G.-2

lands [on the West CoastJ ; and doth declare that the [said] lands are required for the purposes of the said Act and are subject to the proA"isions thereof; and doth reserve and take such lands for such purposes : And doth hereby further declare that no land of any loyal inhabitant Avithin the said districts, Avhether held by Native custom or under CroAvn grant, will be taken, except so much as may be absolutely necessary for the security of the country, compensation being given for all land so taken : And further, that all rebel inhabitants of the said districts Avho come in within a reasonable time, and make submission to tbe Queen, will receive a sufficient quantity of land under grant from the Crown." This Proclamation Avas heralded by another, called the " Proclamation of Peace," issued on the same clay, containing these Avords : — " Out of the lands Avhich have been confiscated at Taranaki and Ngatiruanui, the Governor Avill at once restore considerable quantities to those of the NatiAres AAdio Avish to settle doAvn upon their lands, to hold them under Crown grants, and to live under the protection of the law." Both these Proclamations confirmed a previous promise in tlie Proclamation of 17 December 1861 :— " The land of those Natives Avho have adhered to the Queen shall be secured to them; and to those who have rebelled, but Avho shall at once submit to the Queen's authority, portions of the land taken will be given back for themselves and their families. To all those Avho have remained and shall continue in peace and friendship, the Governor assures the full benefit and enjoyment of their lands." The effect of these Proclamations, then, was broadly this : The land of rebels Avas confiscated : the land of loyal Natives Avas preserved to them. The language of the confiscating Proclamation is no doubt clumsy, because there is a contradiction in declaring in one sentence that the land within certain boundaries is all taken, and in the next that some of it will not be taken. But there is no canon of interpretation more sure than that an instrument cannot be claimed for Avhat it confers and rejected for Avhat it denies. A Native could not deny the Proclamation for Avhat it confiscated, and affirm it for Avhat it preserved. The CroAvn could not claim it as confiscating the AAdiole territory, and repudiate it as protecting the share of the humblest loyal Native. The Proclamation, in fact, had always to be interpreted in harmony with itself. Nor Avas this contradicted by the fact of there being an inherent difficulty in any interpretation which should seek either to limit the force of the Avords that confiscated, or to define exactly the effect of the Avords that preserved. The New Zealand Settlements Act empowered the Governor to proclaim districts, and to "reserve or take" any land in a district: and enacted that as soon as he declared any land so taken to be " required for the purposes of the Act and subject to its provisions," it immediately became "Crown land, freed and discharged from all title, interest, or claim of any person Avhomsoever." Technically, therefore, the confiscating Avords extinguished the Native title over the whole territory, and vested the estate in the Queen. But whatever force the confiscating Avords had, the protecting Avords had the same in pledging the good faith of the CroAvn. If the Proclamation was effectual to take all the land, it Avas as effectual in its promise not to keep the land of any loyal Native, so far as such a promise could, in the nature of things, be redeemed. The difficulty was lioav to redeem it. Mr. Fenton, in giving judgment in tho Compensation Court [June 1866], noted this at once. "The expression 'land of any loyal inhabitant,'" he said, "cannot be held to mean land to which any loyal Maori may have a sole proprietary title, for such a thing does not exist, and the idea of such a thing is contrary to the truth of Maori ownership : a sole proprietary right could only exist Avhen a tribe had become reduced to one man." There Avas no escape, then, from the inherent difficulty in any attempt to define exactly Avhat the confiscation took and Avhat it did not take. Either the Proclamation had to be given up as being void for uncertainty, or a reasonable interpretation had to be found for it in harmony with itself and Avith the statute. The tribe, as a tribe, was in rebellion: its tribal,

Sir Gt. Obey, Proclamation 2 Sept. 1865, N. Z. Gazette 5 Sept. 1865.

Proclamation N. Z. Gazette 17 Dec. 1864.

N. Z. Settlements Act 1863, Sections 3, 4.

Judgment of Comp. Court, PP 1866, A 13.

XLVI