[Image of page i]
"NOTES PUBLISHED FOR THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT,"
MR RICHMOND'S MEMORANDUM
ON THE TARANAKI QUESTION,
PRINTED AT THE MELANESIAN PRESS.
[Image of page ii]
[Page ii is blank]
[Image of page iii]
Upon the publication of my Remarks on the Taranaki Question, a large body of "Notes" challenging the accuracy of many of the statements therein made, were published "for the New Zealand Government." Seeing that these "Notes" avowedly expressed the views of the local authorities, it appeared to me that they ought not to pass without notice. But the publication of these official "Notes" was followed shortly after by a Notification in the New Zealand Gazette (25 Jan. 1861) deprecating public criticism on the conduct and policy of the Government, in the following terms:
"The Governor fully recognises the right of every British subject freely to discuss, criticise, and censure the acts of the Government, and, when the danger now threatening has passed away, he does not desire to see that right restricted.
"There are, however, occasions when the unrestrained use of such a right becomes manifestly dangerous to the community, and he feels it his duty to state that such an occasion now exists in this. Colony."
As a copy of this official Notification has been specially addressed to me by the direction of His Excellency the Governor, I understand it to be the desire of the New Zealand Government that their "Notes" shall not be made the subject of public criticism. In deference, therefore, to their wish, I abstain for the present from giving publicity within the Colony to the following pages.
[Image of page iv]
[Page iv is blank]
[Image of page v]
The following Remarks on the Government 'Notes' and on Mr Richmond's 'Memorandum' have been made as brief as possible. Those statements only have been commented on, which appeared likely to mislead the reader as to some material point. Many minor assertions and inferences, which I believe to be incorrect and unsound, have been passed over; either in the belief that their irrelevancy to the main question will be observed by a careful reader, or from an apprehension that the length and complexity of our Colonial documents may render them unreadable at home. Of course I pass over those assertions, as to which the evidence set forth in my original remarks appears to me to have anticipated and negatived all that is now urged in the 'Notes' and in the 'Memorandum.' I refer particularly to the statements made in the latter documents as to the nature and grounds of the present quarrel, as to the alleged connection of that quarrel, in its origin, with some land-league or with the Waikato King movement, as to the cession by Waikato, &c. I wish to avoid any repetition of what has been already said. In some cases the point relied on by the Government recurs in several Notes or in several passages of the Memorandum; in such cases I have noticed the point in connection with that passage, in which it seemed to be most prominent. I believe there is no assertion or argument concerning the substance of the question, either in the Notes or in the Memorandum, which is not directly met in these Remarks.
I adopt the references as I find them in the Notes, that is to say, "page 28" means, the Note headed "page 28," and referring to the 28th page of the "Taranaki Question."
[Image of page vi]
Page 2 line 16, for "in property" read "of property."