E—No. 2.

the aforesaid pretensions are not finally annulled, would therefore, in the opinion of your Memorialists be tantamount to a declaration that Her Majesty's supremacy cannot be maintained in these Islands." ' Thus the Government policy was understood by the Provincial Government and the Settlers of Taranaki, at the time and on the spot, witnessing all that was said and done, and deeply interested therein. The Memorial is referred to only to show the persuasion of those who signed it. It is unnecessary to discuss the arguments used by the Memorialists. Yet, if it was land " belonging to the tribe," how was the tribe to act in respect of its land, but through some mouth-piece or representative? and who could that be, except the Chief (33)? As to the alleged incompatibility of the Claim with the Queen's Sovereignty the Queen's Governors for 20 years had not discovered it; but, on the contrary, had recognised that claim in all their dealings(34). In fact, the right is a simple right of property which concerns the enjoyment and alienation of land, and that only, and has nothing whatever to do with Government or -Administration. It is just as much, and just as little, incompatible with the Queen's Sovereignty as is the ownership of land in England by Corporations, Companies, or Partnerships. Nor did the Government at that time disavow the intention of applying their principle to other parts of the country (35), though a fair opportunity for disavowing it was offered. The Provincial Council of Hawke's Bay passed a Resolution, 20th March, 1860, "thanking His Excellency for his equitable and open declaration of policy," and, expressing " the hope that such policy will be for the future everywhere alike steadily and zealovsly adhered t0. ,. The Governor, in answer, after thanking the Council for their expressions of confidence, simply said, " It may be satisfactory to the Council to know that the policy iv question has been approved by Her Majesty's Government." (E. No. 3. p. 39.) '1 he Natives, also, have understood the Government policy as one of universal application (36), and much irritation has been the consequence. A short time ago, one of the leading men of Waikato was asked, why certain Chiefs, who had been invited by the Governor, did not come to the Meeting at Kohimarama. He answered, " one reason was that the Governor had caused the word of the individual to prevail against that of the Tribe." (Tα Kawana whahamananga i te kupu a te tangata hotahi.) Other Tribes apprehend, that they, in their turn, will have to go through the same struggle as the Kgatiawa are now passing through. They regard the Governor's words as involving a declaration of war (sooner or later) against all the Chiefs and all the Tribes who may not be willing to submit to this sudden and sweeping revolution in their social state. The disquieting effect of such a belief as this on the minds of the natives is exceedingly great. In a recent letter, dated sth September, 1860; Mr. Stafford, Colonial Secretary, conveys to the Bishop of New Zealand, " the assurance that the Government does recognize (to the fullest extent) all lawful riyhfs of the Chief and Tribe which have been recognized by former Governments or have ever been understood to exist." Whether any similar assurance has been conveyed to the leading . Native Chiefs, does not appear. To those who concur in Mr. Richmond's opinion concerning the Waikato Cession, it is still extremely difficult to discern on what ground the tribal right of Ngatiawa is denied, whilst the like right in other Tribes is admitted. And it must be deplored, that the enunciation of the Government principle was not so clear and definite in the beginning as to preclude the possibility of misunderstanding. 6. We now proceed to gather (as well as we can) the Native view of the case. The official document records only two statements as having been made by William King, one in the presence of the Governor, on the Bth of March, 1859, and the other on the day when the first instalment was paid. The former has been cited above, in page 4. In the latter, William King admitted that Teira and his party were owners of some land in the block, but claimed the right of preventing their alienation of it. The words used, as reported by Mr. Parris were, " The land is theirs, but I will not let them s(-ll it." (E. No. 3. p. 21.) The former was made before the inquiry began : the latter after the inquiry was closed. What came out during that inquiry is even now very imperfectly known to the public. Some light is thrown on William King's view of the case by the following letters:— WIBEMU KINGI TO THE GoVEKNOK. (l>ap. E. No. 3. p. 6.) Waitara, 25th April, 1859. Friend, Salutations to you. Your letter has reached me about Te Teira's and Te Eetimana's thonghts. I will not agree to our bedroom being iold, (I mean Waitaru here), fur this bed belongs to 'he whole of us; and do not you be in haste to give the money. Do you hearken to my word. If you give the money secretly, you will get no land for it. You may insist, but I will never agree to it. Do not suppose that this is nonsense on my part; no, it is true, for it is an old word; aud now I have no new proposal to make, either as regards selling or anything else. All I have to say to you, 0 Governor, is that none of this land will be givenito you, never, never, not till I die. I have beard it said that lamto be imprisoned because of this land. lam very sad because of this word. Why is it? You should remember that the Maories and Pakehas are living quietly upon their pieces of land, and therefore do not you disturb them. Do not say also that there is no one so bad as myself. This is another word to you, 0 Governor. The land will never, never be given to you, not till death. Do not be anxious for men's thoughts. This is all I have to say io you. From your loving friend, WißEitu Kjngi Whiti. Any doubt as to the meaning of this letter will be removed by comparing it with the language of the official letter, 2nd of April, (cited aboye, page 6,) to it was an answer. That

7

THE TAEANAKI QUESTION.