1861 - Hadfield, O. The New Zealand War: the Second Year of one of England's Little Wars - [Appendices] p 41-74

[Image of page 41]

APPENDIX.

A.

To the Editor of the Southern Cross.

SIR,--I shall feel obliged by your inserting in the columns of your paper the following observations: --

I cannot refrain from expressing my utter astonishment at seeing in an Auckland paper, lent me by a neighbour, certain statements, made by the Native Secretary and the Chief Land Commissioner, many of them seriously reflecting upon the reputation and loyalty of the natives of Otaki and their Missionary.

I constantly read erroneous opinions put forth in the local journals in reference to Native matters, which have passed unnoticed, and I do not think I can fairly be accused of "rushing into print;" but when I consider the circumstances under which those statements were made, by a person who is looked upon as an authority, I feel myself called upon to offer a few remarks upon facts with most of which I was personally acquainted, having resided for eight years in the Otaki district, in connection with Archdeacon Hadfield, prior to my appointment to this coast.

I have no intention of accusing the Native Secretary of wilfully misleading the public, but he has most certainly been misinformed upon some of these points. I have often admired his great amount of patience and perseverance with the natives in the purchase of land, but that serious errors have been committed, cannot, I think, be fairly denied.

There are many points in the Native Secretary's statement which appear to me exceedingly incorrect, but I confine myself to the following. I quote his own words:--

"I first heard of this League as having originated at Otaki. The natives of that place assured me that they had good advice on the subject, and were determined not to dispose of any more land to the Government."

In order to show how far advice given to the natives at Otaki had proved injurious, I will state that when the Rangitikei country was offered for sale to the Government by the Ngatiapa great excitement prevailed, and both Rangihaeata and Te Rauparaha (whose rage at the time was witnessed by the Commissioner) were determined to prevent the sale. The former of these had previously burnt down a raupo house which was built by Te Hokeke and party, on the south side of the river, for Dr. Best, to whom they had engaged to lease that portion of the land; and it was only through the influence of the Otaki natives, "acting upon good advice," who also asserted a claim, that these

[Image of page 42]

two chiefs, together with others, withdrew their opposition; and their old enemies, whom they looked upon in the light of slaves, were allowed to sell the land and keep the whole of the payment. The Commissioner himself expressed his gratification at such honourable and generous conduct.

In consequence of the behaviour of the Ngatiapa, after the sale of the Rangitikei block, who, notwithstanding the handsome manner in which they had been treated, threatened to sell even the land occupied by some of the Ngatiraukawa, the Otaki, and Manawatu natives (principally Ngatiraukawa) entered into an agreement not to sell any more land within certain boundaries, over which they had an undoubted control according to native custom. This agreement was, however, cancelled in 1852, in consequence of some of the natives on the Manawatu River wishing to sell a portion of their land; and it was arranged that they should be left free to do as they pleased. The "good advice" which is said to have led to such serious consequences, we are no doubt to infer was given by Archdeacon Hadfield; but I must remind the Commissioner that that gentleman was at the time in Wellington, where he had been almost entirely confined, nearly four years, to what was considered to be his death-bed. I was never aware of the natives having any advice in favour of such a scheme, although they were decidedly recommended to give it up.

Again, the Native Secretary says:--

"This League kept gaining ground for some years till a general meeting took place in the Ngatiruanui country, where the natives pledged themselves, not only that they should sell no more land, but that they would take the life of any one who attempted to do so."

The meeting at Manawapou, in the Ngatiruanui district, had no connection whatever with the agreement entered into at Otaki and Manawatu, which had been cancelled two years before. At Manawapou it was proposed to form a Land League, which was rejected; and it was decided that each tribe should be left to its own affairs. What is called the Land League at Waitara was entirely of a local character, and, in accordance with this decision, having no connection whatever with the Ngatiruanui. Parotene Te Kopara, in advocating the League at Manawapou, produced a hatchet, which was offered to the Southern Chiefs, and was placed before them for their acceptance, as a pledge that they would unite in supporting the League. There were stated to have been about 500 natives present, but not one of them received the hatchet, and it was returned to its owner!

Also--

"It was also resolved at this meeting of the natives that they should entirely repossess themselves of land already alienated by them, and drive the European settlers into the sea."

This most startling assertion is positively contradicted by one of the principal Chiefs, who was present; the only one who has since been within my reach. I never heard such an idea breathed before. Having seen a number of the natives on their return from the meeting, I feel

[Image of page 43]

convinced that such a scheme would most certainly have come to my ears had it ever been entertained. If such a resolution had been passed, why was it not acted upon? Nearly seven years have elapsed without the least interference with the Europeans.

Further--

"The subsequent murders, involving the deaths of Rawiri and Katatore, and various others that have taken place at Taranaki, have been the result of the League and the confederacy of Manawapou: and there is very little doubt that the settlement at Taranaki has been, since the formation of this Land League, in a very perilous position. It has been stated that this has arisen in some measure from the defective system of acquiring land."

