided on the land at Waitara, are of opinion that the war was not undertaken, with the view of vindicating the authority of the Queen, buttheystate positively and distinctly that it was a sheer act of spoliation.

47. Mr. Richmond."] Have: you made yourself acquainted with different ancestral stocks (or takes) of the Ngatiawa?—l don't profess to know anything about them, I am not prepared to answer that, though I may know something about them. 48. Have you ever conversed on the subject of ancestry with any of the Ngatituaho of pure blood, such as Earu or Eaupongo ?—I have had conversation with them on these subjects when I was in a pah with four, or five hundred of the Ngatiawa tribe, and have since conversed with others on the subject. lamat a loss to give a more definite answer ito that question. I have often conversed with the head of the hapu—Te Patukakariki. '

49. Does your last answer apply to the descent, and the t Land Claims at Waitara, of the Ngatituaho ?—Certainly i not. I have not seen or spoken to Patukakariki for the last sixteen years. . |j 60. You say that there are four hapus under King— j have they equal right to the south bank of Waitara ?—I i think they have. . j 51. What are the grounds of your opinion?—l ground j it on the evidence dfliving witnesses. ' ; 52.' Is your opinion derived from conversations subse- j quent to the present dispute ?—I haveit on the authority of! those persons with whom I have conversed on the subject, J and who have objected to the sale of land at Waitara. : 53. Prior to the present dispute have yotiever had conversations relative to the respective rights of the four hapus ; to the south bank ?—I have previously stated that I be- j lievein the fact of the tribal right of Wm. King—having j stated, as niuch distinctly—it is a question in which I take • no interest, as I think it irrelevant. I have had eonver- ■ sation on the subject and I do not believe that any separate rights exist between ISTgatihinga and ZSgatituaho on the one side and JNTgatikura! and Ngatitenuku on the other: the various hapus through former intermarriages are so mixed up with one another that it would be impos- : sible to distinguish among them. It is impossible to give either an affirmative or a negative to a question which j you can neither believe nor disbelieve. The question is perfectly unintelligible-and irrelevant. 54. lias King or any of the jSgatikura ever cultivated ; on the disputed block ?—I am not aware that they have cultivated any part of that land since their return—but his tribe have in former times cultivated there. When I was at Waitara his cultivations were almost exclusively on the north bank. :

55. Canyousayifanybfthosecultivationswerewithinthe disputed blofck ?—I do not know fronipersorialknowledge. 56. Where was Eeretawhangawhanga's pah before the migration?—l do not know—he principally lived at Manukorihi—l am not certain that his pah was there. 67. Was there a pah on the disputed block before the migration?—l do not know; 68. Have you over heard that King asked permission of Earu to build a pah on the south bank, and do you believe that: he did so?-—I have heard so. I believe I know the reason why he asked permission. On their return from Waikanae they wero all rather anxious that they might be on the safe side of the river as they dreaded that the Waikato would return. This fear was more particularly expressed by Tamati Earu, who thought that Wm. King might as well occupy, their side of the river. The reason or his making it a request was not on account of his having land there—for there was within a few chains the land of his brother-in-law—but ho desired to. build the pah a few chains nearer the river than it would have been on that land. 59. Who is tho head of tho Kfgatituaho ?—Undoubtedly To Patukakariki. , 60. Do you know Eopoama to OneeP—Yes, I have known him for the last 20 years. GL—What,is his rank in the tribe ?—Ho might possibly rank as a chief—but most certainly under le Patukakariki. 62. Aro you aware whether; Kopoama lias consentod to

the sale ?—I am not personally awaro whether ho has consented to it or not, I have heard so many contradictory statements. Kopoama had a personal quarrel with Wm. King's brother and would have gladly co-operated in anything likely to annoy W. King. I have heard reports that some payrnont had been made to Kopoama which ho now wanted to return; also that tho Chief Commissioner had ■■■■offered him £100 for his claim to the disputed land at Waitara. I never heard that he approved of tho sale, but on the contrary that lie positively refused to bo a party to tho sale. I have this on very good authority. . ■

