ON "SEIGNORIAL RIGHT." wpon the sale; after retiring the survey by force, and rising with his followers in arms ; when, T say, »"ter these same events this same Chief refused even to meet His Ex;ellency under a written promise of safety, but responded to His Excellency's forbearance only by war dances, war pahs, and the murder of unarmed settlors ; His Excellency had no alternative but to accept the issue thus forced upon him" (142). 99. Archdeacon Hadfield has committed himself to one positive statement of fact among the many vague assertions in which his letter abounds. He says :—" But with regard to Teira's right to sell, which is so positively asserted, and on the supposed validity of which a war has been commenced at Taranaki, can I expect to be believed in England when I assert, as 1 do unequivocally, that Teira's father, Tamati Raru, through whom alone the son could lay claim to any land, as inherited by him from his ancestors, is still living, and opposed its alienation ? Teira's father is, indeed, the owner of a small portion of the block ; but it would be irrelevant to the purpose of my present argument to discuss his right to sell, inasmuch as he has refused to do so, and co-operated with William King in eppostng his own son up to the very commencement of hostilities" (148). 100. In answer to this positive assertion of fact, it is only necessary to say that the Archdeacon's letter was elated May 29, that hostilities commenced on the 18th March, that Tamati Raru, Teira's father, signed the Deed of Sale to Her Majesty on the 24th February, that he was one of those who cut the boundary line, and that he asked for ar.d received a gun and has constantly borne arms on our ride (144). 1(1. I now refer to the last matter on which I shall trouble Your Grace in reference to the Archdeacon's letter. Speaking of the official statement which I had caused to be circulated immediately on the breaking-out of hostilities, the Archdeacon says :—" I deny the truth of all the statements. lam prepared to prove their falsity here, where evidence can be obtained" (145). Upon the General Assembly being finally summoned for dispatch of business on the 31st July last, Archdeacon Hadfield came up from Wellington. The House of Representatives, being made aware of the strong views whiih he entertained on the subject of the Waitara purchase, examined him at the Bar of their House. Considering that on the 29th May he had committed himself in a public pledge to Your Grace that he was "pre| ared to prove the falsity of all my statements," his evidence at the bar in August, when he had so much more time to complete his case, should have been clear, definite, .and conclusive. 102. The following summary of his answers on most important points requires no comment. When he is asked if he knows the position of the land in dispute, he says, "I do not know the precise boundary line." When asked who were the owners of the land previous to the dispute, he Says, "I have direct information from persons stating they are claimants; I am only giving my opinion en that information." When asked on what authority he states there are 90 claimants on the block, he «ays, " What I have now stated on this subject rests on the asseitions of others. I am here as an unwilling witness in the case before the House, unprovided with direct proof. lam but a secondary witness. Ido not know whether I fully understood the question." When asked whether Wiremu Kingi is one of the ninety, he says, "I have before stated that the right of the tribe extends over the whole of that block; thersfore he is one of the claimants." When asked whether King ever made a proprietary claim, he says, " / hear that he made a proprietary claim to a portion of the block." When asked what proof he has of a certain Native (Hamere) having a claim, he says, "An old man who resided at Waitara 40 years, pointed out to me when I was at Waikanae [150 miles away] portions of the land which belonged to Wiremu Kingi." When asked whether he is acquainted with the details of the negotiations for land in the New Plymouth district, he says, " I could not say that I was acquainted with the details." When asked of whom the Bell Block was bought, he says, "Principally I believe from returned slaves from Waikato; so I have been informed." Of whom the Hua Block? —"I do not know." Of whom the Taururutangi?—"l do not know." When asked if Wiremu Kingi received any payment for the Bell Block, he says, "I do not know whether he did or not." When asked the territorial boundary of the four hapus of which he says Wiremu Kingi is the head, he says, "I am not acquainted with the boundaries. / have never professed to be acquainted with the boundaries." When asked whether these four hapus have equal rights to the South bank of Waitara, he says, "I think they have." When asked if King's people ever cultivated on the disputed block, he says, " I am not aware that they have cultivated any part of that land since their return." When asked whether any of their cultivations were in the disputed block, he says, " I do not know from personal knowledge." When asked where Reretawhangawhanga (Wiremu Kingi's father) had his Pa before the migration, he says, "I do not know." When asked if there was a Pa on the disputed block before the migration, he says, "I do not know." When asked on what authority he said there was no investigation of the absentee claims, he says, " I am quite certain 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 Ngapaki and Riwai te Ahu. I have had information from others, but I limit myself to those two." When asked whether Wiremu Kingi had any opportunity offered him of stating his claim to the Government officers, or to the Governor himself, before military force was brought into action, he says, " I 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 lo understand the question.'''' When asked whether prior to the dispute he had had conversations relative to the respective rights of the four hapus on the south bank, he says, " I have .previously stated that I belive in the fact of the tribal right of Wiremu Kingi—having stated as much .distinctly, it is a question in which I take no interest, as I think it irrelevant, I have had conver*a-

E—No. 1.

«oVfr:.oh's »«sr*T«_r, 4th Dec, 18*0.

(142) Chief Justite, App. E. 1.

(143) Hadfield, App. E. 14.

(144) Deed of Sale, App. C. S.

(145) Hadfield, App. B. 14.