My opinion upon these matters differs widely from that of the Commissioner. I have no hesitation in saying that the evils here spoken of have, to a very great extent, arisen from injudicious purchase, or attempts to purchase, of disputed lands. One of Rawiri Waiaua's own relatives told me that be could not justify his conduct; that Katatore had used every means in his power to prevent the sale of the land in question, to which he had an undoubted right; and that he repeatedly remonstrated and protested, both to the white man and to the Maori, without effect, and that he was driven to take up arms in defence of his property! An unhappy position for a British subject to be placed in.

Again he says--

"The venerable gentleman who was examined previous to myself has endeavoured to convey an impression that land purchases at the South have produced dissatisfaction."

There can be no doubt as to the land purchases having of late caused very great dissatisfaction at the South. The "tikanga hou," or new policy of the Government--purchasing lands from individuals without the sanction of the rest of the tribe, has much perplexed the natives of this district. I have repeatedly met with the assertion (in spite of all that could be said to the contrary) that the Government were trying to provoke a quarrel with them, in order that they might have some pretext for depriving them of their lands; and when they heard of the disturbance of Taranaki they considered that their predictions were being fulfilled. They see a wide difference between the repeated assurance of the Commissioner in former years, ratified by the pledge given them by the Governor, during his last visit to Napier--that no land would be purchased excepting from those tribes who were free to sell-- and the way in which it has latterly been acted up to; and say that the Government have broken faith with them. They are now kept quiet under the assurance that no act of injustice can be intended by the Home Government, and that existing errors will in time be rectified.

He continues--

"The purchases to which he probably refers, those at Rangitikei and the Middle Island, were carefully conducted; I am prepared to uphold the purchases between Otaki and Whangaroa as having been acquired from the true and rightful owners."

[Image of page 44]

Most of the old purchases made in the Wellington and Ahuriri Provinces, I am willing to support; they do great credit to the Commissioner; and it is much to be lamented that a system which gave such universal satisfaction was ever deviated from.

Further--

"It was perhaps the misfortune of some of these owners that they did not belong to the same denomination as the Venerable Archdeacon, and this, in a great measure (at least it appears so to me) forms, in his estimation, a barrier to their claims."

The insinuation that Archdeacon Hadfield could lower himself to do or say anything to the prejudice of persons of a different denomination to his own, I should have considered beneath the Native Secretary. I do not admit that any of the tribes alluded to are entirely Wesleyans, although they are in some cases intermixed with our people; and with them we were always on most friendly terms.

I lastly quote as follows:--

"Reference has been made to land being at one time bought from the conquered, and at another from the conquerors."

Taking this quotation with the next preceding, I am at a loss to know what the Commissioner means. Does he complain of the conquered Ngatiapa, among whom there are many Wesleyans, being allowed to keep the whole of the purchase money for Rangitikei, besides having an interest in the land retained by the Ngatiraukawa? Or does he suppose that it is denominational prejudice which induces the Archdeacon to sympathise with the conquered Ngatiruia of Te Honere, Pelorus River (part of whom were Wesleyans), because they were not consulted in the sale of their land; they, in his opinion, holding a similar position in the Middle Island to that of the Ngatiapa in the Northern (Te Rauparaha and Rangihaeata, with their people, being conquerors in both places); the only difference was that the Otaki natives had no interest in the latter case? The Ngatiruia did, however, I am informed, receive some trifling compensation from the Commissioner, after a fruitless attempt to retain possession.

In conclusion, I would remark, that during the eight years I was in immediate connection with the Archdeacon--sometimes acting for, sometimes with him, I never once, that I can recollect, heard of his attempting to dissuade any Maori from selling land, although he did remonstrate with the purchaser when the transaction was likely to lead to a disturbance. This appears most unfairly to have been interpreted into an opposition on his part to the sale of land.

Yours, &c,

SAMUEL WILLIAMS.
Te Auti, Hawke's Bay, September 7th, 1860.

[Image of page 45]

B.

NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR, NOV. 3.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.

Otaki, Oct. 20.

SIR,--Will you allow me to offer a few comments on a passage occurring in Mr. M'Lean's evidence given in the House of Representatives. It is this-- "I believe that most of the difficulties and opposition which has been met with in pursuing this purchase have originated entirely with the anti-land-selling-league. This league I first heard of as having commenced at Otaki. The natives of that place assured me that they had very good advice on the subject, and that they had resolved not to dispose of any more land to the Government. This league kept gaining ground for some years, until a general meeting took place in the Ngatiruanui country, where the natives pledged themselves not only to sell no more land, but to take the life of any one who should attempt to do so. This meeting took place about seven years ago. It was also resolved at this meeting of natives that they should entirely repossess themselves of lands already alienated by them, and drive the European settlers into the sea. The subsequent murders, involving the deaths of Rawiri, Katatore, and others that have taken place at Taranaki, have been the result of that league and the confederacy at Manawapou, and there is very little doubt that the settlement of New Plymouth, since the formation of this land league, has been in a very perilous position." In reference to this language used by Mr. M'Lean, the Rev. Samuel Williams, who perhaps is as competent as any one to give an opinion on this subject, thus writes in a letter addressed to the Southern Cross, and republished by you, Sir, in your issue of October 6th:-- "I cannot refrain from expressing my utter astonishment at seeing certain statements made by the Native Secretary --statements made by one who is looked upon as an authority." He may well express astonishment at such statements made by one who is not only looked upon as an authority, but who is actually the governing head of the Native Department, whoever may be its ostensible one. The remarks contained in Mr. Williams' letter in reference to Mr. M'Lean's assertions are so clear and definite, and so thoroughly refute them, that it seems superfluous to add anything to them. But there are some points raised by Mr. M'Lean that compel me to offer a few further comments on his allegations.

