THE TAEANAKI QUESTION.

55

E—No. 2

Note 36. " The Natives also have understood." (P°g e 7.) The Natives have understood this because, they have been told so by Europeans. It is one of the most serious embarrassments against which the Government has to contend, that publications such as those which the Bishop of Wellington, Archdeacon Hadfield, and now Sir William Martin have put forth, lead the Natives to believe that the Governor has initiated a new course of policy which will end in wresting their lands from them and subverting' the rights they possess under the Treaty of Waitangi. The Governor ha 3 made many declarations to the Natives that their lands would not be interfered with. He published a circular letter to the Southern Chiefs in April 1860, which was extensively circulated. He wrote to Waikato to the same effect. He specially renewed to all the Chiefs, in a message to the Conference at Kohimnrama, the solemn assurances so often given in the Queen's name, that the Treaty of Waitangi should be faithfully maintained. More recently he conveyed to the Bishop of New Zealand the assurance, that the Government does recognise to the fullest extent all lawful rights of Chief and Tribe which have been recognised by former Governments, or have ever been understood to exist. If these repeated declarations are disbelieved by the Natives, if they " regard the Governor's " words as involving a declaration of war (sooner or later) againstall the Chiefs and all the Tribes who " may not be willing to submit to this sudden and sweeping revolution in their social state," it is because the course taken by the Governor, in resisting at Taranaki the dictation of a Land League to destroy rights which have existed for sixteen years, has been misrepresented as being a new system of land purchase, aiming at the spoliation of Native lands. It is always an embarassment to a Government that such misrepresentations should exist, even when circulated by persons whom it may not be worth while to notice. Sanctioned by the high authority of Sir W. iiartin, they really become a public danger.

Note 37. " The answer asserted the Tribal Eight" {Page 8.) It is satisfactory at last to obtain an admission of what this letter of King's really meant. The apologists of W. King have hitherto urged that this letter was a full notice of his proprietary right; the Government as constantly maintained it was no notice of any right except the assumed right of preventing the sale of their own land by other proprietors. Sir William Martin says it " asserted the tribal right." Here then was the whole question. If a general tribal right in the Ngatiawa tribe had ever been admitted , by the Government at Taranaki, the notice was one which the Government were bound to respect, and stay their hand accordingly. If, on the other hand, that general tribal right had never been acknowledged among the various sections of the Ngatiawa themselves, and had been invariably denied and repudiated by every successive Governor of New Zealand, the notice was one which the present Governor would properly disregard as a threat, in the same manner as all preceding threats of the same kind had been disregarded in the acquisition, of other blocks at Taranaki,

Note 38. [Letters from Wiremu Kingi to Archdeacon Eadfield.'] {Page 8 ) These letters were withheld from tlie Governor's knowledge up to August 1860. It appears that so long ago as the 2nd July 1859, Wiremu Kingi said, " Therejore my thoughts of love gojorth to you, that you may speak a word to the Governor and McLean concerning the course of proceeding about Waitara here." Again, " I think that you should concern yourself with the Governor and McLean and Parris." Again, " Let your word to the Governor and McLean be strong." The Governor had specially requested Archdeacon Hadfield to keep him informed of anything important among the Natives of his district, and had his promise that he would do so. The Governor has a right to complain of Archdeacon Iladfield for not communicating these letters to him, and of the manner in which they were published after being withheld from him so long. Archdeacon Hadfield came up to Auckland in the steamer which brought the Wellington members to the meeting of the Assembly last July. He had these letters in his possession. They were made public, for the first time, to serve a party purpose in the House of Representatives. In the letter of 2nd July, exactly the same intimation is given to Archdeacon Hadfield as had been given to the Governor himself in Wiremu Kingi'e letter of 11th February 1859 (quoted in the despatch of 4th December 1860); namely, an intimation of the determination of the Land League that Waitaha [Bel! Block] should be the European boundary. Sir William Martin stops his italics just before this declaration : " What I say is, that the boundary for the Pa/cehas is settled, namely Waitaha. That is all, let them remain there." In this passage Kingi's meaning appears quite clearly. He does not deny Teira's right, nor claim any right himself; he simply condemns the proposal for ceding any more land. " What they say is that although it be only one man who gives up the land, ■" the Pakehas will be perfectly willing, &c. What I say is that the boundary for the Pakeha is