E—No. 7

LECTURES ON cerned ; and if in this disputed land incautious dealing by Europeans took place, it would probably result in a Maori war. The war in the Bay of Plenty, which has been continued to the present day between certain chiefs, also originated in a like cause ; the contending parties are all of one tribe, and spring from one ancestor, but by intermarriage some have a more direct claim than others. The descendants, who by intermarriage are related to other tribes, have made an equal claim to the land over which they have but a partial claim, and resistance to this has been the cause of the war. Disputes of this kind are not easily unravelled. I believe that were it possible to teach the Maories the English language, and then bring them into some Court, allowing each contending party to plead his cause in such a dispute as I have mentioned, not according to English law but according to Maori custom, both sides would according to Native genealogy and laws make out their respective cases so clearly, that it would take a judge and jury possessed of more than human attainments to (lecide the ownership of the land. While speaking about lands claimed by conquest, I will give a few instances of land claimed by the offspring of those male or female chiefs who have been made slaves in war. It would not generally be supposed that lands disposed of at the Southern end of this island would affect any Native at the Northern end of it, yet such is the case. A chieftainess, who was taken slave from the South by the Ngapuhi and other Northern tribes, became the wife of a Ngapuhi chief; her claim stood in the way of completing a sale of the land, and it was not until the consent of her son by the Ngapuhi chief was gained tbat the land could be disposed of by the Nativesresidingon.it; and to him in due course of time a portion of the payment was transmitted. Again, a chief who was taken slave from the Bay of Plenty by the Northern tribes, having taken a Northern woman to wife, and having a family his relatives from the Bay of Plenty made presents to the chiefs by whom he was taken, and procured his return home ; but was obliged according to Maori laws of title to land to leave his wife and daughters with the Ngapuhi people, for if he had taken them with him, they would have lost their claim to land at Ngapuhi, and would not be allowed any claim to land in the Bay of Plenty ; while his son whom he took back with him, now claims by right of his grandfather an equal right to the lands of the Bay of Plenty tribe. Again, one of the Northern chiefs, haying taken to wife a woman whom he had made slave from Taranaki, and having a son by her, this son returned to the tribe of his mother and claimed as his right, derived from his grandfather, a share in their land which was not disputed; because, as I have before stated, the great-graud-child in the female line has a claim to laud. I remember another instance of this; acertain block of land wassoldby atribenear Auckland,and when the purchase money was portioned out amongst the claimants a Northern chief rose up and rehearsed his genealogy, by which he proved that he was the great-grand-child (in the female line) of one of the claimants of the block sold. He thereupon as a matter of course received a part of the purchase money; he was a Northern chief and had only been known to the sellers by name. There are also other grounds on which claims are made to land. Should a chief of onetribe be killed by another tribe the tribe of the murdered man claims the land in the vicinity where the murder took place; for instance, a chief who had lost his canoe by drifting to sea, went along the coast to the settlement of a tribe who had been at variance with his tribe for many years, and fbuntl his canoe there but was murdered by them. His tribe collected a war party, proceeded to the settlement, and brought away the body of the deceased chief, and in the following year went and cultivated the land; the block wheieof this cultivation formed part, was afierwards sold by the original owners, and the relatives of the murdered chief received payment for the portion they bad cultivated. Also, if a chief is drowned, his surviving relatives demand from the owners of that part of the river or cosst where his body may be found, that for a certain period no fish or shell fish shall be collected from it; this proceeding is called a "rahui," and continues until t> c next stason ; the owners of the shark-fisheries then collect all the sharks taken at that season and dry them, when the tribe of the drowned chief are sent for and entertained at a feast at which the sharks are all given to them. By this act the " rahui" is taken off, aud the fish or shell-fish can thereupon be again taken from any part of the river or coast. Should the "rahui'' be broken by the resident tribes, the relatives of the drowned chief then claim an equal right to the land. In one case a chief vvas drowned, and the owners of the land were called on to " rahui" the liver, but they neglected to do so, whereupon the drowned man's relatives went and cultivated the land and have held it ever riuce. In another, a chief was taken in war not far from Auckland, and his bones were made into fishing hooks and used in fishing for sharks ; the relatives went and took the land near the place where the bones of the chief were thus used. A third instance took place not far South of Auckland. In a war of invasion one of the invaded chiefs was taken with his son (who was then an infant), and the bones of the father — who vvas killed aud eaten —were used by the conquerors to catch sharks. As the son was a slave when he was old enough he was taken out to fish ; aud one day while out fishing there happened to be a scarcity of shark, and he heard an old chief repeat a fishing ceremony with the addit'on of a name, and this being repeated many times the boy learnt the name. On arriving on shore, he enquired of a fellow slave if she knew any one of that name, and was told it was the name of his own father. His ire was roused on learning that his father had not only been eaten but titat his bones were thus insulted. I'hough it is not considered an insult to eat those killed in battle, it is an unpardonable offence to use the bones as I have described ; ou this account the lad brooded over the discovery he had made, and eventually escaped from his masters and got back to his home. The tale he told soon collected a force of men, who avenged the insult by coming and taking possession of the dhtriet, which their tribe owns and occupies to this day. Again, if a chief when on a journey in inclement weather should require a temporary hut to be erected, the fact of his sleeping in the hut made it sacred. It was allowed to drop to pieces, but if the owners of the district on which it was erected made use o$ part of it, the chief for whose use it was erected claimed a right in the district. If a chief should