Mr. M'Lean asserts that most of the difficulties and opposition which have been met with in purchasing Waitara originated entirely with the Anti-Land-Selling-League. It is unfortunate that Mr. M'Lean did not afford more information about this league, to which such powerful influence is attributed. He says, indeed, that he first heard of this league as having commenced at Otaki. He avoids committing himself by saying positively that it did originate at Otaki. But, assuming that he meant this to be inferred from his language (if he did not, it fails in the object for which it was advanced, namely, in connecting me with the movement), I must treat the insinuation as though it were an asser-

[Image of page 46]

tion of a fact. Still he makes no attempt to trace it in its development from this its assumed cradle. He, however, goes on immediately to say, that this league kept gaining ground for some years, until at a general meeting it attained what certainly looks like considerable maturity at Manawapou; and that the resolutions adopted by the meeting were--"not to sell any more land"--"to take the life of any one who should attempt to do so"--"to repossess lands already alienated" --"to drive the European settlers into the sea." He very coolly adds --"This meeting took place about seven years ago." Now a few questions naturally suggesting themselves in reference to this league, which openly resolved on taking such serious steps as those just enumerated, are-- "Where are all the Chief Commissioner's reports about this league? What course did the Government, when Mr. M'Lean reported to it the existence of this league, and the resolutions agreed upon at the meeting in question, adopt? What steps did Governor Wynyard, and subsequently Governor Browne, take in reference to it? What measures, during these seven years, since it attained the alarming maturity which it is said to have reached at the Manawapou meeting, have been introduced into the General Assembly, in order to check, if not to crush it? Were Sir George Grey's regulations for preventing the sale of fire-arms and ammunition made more stringent with a view of averting or lessening the threatened danger? Was the British Government distinctly informed of all these particulars before it guaranteed the loan for the purchase of native lands?--and, before the 58th Regiment was withdrawn? And, lastly, was any investigation recommended by the Chief Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining the causes which led to the formation of this league? Such, I say, are some of the inquiries which might be expected. But to leave such inquiries, which I very much fear would receive no satisfactory replies, I feel more inclined to ask-- Does any one believe that such a league ever existed? Did the Chief Commissioner, when he made the statements as to the existence of this league and the resolutions adopted by it, believe them--believe that there was a word of truth in them? If he did, then all I can say is, that he is fairly entitled, like his native acquaintance just before alluded to in his evidence, to claim connection with Hawea o te Marama {the Man in the Moon).

What I now assert, and until proof is adduced to the contrary by those who can show where this imaginary league exists, must continue to assert, is, that there is no such league, and that there never has been any such league; that the whole story is an invention, a fabrication, an imposition; that it either is a fiction, or the Government is chargeable with gross negligence for never having taken steps to put down a conspiracy having objects so clearly avowed and so dangerous as Mr. M'Lean states them to have been seven years ago. But I am quite sure that no proof can be adduced to the contrary. It may be suggested that I am ignorant of the subject. But, until the questions I have asked above are satisfactorily answered, there is such a prima facie appearance of incredibility about it, that the charge of ignorance is hardly worth refuting. But Mr. M'Lean is debarred from making such an objection, because he has stated his belief that the league com-

[Image of page 47]

menced at Otaki, in which case no one would be more likely than Mr. Williams and myself to have some knowledge of this league; but we both assert it to be a fiction.

The Native Minister made use of language in the House very similar to that used by Mr. M'Lean. And during the whole of the debates on the origin of the Waitara hostilities, it was really amusing to notice how every speaker on the Ministerial side of the House, when all arguments in defence of either the justice or necessity of the war seemed to fail, immediately had recourse to the land-league. William King was called a land-leaguer (I think Mr. Richmond invented the term), and this invariably produced a "Hear, hear." This was considered an unanswerable argument, on the principle, I presume, of omne ignotum pro terrifico This imaginary league did more service on the Government side of the House than all the other fictions invented for the occasion put together, such as Teira's chieftainship--William King's armed resistance to the survey--or his refusal to meet the Governor before war was officially declared. The general ignorance displayed on the subject by the Native Minister and his supporters may account for, though it does not justify, the use made of this bugbear. But Mr. M'Lean cannot be excused in the same way. I must repeat, that the language contained in the passage cited above from his statement deliberately made before the Committee of the House, is the most barefaced and shameless fabrication that I ever knew to be officially made.

