E—No. 2

46

FURTHER PAPERS RELATIVE TO

singular must have been avoided, and terms chosen quite different from any which so expressly recognise the right in separate individuals to separate pieces of land. If, then, separate rights of property really existed at that time, they were preserved ; if the individual right of property was unknown, the words in the Maori version would not have been used. That the view taken by Sir W. Martin of the Treaty doe 3 not coincide with that taken fey others who were on the spot at the time, and not less able to judge than even Sir W. Martin, is certain. Mr. Busby, in an address which he lately published to the Chiefs, said, " When the Queen promised to " every Maori that he should be as one of her own people, the law came ; the law is the strength of " the weak man, and that law Bays, ' Every man's land is hie own, t® sell to the Queen or keep ; no one " shall take it from him because he is weak ; no one shall prevent him selling it if he wishes to sell it. " If the Governor allowed Wiremu Kingi to overcome Teira, he would make the Queen false to the "promise she made to every Maori man when she entered into the Treaty." The following evidence was given by Archdeacon Maunsell before the recent Select Committee of the House of Representatives on Waikato affairs: "Did you deliver an address to'that assembly in which yea " expressed your interpretation of the meaning of the terms of the Treaty which relate to their lands ; " and if so will you state to the Committee what you then said to the Natives on that subject? — I said " that they ought to allow each man to do what lie liked with Ms own land, that their right to their " land was secured to them by the Treaty of Waitangi, and that no King ever interfered with his "people whenithey wished to sell land."

Note 10. " These rights of the Tribes {Page 3) These words, read immediately after" the words "To themselves they retained what they understood full well, the full chiefship in respect of all their lands," might mislead the reader by inducing him to suppose that every succeeding Governor had "solemnly and repeatedly recognised" some right or ehiefship distinct from ordinary proprietary right in the Ngatiawa at Taranaki. The first Governor who recognised the Ngatiawa title at all was Governor Fitzroy, and he never recognised any general tribal right among them, nor any authority on ,the part of the Chiefs of that tribe to control the sale of land. His policy was pursued by Sir George Grey, and by the present Governor. — \_See Note No. 16.]

Note 11. " For through the tribes" {Page 3) The embarrassing uncertainty of Sir W. Martin's definitions is here apparent. If he had used his first term " community," there would have been no real objection to the paragraph as applicable to the purchases made from the generality of tribes by the Crown in New Zealand. But if, as a reader in England would naturally suppose, the word " tribe" here means the whole tribe (iwi), he ■could come to no more inaccurate conclusion. It is notorious that almost all the land purchases of the Government in New Zealand have been made of sections of tribes without any reference to the tribe at large, or even a notion on the part of any person ceacerned that such a reference was necessary. The land purchases made from the Natives by the Crown are divisible into two great classesFirst, those made of leading Chiefs representing whole Tribes (iwi) ; secondly, those made of subtribes (hapu), or of families or other comparatively small groups of individuals. In sales of vacant territory, the principal Chiefs have themselves been the vendors. In sales of occupied territory, an absolute and unquestioned right of alienation has always gone along with the right of occupancy, which is generally exclusive in certain hapus or families, and not common to the whole Tribe.

Note 12. " About the year 1827." (Page 3) It may be so. It is probable that some part of the tribe went to Kapiti for purposes of trade. But Sir "William Martin omits all allusion to the fact, that most of the migrations took place for purposes, not of trade but of conquest. This was distinctly asserted by the Protector of Aborigines and by Governor Fitzroy so far back as 1844, .as was shown in the Governor's Despatch of 4th December, 1860.

Note 13. " But it is quite certain that such intention was never carried out. The Waikato invaders did not occupy or cultivate the Waitara Valley." (Page 3) It is not said on what authority Sir William Martin makes this statement. There is reason to doubt its accuracy. "At the time of the conquest," says Chief Commissioner McLean, " many acts of ownership over the soil had been exercised by the Waikato. The land was divided among the conquering chiefs, the usual customs of putting up flags and posts to mark the boundaries of .the