E—No. 1

Mr. Fenton's removal, the Committee condemned it. But the best evidence on the other side that is, on the side of the Governor, and in favor of Mr. Feuton's removal, could not be brought before the Committee, as the principal Chiefs in favor of the King movement were either at Taranaki, engaged in the war, or so disaffected they would not have come. Both William Thompson and Potatau were opposed and objected to Mr. Fenton's proceedings. These and other great Chiefs, whose real influence is proved by subsequent events, and those now going on, believed that Mr. Fenton's proceedings would lead to a collision. Potatau, Tamati Ngapora, and others, in person urged his removal on the Governor. Mr. McLean, Mr. Ashwell, and others thought that if the exciting opposition he kept up were removed, the King movement might die out. The case was undoubtedly a difficult one, and the Governor, acting for the best, and desirous not to lose a last chance of securing peace, listened to Mr. McLean's advice, though hoping only rather than believing that the King movement, if left alone, might die out." And Mr. Weld, the late Native Minister, said, "Before resuming my seat, I wish to allude to what has been said as to my reference the other night to the Waikato Committee, and the origin of the King movement. What I then said I repeat: in my opinion had Mr. Fenton been kept there, he could not have averted a calamity arising out of profounder sources than are often attributed to it; he might have made a party for us, that is true, but in corroboration of my statement that the great Chiefs were opposed to him, I may say that Tamati Ngapora confessedly was; that though it is believed by Mr. Fenton that Potatau was not, yet that Chief, sitting with his head covered with his mat, solemnly warned His Excellency against continuing Mr. Fenton iv Waikato; and as to Tamihana, I will now read you an extract from a Eeport by Mr. Clarke, Resident Magistrate of Tnuranga, of a conversation held with him on the subject last summer. It is as follows: —'■ Q. by Mr. Clark, 'Do not European Magistrates visit you?' 'A. Yes; but we do not like them all.' 'Q. To whom do you refer ?' 'A. Mr. Fenton, he did us great mischief, he separated us into two parties, he set up assessors without any reference to the wishes of the people, and altogether I am dissatisfied with him.'"—Let it be clear that Ido not agree with Tamihana. I do not quote this to disparage Mr. Fenton, far from it, I quote this to shew that the great leader of the King party, so far from having taken the course he has taken, owing to Mr. Fenton's removal, considered Mr. Feuton's attempt to introduce law a grievance, and could not appreciate the value of that zealous and able Magistrate (hear)." In conclusion, I may observe that there are many elements of discord which must interfere with the amalgamation of two races differing widely from each other in their state of civilization ; among them few are more potent than the discontent of Chiefs, whose influence and importance are necessarily decreased by their association with Europeans. Te Heu Heu said to me soon after I nrrived in the Colony, that when an English serf visited the Maories, he was treated like a Chief; but if a Maori Chief of the highest rank visited Auckland, he was treated like a slave by all except the Governor and a few officials. To prevent this is impossible. The middle class of Englishmen will not recognise as an equal— still less as a superior—a Maori Chief, who may without loss of caste sell fish or fruit, or perhaps even beg for a shilling, as Potatau has done more than once. M. de Tocqueville says, "Je crois que les horribles evenemens de 1' Inde ne sont en aucuno fagou un soulevement contre 1' oppression: e'est une revoke de la barbaric contre 1' orgueil." This remark is not less applicable to New Zealand than to India. I attach a Memorandum giving au account (chiefly collected from the Blue Books) of the growth of that impatience of the control and authority of Her Majesty's Government, which began in the year 1842, and was consummated in the establishment of a Maori King. I have, &c, T. Gore Browne. His Grace the Duke of Newcastle, K.G., &c, &c, &c.

Enclosure 1 in No. 12. MEMORANDUM. The true origin of the King Movement has never been thoroughly examined. It is assumed to be identical with the movement which has been going on for many years among the Natives for the establishment of some system of law and order among themselves ; and it is referred to by some as a Godsend which ought to be welcomed by everyone. It is not difficult to show that this view is erroneous, and that the two movements were distinct till the Waikato Tribes, by joining the insurrection, effaced the distinction and made the King Movement the one question to be politically treated. Prior to the establishment of British sovereignty, the tribes were in reality ruled by the great chiefs : not that there was any recognition of the right to rule, but that of necessity (in the constant wars which occurred) the only law was the law of the strong arm, and chiefs assumed more or less individual power according to their courage and skill in war, or ability in council, rather than to their rank by birth. When the Treaty of VVaitangi was offered to the people, it is quite certain that it was accepted in two different senses : the chiefs believed it would confirm their power over the tribes, the common people believed it would secure them from the ambition of the chiefs. This was the true origin of the distinction between the subsequent movements for law and order under the Queen's sovereignty, and for the establishment of a separate and independent sovereignty under a Maori King.

24

DESPATCHES FROM GOVERNOR GORE BROWNE