I shall probably be asked whether there was not such a land-league at Otaki many years ago, and whether this league did not keep gaining ground for some years until a general meeting took place in the Ngatiruanui country seven years ago. The answer has been given by Mr. Williams: "The Otaki and Manawatu natives (principally Ngatiraukawa) entered into an agreement not to sell any more land within certain boundaries, over which they had an undoubted control according to native custom. This agreement was, however, cancelled in 1852." It would simply be an absurd and unwarrantable abuse of language to call this local agreement made for the prevention of the further sale of land--until some internal differences and disputes had been adjusted, a league. But this agreement, made for a temporary purpose, and which terminated in 1852, is the only agreement of the kind that has ever existed here. To assert, therefore, as Mr. McLean does,%at this local, temporary agreement, which he calls a league, and which actually ceased in 1852, "kept gaining ground for some years until a general meeting took place in the Ngatiruanui country," where the murderous resolutions already referred to are said to have been agreed upon, and that it ultimately developed itself in an anti-land-selling-league which occasioned most of the difficulties and opposition which were encountered in the attempted purchase of Waitara, is to state what is absolutely false. Mr. Williams confirms my statement; he says-- "The meeting at Manawapou, in the Ngatiruanui district, had no connection whatever with the agreement entered into at Otaki and Manawatu, which had been cancelled two years before."

I have already denied that any such resolutions as those mentioned by Mr. M'Lean were adopted at the Manawapou meeting. The attempt

[Image of page 48]

made at that meeting to get up a land-league utterly failed; and failed let it be observed, through the advice of the few natives who attended from Otaki and its neighbourhood. The decision arrived at was that stated by Mr. Williams-- "that each tribe should be left to manage its own affairs"--the very opposite of an anti-land-selling-league. Mr. Williams likewise correctly says--"what is called the land-league at Waitara was entirely of a local character." It was in fact a mere temporary agreement among members of the same tribe, the actual owners of the one particular district, not to sell any more land. I have distinctly stated in my evidence (42) what the cause of Rawiri Waiaua's death was. Until my statements made on that occasion are refuted, I must decline to attribute his death, and the deaths of those persons who shared his fate, to an imaginary cause.

There may still be objections raised by persons little acquainted with this subject. It may be asked--how comes all this talk about a land-league if no league exists? Is it possible there can be all this smoke without any fire to cause it? A very few words will suffice to answer this. I believe there has been, during the last ten years, no general disinclination on the part of the natives to dispose of their lands. Purchases of several extensive districts have been made. But it will hardly be denied by any one competent to give an opinion on the subject, that very great dissatisfaction has existed (which has during the last few years increased), with the mode in which transactions have been carried on by the land-commissioners in reference to the purchase of land. Quarrels have been fomented, and, as in the case of Taranaki when Rawiri was killed, and in the disturbances at Ahuriri, many lives were lost. The result has been the formation, from time to time, of separate and independent agreements in various tribes, for protesting against, and peaceably resisting, the mischievous proceedings of the land-commissioners. But 1 positively deny the existence of any combination, or confederacy, or league, between any two distinct tribes.

If I am asked why the Ngatiruanui, if no league existed, went to William King's assistance, I shall be prepared to answer this question when I am told why they came to his assistance when he was attacked at Waikanae in 1839.

In these observations, which I have found it necessary to make, I have abstained from all allusion to the King-movement, which notoriously originated with Waikato, and with which it is admitted William King, prior to February, had no connection whatever.

I consider this letter as a supplement to Mr. Williams's letter, which ought to be carefully read.

I remain, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
OCTAVIUS HADFIELD.

[Image of page 49]

C.

NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR, OCT. 10, 1860.

SIR,--I wish to make a few remarks on a passage contained in a Despatch of the Governor's (June 28th), commenting on a letter to the Duke of Newcastle, to which the Bishop of Wellington's name and mine were attached. It is as follows:--

"The Bishop states that the Head of the Department did not investigate the title; but his statement is inaccurate, as your Grace may see by Mr. M'Lean's report, forwarded in my Despatch No. 63, of 27th June last, in which the subject is incidentally mentioned."

I think a careful consideration of the documents published since the letter was written will remove all doubts as to the fact asserted--that Mr. M'Lean did not investigate William King's title to the disputed land at Waitara, and that the statement contained in the letter is not accurate, but that the Governor's own assertion is open to the charge of inaccuracy. When I signed the letter containing the allegation in question, I well knew what the Governor himself ought to have known when he contradicted it in an official despatch, that Mr. M'Lean not only had not investigated William King's title, but that he had not even been at Taranaki for nearly twelve months before he went there in March last, after hostilities had commenced. I believe this fact cannot be refuted. Still these are times of much credulity: a kind of clairvoyance may be attributed to Mr. M'Lean. There are, I believe, people who even now suppose that the Chief Commissioner investigated William King's claim to the disputed land at Waitara. I shall not be at all surprised to see, after the lapse of a few months -- perhaps only weeks--the same assertion again made, even in official despatches, notwithstanding the acknowledged fact that he was actually absent from the Province of Taranaki during the whole period I have mentioned above.