63. Arc you acquainted with the details of the negotiation!} tor land in the Now Plymouth district since the disallowance of Spain's award ?~I have rend the documents laid on the table of the houso, and have heard a good deal, but, living 200 miles from tho spot, I could not say that I was acquainted with the details. 64. Of whom was tho Bell Block bought ?—Principally, I believe, from returned slaves from Waikato • so I have been informed. • '

66. Of whomwasthe TarurutangiboughtP-Idonotknow. 65. Of whomwas the Hua block bought?—ldonotknbw. 67. To what hapus of the Ngatiawa do Biwai Te Ahti" Hohepa, and the Waikanae claimants belong ?—Kiwai belongs to Ngatikura and Ngatihinga: the other claimants to the same hapu. ■■:. 68. Did William King receive any payment for M*ngati or Bell Block ?—I don't know whether he did or ndt. 69. You say King is the head of four hapus,—where ia the territorial boundary of these four hapus ?—I am not acquainted with the boundaries of the land owned by those four hapus, of which Wm, King is the head. "I have only been for a few days at Taranaki of late. I have never professed to be acquainted with the boundaries. 70. Did King receive a payment from Colonel Wakefield in 1839, and for what?—l believe that Win. King received no payment in the year 1839. I presume the question has reference to a deed which, is published and to which his signature is attached. I was rather surprised to see that document relied upon—but lam aware that King received no payment, or anything from Waitara. He may have picked up a few figs of tobacco on board the Tory. In reference to the award of Mr. Spain—he diatinctly informed me that when he looked at the deed he treated it as waste paper, and told me that there had been no award made under that deed. I was requested by Governor Hobson to attend a meeting, at which were present the late Chief Justice, the late Attorney General, Mr. George Clark, Colonel Wakefield, arid others, who were about to examine this deed. Oh that occasion, I suggested that, as the deed was drawn up before this waa a British colony, and in the English language, that it was probable the natives did not understand it. The person who interpreted it to the natives was sent for. This person was Mr. Brooks, who afterwards lost his life at the Wairau. He was sent for, and asked to interpret it. After stammering for some minutes, it was found that he was utterly unable to translate a line of it. It was consequently considered as of no importance. Colonel Wakefield told me that he never had any intention of taking possession of any land under that deed, and it was only intended "to throw dust in the eyes of the Sydney land sharks," that he might keep them away, or that if they came he could assert a primary claim to the land, which would invalidate any other claim. Wm. King received no payment or any compensation, except what he may have picked up on the deck of the Tory. r 71. Mr. 0. H. Broivn.~] Are you aware of any cause of personal enmity between Teira and Win. King, prior to Teira having offered the land in dispute for sale ?—I am. I have been informed that Te Teira bore enmity to Wm. King, on account of a girl who was affianced to his brother, having been married to Wm. King's son. j 72. Do men of high rank sometimes descend in rank Neke te tupu?—A man of good descent, even of the best blood of the tribe, may lose all rank in the tribe, and be treated simply as a tutua. The law of primogeniture does not exist among them, in reference to chieftainship. 73. Would he lose his claims to land in that descent ?— A man would not lose his claim to land by becoming a tutua. His title would not be affected by it. What he Avould lose would be his rank and position in the tribe. 74. What was King's conduct, with regard to the king movement, up to the time of the dispute about the hind at Waitara ?—He always decidedly objected to have anything to do with the king movement. When I saw him, three years ago, he repudiated all connection with it. And up to last January he decidedly refused to have anything to do ■with it.

75. Can you state positively whether or not Wiremu Kingi belonged to any land-league extending beyond the GSTgatiawa tribe, previous to the dispute about the land P— I must guard myself in answering this question against being misunderstood, and must'first know what is meant by the (land-league'—whether it is to be taken in its extended or limited sense—if in an extended sense I should have to; give one answer—if in a limited sense, another. If it is meant by a land-league that. he exercised influence over tribes other than bis own I must deny that he did so, —ras lam fully convinced that Win. King1 never did- endeavour to exercise any influence over foreign tribes, and that he has used no influence beyond his own tribe. In this limited sense, that is in reference to his own , tribe, only he may be called a land-leaguer. But I can see no connection between this question and the subject of the TaranakiWar. . ....;.

