E—tfo. 7

MAORI CUSTOMS. the Natives of the North end of this island are, from their longer intercourse with Europeans, said to be the least like their own countrymen in reference to tribal rights of great or minor chiefs: hut the very fact of their having sold more land (so far as the number of claims are concerned, these claims being so isolated and sold by so many different hapus,) is the best test we can have of the " seignorial" rights of first rank chiefs over the whole tribe or even over a section of a tribe or hapu. The Natives at the North Cape, or the Rarawa and Aupouri tribes, are a branch of the Mamari or Ngapuhi people, and are guided by the old chief Morenga : yet in all land sales this old chief has not participated in the slightest degree, but a chief of minor importance in the same tribe (Panakareao) sold largely, even when the old chief Te Morenga was in full power. This, howexer, only apolies to the Rarawa at Kaitaia, as there was another section of this tribe at the Whangape, led by Te Pukeroa and Papahia, the former of whom did not sell an inch of land, and Papahia only participated in two sales out of many which his tribe sold. Again, in Hokianga, there is another section of this tribe, of which Moetara was the chief; he sold two blocks, though not as chief of the tribe, as he was but a claimant of a small portion of each of the pieces sold. These chiefs (although of the same tribe or Iwi), did not exercise any right over each others' land, for the land in the district in which each lived was under their own control. On the sale of a certain piece of land at Kaitaia, in which Papahia of Hokianga was a claimant, he received a small portion of the payment, yet the other chiefs of the tribe at Hokianga did not. Again, in the sales by Moetara, Papahia and the others did not receive any payment, but in one of the sales by Papahia, Moetara as a claimant received a payment. The Hikutu tribe is also a hapu of the Ngapuhi, whose ariki is Moehau ; out of all the sales of land by this hapu, Moehau received part payment for only one, while in some of the sales minor chiefs of the Rarawa were claimants and received part of the payment. Again, the Ngaitupoto (the ariki of which was Wbatiia), sold land in which Tawhai, the chief of Te Mahurehure had a claim, and received a portion of the payment, yet the " ariki" of Te Mahurehure (Moka) did not participate. Again, a number of Mahurehure (of which Tawai is chief) had claims not only in the district in which they lived but in other districts (to the exclusion of their leader, Tawhai, and manj of the other chiefs,) who sold these claims and received the whole of the price themselves. But in one of the land sales by the Rarawa (or that portion or " hapu" of it called Te Patu) when they sold a piece of land at Monganui, the chief Tawhai, of Hokianga being a claimant received part oi the payment. Again, the Hapu Te Urekapana sold a piece of land in their own district, and a minor chief of the Mahurehure, called Tiro being a claimant received part of the price, yet not any of the chiefs or " ariki" of Te Mahurehure received any payment. Again, the Ngaitupoto sold some land in their own district, and a chief in the Popoto tribe, Tahua, received part of the price as claimant but not as "ariki." Again, in the Waimate district, the Ngatitautahi sold land, and a minor chief of the Ngatikaihoro, a hapu of the Mahurehure, called Netana received as claimant a portion of the price: and also when the Ngatimatakiri in the Waimate district sold land, the " ariki" of the Popoto as claimant received a portion of the price, but not any other of the tribe. Again, the Tahawai of Whangaroa sold a piece of land, and the " ariki" of the Hikutu at the Bay of Islands, being a claimant, received part of the price. Again, the Ngatiuru of Whaingaroa sold land, and chiefs of the Ngatirehia and Hikutu of the Bay as claimants received part of the price, but not the " arikis" of those hapus. Again, the Ngaitawake sold land in the Bay, and Wi Hau, of the Ngatiwhiu (at Waimate) as claimant received a part of the payment. Again, the Hikutu at Ngunguru sold land, and cbiefs of the Ngatihau in Hokianga as claimants received a portion of the price. Again, the Urikopura hapu live in their own district on the borders of the Patu district, yet five of the minor chiefs of the Urikopura sold a block of land which was situate in the rfiiddle of the district of the Mahurehure, and not the slightest part of the payment was given to the "ariki" of their own tribe, or to the Mahurehure "ariki" or people. These will suffice as examples out of the Ngapuhi Iwi, to show that the head chief or ariki of the Ngapuhi does not possess any "manorial right" over the land of the iwi. It will be apparent to all, that not only the ariki of the Ngapuhi iwi has no veto on the disposal of land, but even the ariki of any of the hapus do not possess that right ; for in the examples 1 have given there is proof enough to show that the members of a hapu dispose of land without the slightest reference to other members of their hapu, and that members of different hapus join and dispose of land as though they were of the same hapu. And not only so, but it will further be seen that in many instances minor chiefs have received a portion of the payment for laud disposed of by members of another hapu when the " ariki" of the hapu of the receiver has not, and also that the minor chiefs of a distant hapu have the power to dispose of land belonging to them which is situated in the midst of land belonging to another hapu, without any permission on the part of their own " ariki" or the " ariki" of the hapu in whose district the land is situate. But I will pass on to the Kaipara district (the Mahuhu migration), in which until of late years there has been very little land disposed of to Europeans. I would here remark, that it is believed by many that Maori intercourse with Europeans has materially altered their ancient manners and customs, and especially so in reference to the power of chiefs and the customs relative to land : but how such an idea should have taken possession of the public mind is a matter of wonder if we look into the history of the people, and their wars, which related so often to only one point, name.)', the right to land. The history of their claims, and their daily occupation causing them to rove over their whole territory ; their having no written records; their minds being imbued with the feats of their fathers in protecting their lands; made it impossible for any communication with Europeans, before 1840, to cause any alteration in their customs relative to their ancient tenure of land. I have, therefore, selected all my examples from sales by Natives before the Government took possession of New Zealand, so that it will be seen the idea to which I have referred cannot be fairly deduced from the cases given. The chief Paikea is the "ariki" of the Roroa