But my knowledge of the fact, that the Chief Commissioner did not investigate William King's title to the land in dispute, did not rest on mere report or hearsay; on the contrary, I had it on the best possible authority, that of Mr. M'Lean himself. On the 10th of March last Mr. M'Lean called on me. During the conversation that arose in reference to Taranaki, he told me very distinctly, that though he was surprised that William King had not spoken more strongly at the meeting that took place on the 12th March, 1859, he had by no means made up his mind that Teira's title was a valid one; and that he had, in consequence of this doubt, advised the Governor and Mr. Parris to use very great caution if they proceeded with the negotiation. He added that he had subsequently made some inquiries as to the title of the disputed land at Queen Charlotte's Sound and at Wellington (these inquiries, let it be observed, were made among Teira's friends and those favourable to the sale); but that he had made none at Waitara. I will not say that he expressed surprise that no reference had been made to him before the important step taken by the Governor was resolved on;

[Image of page 50]

but his language undoubtedly implied as much, when he attributed the absence of any such reference to him, to the probable wish of the Governor to avoid giving unnecessary anxiety or trouble during his illness.

I certainly considered this conclusive as to the fact stated in the letter, that the Chief Commissioner had not investigated William King's claim. Probably the Governor may attach a different meaning to the word "investigate" from that which it conveys to me--especially when used in reference to a native's title to land. But however that may be, in no other hypothesis can I account for his assertion, that the statement contained in his letter, namely, that Mr. M'Lean did not investigate William King's claim, is "inaccurate." I was not aware that Mr. M'Lean bad ever disguised his opinion on this subject. Matene Te Whiwhi, described by Mr. Richmond as that "influential and excellent chief," was taken by Mr. M'Lean in March last to Taranaki. On his return he told me, what he told others here, that Mr. M'Lean had expressed his regret that the Governor should have taken such a hasty and premature step, as the forcible ejection of William King from Waitara, without further investigation.

I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) OCTAVIUS HADFIELD.

D.

Statement respecting the Proceedings at Waitara, by Tipene Ngaruna.

In the course of September, 1858, I arrived at Waitara. I stayed there during three months of 1858, and three months of 1859. Teira commenced the sale of Waitara. I did not see Tamati Raru joining in what Teira was doing. The only word of his that I observed, was to keep possession of the land. In the year 1859, our meeting assembled at Te Kuikui, concerning Teira's proceedings. Wiremu Kingi stood up and spoke for retaining possession of Waitara. Wiremu Patukakariki (Ngawaka) stood up and spoke for retaining possession of Waitara. Tamati Raru stood up and spoke for retaining possession of Waitara. In the same strain spoke the many. Teira stood up, and had no supporter; he was alone.

The second meeting was at Werohia. Wiremu Kingi stood up and spoke for retaining possession of Waitara. Wiremu Patukakariki (Ngawaka) stood up and spoke for retaining possession of Waitara. Tamati Raru stood up and spoke for retaining possession of Waitara; and in the same strain spoke the many. Teira stood up: he had no supporter; he was alone.

The third was the great meeting at Waitoki, in the town. Teira stood up and spoke for disposing of Waitara. He had no supporter; he was alone. Wiremu Patukakariki (Ngawaka) stood up and said: "Governor, Waitara shall not be yielded up to you. It will not be good that you should take the pillow from under my head, because my

[Image of page 51]

pillow is a pillow that belonged to my ancestors." Paora Karewa stood up and said, "Listen, Governor, I will not give Waitara to you. It will not be good that you should drag from under me the bed-matting of my ancestors. If I were to drag the bed from under you, you would be angry." Teira gave his parawai to the Governor as a pledge for the sale of Waitara. Wiremu Kingi stood up and said: "Listen, Governor. I will never give my land at Waitara to you--never. This is all I have to say."

On the occasion of our talk at Hurirapa, Teira spoke, and said that his lands outside the boundary should be given in exchange for the lands of the many, which were within the block that was being sold by him. The many said: "Your lands outside the boundary will not be an equivalent for ours, because our lands, which are within the land which is being sold by you, Teira, are far greater.

When the chain was laid (upon the land), Tamati Raru did not join in laying down the chain, nor did he consent.

TIPENE NGARUNA.

E.

Wiremu Kingi to the Governor. {Pap. E. No. 3. p. 6.)

Waitara, 20th April, 1859.

FRIEND,--Salutations to you. Your letter has reached me about Te Teira's and Te Retimana's thoughts. I will not agree to our bedroom being sold (I mean Waitara here), for this bed belongs to the whole of us; and do not you be in haste to give the money. Do you hearken to my word. If you give the money secretly, you will get no land for it. You may insist, but I will never agree to it. Do not suppose that this is nonsense on my part; no, it is true, for it is an old word; and now I have no new proposal to make, either as regards selling or anything else. All I have to say to you, O Governor, is, that none of this land will be given to you, never, never, not till I die.

