E.—Ho. 2

The Governor cannot think that his statement regarding the block of laud at Oakura, which lie knew must be confirmed by an Act of the Assembly, and which was so confirmed can in any way be regarded as authorising that which Ministers are now advising him to do. Nor does he think that his declaration to the Chiefs of Waikato of the 11th of July, made under peculiar circumstances, that they would forfeit the right to the possession of their lands guaranteed to them by the Treaty of "VVaitangi, can be regarded as establishing the fact that if the Natives by their conduct annul that treaty, thereupon all their lands pass from themselves and their heirs for ever, and become the property of the Crown. The Governor knew when he issued the notice of the 11th of July, that he could not take any land from the Natives until a law was passed for that purpose ; but he thought the condnct of the Natives in breaking the Treaty of Waitangi, authorised him in asking the Assembly to pass a law, enabling him to take from hostile tribes such lands as were necessary to enable him to introduce into the Colony a sufficient number of European settlers able to protect themselves and preserve the peace of the country, —and the Assembly did pass such a law. Nor can the Governor think with his Advisers, that the Act to enable the Governor to establish settlements for colonization in the Northern Island of New Zealand, justified him in declaring that those Natives who have been fighting against the Queen's troops have forfeited all their lands, and in then dealing with all those lands as being the property of the Crown. He cannot think that an Act for the purpose of such general confiscation would have been called in its title, an Act to enable the Governor to establish settlements for colonization ; —he cannot think that in an Act intended to punish so severely a large portion of the Native race and their descendants for ever, the Preamble would have been made to recite, that its object was to permit of the introduction of a sufficient number of settlers, able to protect themselves, and to preserve the peace of the country,— nor can he believe that if such severe punishment had been the intention of the Act, the Assembly would ever have subjected to it, all those persons, and their heirs, who had been guilty of no greater offence than comforting a parent, a child, or husband, who had borne arms against the Queen. On the contrary, the Governor thinks that the Assembly, by distinctly limiting his powers, to taking from the Natives any land required for the actual purposes of any particular settlement, and then saying that Natives who had committed certain specified offences, should not be entitled to compensation for any lands so taken for the above named purposes, by implication enacted that the residue of the property of Natives who had been guilty of the offences specified, could not be touched by the Governor. The more numerous the persons, anil the more trifling the class of offences brought within the operation of the Act, the greater is tho necessity for interpreting the Act in this sense. Upon tho whole, therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, and because the main part of the responsibility of the Proclamation of the 30th of April, is thrown by his Advisers upon the Governor, he feeli it to be his duty to request that that Proclamation may be regarded as being revoked. G. Geky. Government House, Auckland, 11th May, 1864. No. 17. MEMOEANDTJM by Ministebs. The manner in which His Excellency has been pleased to treat the subject of the forfeiture of Native Land in His Excellency's Memorandum of the 11th inst., renders it indispensable that Ministers should not leave the Bubject without some further observations There is no doubt that the question is one of very great importance, and shall receive, as Ministers believe it has received, tho most careful consideration. With all due deference to His Excellency, Ministers cannot but feel that he taken altogether a one-sided view. In his zeal for the Maori, he appears to forget the European colonists. Ministers cannot overlook them as unworthy of consideration, as the question vitally " concerns the whole future destiny" of the present and future European inhabitants of the Northern Island at least. Ministers fully believe, however, that the real interests of both are identical. It is even of more importance to the Maori than to the European that this should be the last war; the very existence of the former, indeed, may be said to depend on it. A weak, vacillating policy, cannot produce so important and desirable a result, for, to use the words of His Excellency, it is necessary " now to take efficient steps for the permanent security of the country, " and to inflict upon those chiefs a punishment of such a nature as will deter other tribes from here- " after forming and attempting to carry out designs of a similar nature, which must in their results be " so disastrous to the welfare of the Native race, as well as to Her Majesty's European subjects." Ministers agree with His Excellency that there is no other plan by which this end can be obtained than by taking land as (again to quote His Excellency) " a punishment of this nature will deter other '■ tribes from committing similar acts, when they find that it is not a question of mere fighting, which '■ they are allowed to do as long as they like, and then when they please to return to their former homes, " as if nothing had taken place, but that such misconduct is followed by the forfeiture of large tracts '•-of territory which they value highly, whilst their own countrymen will generally admit that tho " punishment is a fair and just one." These opinions of His Excellency are expressed in reference particularly to the Chiefs and Tribes of Waikato, but they arc, of course, in principle, equally applicable to all who are in rebellion. Personal punishment is far less calculated to effect the desired end than confiscation of land, and, if wo hesitate on this point, especially after the declarations on the subject by His Excellency the Governor, we shall surely draw upon ourselves a like contemptuous reproach as that cast on us by Eangihaeta, when he found that his land was not to be taken after the AS'airau massacre, —" The pakeha is soft, he is a pumpkin." Ministers would respectfully suggest that as great, or even greater, evils might result from omitting to " send forth a few words," which the occasion should require, as possibly would follow from

41

PAPERS RELATIVE TO NATIVE AFFAIRS.