76. Mr. Sewell."] Do you know whether Wm. King had any opportunity offered him of stating his claim to the Government Officers, or to the Governor himself before the military force was brought into action?— l presume he had innumerable opportunities; he might have written by every post. ' He had an opportunity of meeting the Governor after the publication of martial law; • (After further conversation between Mr. Sewell and the witness, witness said) I must then confess myself unable to under; stand the question. ' 77. Mr. Gillies.'] Have you any influence with the natives in your neighbourhood in guiding the formation of their opinions on secular not on religious matters ?—I am not aware that I have any influence whatever on the subject. ~ . • •. . . 78. Have you assisted in guiding the native opinion to the result stated by you "that the present war was not to assert the Queen's supremacy but a war of spoliation"? —I certainly did not. In fact my opinions on those subjects have been formed since theirs. . • . 79i Mr. Bichmond.] On what authority do you state that there are 90 claimants on the Block at Waitara and only ten or eleven claimants consenting? —What I have now stated on this subject rests on the assertions of others. lam here as an unwilling witness in the case before the house, unprovided with direct proof. lam but a secondary witness, and have founded my convictions upon statements made to me by the natives themselves—but I do not know what-is considered conclusive to the committee. lam unable to state to the committee all the grounds on which I have formed opinions. I do not know whether I fully understood the question. . 80. Is Wm. King one of the ninety?— l have before stated that the right of the tribe extends over the whole of that block, therefore he is one of the claimants. „ . 81. Has Wm. King ever made a proprietary claim ?—J hear that he made a proprietary: claim to a portion of the block. It would be impossible forme to say what it is, as I understand that the boundaries of the blocjt are "undefined." I have heard that about 60 acres, on the south bank, had been left as belonging to Wm. King. It is utterly impossible for me to state, without the, bound* aries being defined, what portion of his claim is within the block and what without it. His son has a claim within the block. :, : •"'■ ■■■■;■■::<.{.

82. "What proof have you that Hamere Ngaia has a "claim on the block ? —I before stated that I am unable to produce all the evidence which I .have had, but I may state to the committee an old man, who resided at;Waitara forty years, pointed out to me, when I was at Waikanae, portions of the land which belonged to Wm. King. Several other natives confirmed the statement. 83. Are you aware whether any5 act of ownership was ever exercised by the Waikato upon the block?— Certainly none that I acknowledge to be an act of ownership. 84 Do you know of any Waikato native, except Peketahi, who lived at Waitara ?—I do not know that any other lived there, in such a sense as to establish a title. 85. Are you aware whether Wm. King asked permission of Potatau to return to Waitara ?—I remember Potatau visiting him at Waikanae. Ido not believe that King asked permission to return to Waitara. They had nothing but a friendly conversal ion. Ido not believe ;tbit he did;ask, for if he had, it would not have escaped me. I never heard that he did. He may have applied by letter to Potatau, asking his leave to return. „, 86. Wero you at Kapiti or Otaki when the Tory was first there ?-—I was neither at the one nor the other.

87. That was the time when the Queen Charlotte's Sound Deed was executed, and when any payment to Wm. King would have been made?—-When the Deed waa executed the payment avouM be made; no payment beyond a few presents was over made. 88. On what authority do you state that there was' no investigation of the absentee claims P—l am quite certain that none was made at Waikanae. It must be generally understood that my evidence in reference to this' dispute is derived chiefly from the chief Hohepa Ugapaki and ltiwai Te Aim; I have had information from others, byt I limit myself to these two. 89. Mr. IPitzherlert^] Do you believe that if you were permitted to summon native witnesses from the: south, you could substantiate by direct evidence, the statements you have made before the committee where requiring direct confirmation?— Yes, I think I could substaritiato every onoof .the statements I have made relating: to 'thenatives at Waitava. lam quite sure that I could substantiate all of them.. * ," , . v,';

Ordered that tile witness be now discharged firom further present attendance on the committee.