I have heard it said that I am to be imprisoned because of this land. I am very sad because of this word. Why is it? You should remember that the Maories and Pakehas are living quietly upon their pieces of land, and therefore do not you disturb them. Do not say also that there is no one so bad as myself.

There is another word to you, O Governor. The land will never, never be given to you, not till death. Do not be anxious for men's thoughts. This is all I have to say to you.

From your loving friend,
WIREMU KINGI WHITI.

[Image of page 52]

F.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.

Otaki, February 28, 1861.

SIR,--I shall feel obliged by your insertion in your columns of a letter I addressed to the Governor nearly five years ago. My object for desiring its publication is to shew that the opinions I have recently advocated are not new ones. It will be observed, that I called attention to the suspicious combination among the chiefs that subsequently resulted in the King-party;--that I discouraged any attempts to raise or increase their influence, advising on the contrary the impartial enforcement of law;--and that I pointed out even then what would inevitably be the result of the reckless proceedings of the Land Purchase Department. It will be observed that the letter was written in reply to one received from the Governor asking for my "opinion of the present state of feeling among the natives towards the Europeans and the Queen's Government."

I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
OCTAVIUS HADFIELD.

[Image of page 54]

G.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.

Otaki, Jan. 31, 1861.

Sir,--At page 11 of Mr. Richmond's "Memorandum," in reply to Sir W. Martin's Taranaki Question, I find the following words:-- "Tipene's assertions about Tamati Raru (Teira's father) are ridiculous falsehoods. Raru has throughout been one of the principal sellers, his son Teira being merely the spokesman of the party. With his own hands he helped to cut the boundary line of the block; he has, throughout the war, borne arms against King; and his is the first signature to the Deed of Cession." As I made, in my published letter of May last, assertions somewhat similar to Tipene's, I think it as well to examine the value of Mr. Richmond's summary mode of disposing of them by calling them "ridiculous falsehoods." My own statement was, that Tamati Raru "refused to sell, and co-operated with William King in opposing his own son up to the very commencement of hostilities." Tipene's assertions are, that on two occasions when the proposed sale of Waitara was discussed, Raru protested against his son's proceedings; that on no public occasion was he ever known to speak in support of them; and that when the survey was attempted, he took no part in it. Now let it be observed how Mr. Richmond meets these assertions. He begins by saying that they are "ridiculous falsehoods." Well, this sort of answer--never very convincing--when coming from Mr Richmond, is worthless. He proceeds to say that Raru has throughout been one of the principal sellers; but this is just the point to be proved by Mr. Richmond, not to be asserted in opposition to Tipene. The latter professes to have been a witness to what he relates, and to have actually heard what he vouches for--that Raru opposed, but never assented to the sale. Mr. Richmond, on the contrary, does not even profess to have any personal knowledge of the matter. Mr Richmond's assertion is no refutation of Tipene's statements. Mr Richmond continues--

[Image of page 55]

"With his own hands he helped to cut the boundary line of the block." Now, then, it will, perhaps, be said, he must be right, for he enters into particulars; he says Raru did it "with his own hands." It is extremely painful to be obliged to expose a gross attempt at deception in a person occupying Mr Richmond's public position. Will it be believed that Mr. Richmond is now referring to a different survey, one made in March, after the military occupation of Waitara; whereas he very well knew, that the survey spoken of by Tipene--the survey--the notorious survey --the only one which tested the wishes of those who desired, and those who refused, to sell, was the one attempted on the 20th February. That Mr. Richmond could have had no doubt as to which survey was intended, is clear from the circumstance that Taupahi, who put his name to Tipene's paper, for the purpose of corroborating this one fact of which he was cognisant, actually alludes to it as "the survey of Parris." I must characterise this as a lamentable rather than a "ridiculous" falsehood. Mr. Richmond goes on to say-- "His is the first signature to the Deed of Cession." This will, of course, have appeared conclusive to many persons. And it will now be assumed that I can have nothing further to say on behalf of Tipene or myself. But, stop; it is Mr. Richmond who makes this assertion. We have already seen how important it is to be gifted with the facility of ignoring a month--what an advantage may be gained in a State Paper to be read in England, by confounding what occurred in March with what took place in February. The first inquiry then is--when was the Deed of Cession signed? I anticipate the answer, "Of course," it will be said, "before the publication of martial law, and before the military occupation of the land conveyed by the Deed." I need now do no more than direct attention to the fact, extorted from Mr Richmond in the House of Representatives, during a debate on the 9th August, namely, that the Deed of Cession was not executed at the time the survey alluded to was made, nor, in fact, till some time after actual hostilities had taken place. The statement will be found in a report of Mr. Fox's speech of that day, Mr. Richmond having interrupted him in order to make it. It will be scarcely necessary to add, that the denial by Tipene, an actual witness, of Raru's participation in the sale of Waitara, prior to the survey of the 20th February, is in no degree whatever invalidated or affected by Mr. Richmond's false assertions to the contrary; or that Raru's signature, placed at the head of those attached to the Deed of Cession, and obtained after the war began, proves how necessary the Government perceived the sanction of his name to be, in order to give validity to the purchase of even that small portion of the block described by Teira in his letter to the Governor as "only sufficient for three or four tents to stand upon," but which he had professed to cede, when it appeared more than probable that their irregular proceedings would be eventually dragged to light. It will hardly be thought necessary to account for the motives that subsequently induced a father, when he found that, hostilities having commenced and neutrality being impossible, he was obliged to make his election, to determine in siding with his disobedient son. I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,
OCTAVIUS HADFIELD.

