E—No. 2

" ' matter [of the sale]. When I get there, one side of the river shall be yours and the north side mine, " ' whence I can look out for the Waikatos in case that tribe should meditate an attack upon us.' (26). "' This was publicly stated by Mr. McLean at the Kohimarama Conference, adding: 'That was his word " ' which is retained in the memories of myself and others here present who heard what passed between " us. (27).' " Further evidence of his intention is afforded in a proposal which he made to Te Teira. ' When "' Wi Kingi thought of returning to Waitara he sent to Teira, and said:' Let us return to. Waitara, you " 'take one side, I will take the other, as Waikato gives us permission to return."(2B).* " Under these circumstances the Government no further opposed the return of Wiremu Kingi, " and the migration took place in Apiil 1848." 31. His Excellency's Despatch then proceeds to describe the transactions from 1848 to 1859 as follows:— "The immediate fruit of Sir George Grey's arrangement in 1847 was the acquisition of the "' Grey Block,' immediately adjoining the ' Fitzroy Block' of 1844. In the early part of 1848, ''just before Kingi's migration, the 'Bell Block , was acquired. I desire, in connexion with this last "purchase, to bring three things to the notice of Your Grace. "In i!te first place: the land was bought from the Chief Rawiri Waiaua, and apart of the " Puketapu section of the Ngatiawa Tribe, in the teeth of the most determined opposition from the " Chief Katatore and others of the same family. " Secondly: Wiremu Kingi, who was at Wanganui at the time, on his way up with the migration "from Waikanae, put in a claim to the land, which was met in the way thus described by Com- " misioner McLean in a speech to the Conference of Chiefs at Kohimarama: ' He met me on this side " 'of Wanganui, and said to me, ' Do not give the payment for Mangati. I am willing that it should '"be sold, but I have a claim on it; let the payment be kept back until I arrive there ; when lam "'there let it be given.' I replied, 'It is well, William.' Some months afterwards I called together " 'all the people of Puketapu, and other places, to receive the payment. William King was also invited "'to be present lo witness the payment. He came; and when the goods had been apportioned out " 'among the several divisions of Tribes Hooked to see what portion was assigned to William King. "'None appeared: he got nothing. I therefore came to-the conclusion that William King had no '"claim at Mangati' (29). " Thirdly: the purchase of the Bell Block received in 1855 the unqualified approval of the " Bishop of New Zealand, who, in his Pastoral Letter to the members of the Church of England at "New Plymouth, said:—' This happy result may fairly be attributed to the judicious manner in which "the purchases were completed ...The whole business, conducted with the greatest " ' fairness and publicity, was concluded to the satisfaction of both Native and Europeans' (30). " 'In further pursuance of the same plan, the Omata Block, the Tataraimaka Block, the Hua "Block, the Tarurutangi Block,and other smaller piecesof land, were successively acquired under the "immediate control and supervision of Commissioner McLean; who says, ' The whole of the " purchases previously made at Taranaki had been effected on the same principle as the present one "from Te Teira, namely, that of acquiring the land from the different clans and subdivisions of clans " which came in from time to time to offer it' (31). No such thing as a 'seignorial right" was ever " recognised, either in Wiremu Kingi or any body else. No general tribal right or right of Chieftain"ship was allowed io interfere with the rights of the several hapus or families to dispose of their "lands to the Brilish Government (32). At first the resident Natives objected, that ' it would not be " right to entertain the claims of the absentees who forsook the land, and took no part indefending it "agjiinst the Waikatos' (33). But in every oneof the purchases a portion of the payment was "reserved for the absentees who had any claim, and these payments duly appear in the public " accounts (34)." 32. The facts of the case are thus entirely against the conclusion which Sir William Martin affirms, or rather insinuates than affirms, in favor of the Tribal title of the Ngatiawa. It is submitted that the first of the Government counter-propositions is now fully established, and that it is proved, that No such thing as Tribal Bight has ever been recognised or can now be considered to exist amongst the Ngatiawa of Taranaki. During a long course of years every transaction has proceeded upon the basis of the non-existence of any such right; and the precedents of former purchases have, in /his respect, been strictly followed in the Waitara case. 33. Before finally quiting the 2ml section of the pamphlet, a few detached points require notice" At page 16, Sir William Martin cites Mr. McLean's Report of the 17th December, 1844 (35), to shew that, at that time, the few occupants of the Taniwha and Waitara did not consider themselves empowered to negociate for the sale of the land in their neighbourhood, " without the consent of " »everal absentee Chiefs residing at Kapiti who owned the greater portion of the land." This cer~ tainly (notwithstanding Sir W. Martin's frequent italics) proves nothing in favour of Kingi's alleged paramount rights, but rather makes against them. Amongst the several chiefs referred to, no doubt,, jome of the present sellers were included. 34. At page 16, in giving an account of the Pas on the Block, Sir W. Martin should have stated, that Kingi's pa at Waitara, by the confession of his hottest advocate (36'J did n,at stand on his own land, but " a few chains nearer to the water side than it would have stood had it been erected on " his own land." It was in fact erected there by the permission of Teira's father, Tarnati Raru, who is one of the sellers (37). It ought further to be stated, that Te Teira's party did not live in the same pa with Kingi, but occupied an adjoining pa, called Hurirapa, from which all Teira's letters are d%ted. More particulars respecting the occupation of the land will presently be giye.u.

XATIVE AFFAIRS.

("26) McLean, Speech at Kohimarama,

App.: p. 34 (27) Ibid^

(28) McLean, Speech at Ngaruawahia, App.:p. 33,

(29) McLean, Speech App.: p. 31

(30) Bishop of N. Z., App.:p. 53.

(31) McLean, EviJ. App,: p. 37.

(32) Ibid.

(33) McUun, Speech, App. :p. 34. (34) Public Accounts, Gen. Assembly Pap.

(35) McLean, Report, App.: p. 20.

(36) Archdeacon Hailfield, Letter. App.; p. 59. (37) Hadfield, Evii. App.: p. 61 Me Lean at Koliirtictrama, Ib. p. 33. Parris, Report, Ib. p. 38. White, T. Herald Ib. p. 51.

9

IN REPLY TO SIR W. MARTIN, D.C.L.