[Image of page 56]

H.

NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR, FEB. 6, 1861.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.

Otaki, January 29, 1861.

SIR,--I must request your permission to notice in your columns some allusions to myself contained in Mr. Richmond's reply to Sir W. Martin's Pamphlet--The Taranaki Question.

At page 15 are the following words:--"Speaking of the official statement which the Governor had caused to be circulated immediately on the breaking out of hostilities the Archdeacon says:--'I deny the truth of all the statements. I am prepared to prove their falsity here [in New Zealand] where evidence can be obtained.'" I regret to be obliged to say that this assertion of Mr. Richmond's is absolutely false; I never said what he attributes to me. Nor would it have occurred to me to say that I denied all the statements contained in the official document referred to, such, for instance, as this:-- "The Governor has said that he will not allow land to be bought, the title to which is disputed." I selected four propositions from the official document, the truth of which I denied. The words I used were these: "It is stated that the land belonged to Teira and a few other persons, who were the real owners, and who sold it to the Government;--that Teira's title to the land was 'carefully investigated, and found to be good;'-- that William King and those who acted with him had no title to it;-- that 'William King never pretended to deny Teira's right of property, but insisted on his own right to put a veto on all sales at Waitara.' I deny the truth of all the statements; I am prepared to prove their falsity here, where evidence can be obtained."

Mr. Richmond proceeds:-- "Upon the General Assembly being finally summoned for despatch of business, on the 31st July last, Archdeacon Hadfield came up from Wellington. The House of Representatives being made aware of the strong views which he entertained on the subject of the Waitara purchase, examined him at the bar of their House. Considering that on the 29th May he had committed himself to a public pledge that he was 'prepared to prove the falsity of all the statements,' his evidence at the bar in August, when he had had so much time to complete his case, should have been clear, definite, and conclusive." Mr. Richmond seems to have a peculiar logic of his own, which is not likely to find much acceptance with thinkers accustomed to the ordinary modes of reasoning. If I understand him, his argument is this,--that as I pledged myself in May, here, where evidence can be obtained, to prove that certain statements were false, therefore my own evidence in August ought to have been clear, definite, and conclusive. This sort of reasoning may be very satisfactory, and apparently is quite conclusive to Mr. Richmond; but it puts me in mind of Coleridge's ridicule of similar logic: "The watchman cries, 'half-past three o'clock;' therefore the great Cham of Tartary has a carbuncle on his nose.' "What I pledged myself to do was to prove here, where

[Image of page 57]

evidence can be obtained, that the four propositions extracted from the official document alluded to, were false. What I promised in May I was quite ready to perform in August. Whose fault was it that evidence was not taken as to the cause and origin of the war? Was there any reluctance to obtain such evidence on the part of those members of the House whose opinions on these subjects were supposed to agree with mine? Who moved for a Committee of Inquiry? It can hardly be needful to answer these questions, or tell Mr. Richmond that it was the Ministry, who, having first professed to desire an investigation, voted against the motion for inquiry. In the Southern Cross, Aug. 14, I see these words, "They select Archdeacon Hadfield to give secondary evidence, but insist on precluding him from bringing up those who could give direct evidence to the same effect." Mr. Richmond--the Native Minister --the Member for New Plymouth--was very well aware of the weakness of their cause; and he knew that I could bring witnesses--witnesses, let it be remembered, some of whom were then in Auckland, and who are still available when the proper opportunity occurs,--to expose the injustice of their proceedings. What object Mr. Richmond expected to obtain by making a false assertion that was sure to be refuted, or by drawing a false inference that was certain to be exposed, I am unable to conjecture. But this much is clear, that a cause requiring such means for its defence must be bad indeed.

It is difficult to imagine with what object a long extract from a despatch of the Governor's, commenting on my evidence given before a Committee of the House of Representatives, is introduced by Mr. Richmond into an attempt at a reply to Sir W. Martin's pamphlet; it appears to be introduced apropos of nothing. But as it has been brought forward, it cannot be allowed to pass without comment. Do the Governor and Mr. Richmond mean to insinuate that my evidence given on that occasion strengthened the Government side of the question? Are they prepared to deny that my evidence damaged their cause with the House? Will they deny that Mr. Stafford, after having given notice of a motion approving the war policy of the Ministers, was subsequently obliged to modify the terms of his motion (nothing whatever having occurred in the interval but Mr. M'Lean's evidence and mine) because he found that his own supporters, after hearing that evidence, declined to support his original motion, and that he was taunted with this in the House? If so, if this was the effect produced on the House by the evidence, of what use can it be to detach a few passages from the body of the evidence, and represent these as inconclusive? Or what can be intended by a verbal criticism (indicated by italics) of words that were not mine? My examination lasted four hours and a half. I was more than once cautioned by the Chairman that I spoke too rapidly for the reporters. About one-fourth part of what I said was taken down and committed to print. I make no complaint of the general drift of the printed evidence; I have no doubt that much actually uttered would have appeared in print to be mere surplusage; but when stress is laid on particular words and expressions, I must distinctly protest against the inferences intended to be drawn

[Image of page 58]

from these. I will explain what I mean. The Governor's despatch, as quoted by Mr. Richmond, contains the following words:-- "When asked what proof he has of a certain native (Hamere) having a claim, he says, 'An old man who resided at Waitara forty years, pointed out to me when I was at Waikanae [150 miles away] portions of the land which belonged to William King.'" I presume that the Governor, by giving in italics the words "when I was at Waikanae," intended to convey that I told a lie; or, at least, that I was so ignorant of the whole question that I did not know where Waitara or Waikanae were situated. His language may have produced this effect in England. But Mr. Richmond cannot expect the same result here. A map of Waitara had been frequently alluded to in the House; and whether I expressly referred to it or not, while giving the answer attributed to me, I think I may safely say that no member of the House misunderstood me, or imagined for a moment that either the old man or I pretended to clairvoyance. I had previously stated in my evidence (19) that it was "three years since I had been on the land" in dispute at Waitara, and could not therefore have intended to mislead the House into believing that I had been there since the war began. But, notwithstanding the italics, perhaps the object was to call attention to the apparent discrepancy between the question and the answer, the former having reference to Hamere (Hamuera Ngaia), and the latter to William King. I now extract from the printed evidence the two questions in full, as this will afford me an opportunity of showing what I have already alluded to: I mean the absurdity of verbal criticism in a matter of this kind:--

"81. Has William King ever made a proprietary claim? I hear that he made a proprietary claim to a portion of the block. It would be impossible for me to say what it is, as I understand that the boundaries of the block are undefined. I have heard that about sixty acres, on the south bank, had been left out as belonging to William King. It is utterly impossible for me to state, without the boundaries being defined, what portion of his claim is within the block and what without it. His son has a claim within the block."

"82. What proof have you that Hamuera Ngaia has a claim on the block? I before stated that I am unable to produce all the evidence which I have had, but I may state to the Committee that an old man who resided at Waitara forty years, pointed out to me, when I was at Waikanae, portions of the land which belonged to William King. Several other natives confirmed that statement." It will be observed that the second question evidently has reference to the preceding answer. I had there spoken of having heard that sixty acres had been excluded from the original block, as belonging to William King, since the land was purchased and the war commenced,--this having been done, it will be observed, to non-suit William King. Having ascertained this, I referred to his son's claim, and stated that he held property, derived from his uncle Hamuera Ngaia, which could not have been excluded because it was intermixed with portions of Raru's land. Then it was that I was asked what proof I had that Hamuera Ngaia had owned land in the block, and that the answer referred to was given. But no mention is made in the printed evidence of what I had said about

[Image of page 59]

Eruera, William King's son, having inherited the property from his uncle, Hamuera Ngaia, which led to the latter name being mentioned. It is perhaps just as well that I have noticed this particular question, otherwise from the wording of the question and my answer to it, an inference might be drawn that I was ignorant of the fact that H. Ngaia had been dead for nine years.

The Governor's despatch, as cited by Mr. Richmond, proceeds:-- "When he is asked if he knows the position of the land in dispute, he says, 'I do not know the precise boundary line.'" If it was not the Governor's object to deceive and mislead by giving this extract from my answer, and to convey the impression that I was ignorant of what I ought to have known, I am unable to suggest what his motive was. The question, with my answer, was as follows:-- "Do you know the position of the block of land in dispute at Waitara? The only difficulty I have in answering that question arises from my never having seen the official survey boundaries. It has been described as a block of land containing about 600 acres, situated on the south bank of the Waitara; this land I have seen and been over; but I do not know the precise boundary line of the Government. It is three years since I was on the land." I really see nothing in this answer to be ashamed of. But why does Mr. Richmond, of all people, cite this passage? How was it possible for me to define precisely the position of a block of land, concerning which Mr. Richmond had stated a few days before, in answer to Mr. Fox, that one of the boundary lines was still undefined? Certainly, Mr. Richmond turned very pale, looked very confused, and hung down his head, when he made that statement; but still I did not at the time suspect his veracity. But in the report of a speech delivered by Dr. Featherston at a numerously attended public meeting in Wellington in November last, I find these words:-- "The Government further declared that for the purpose of excluding such lands, they had refrained from fixing the internal boundary of the block, thus admitting that they really did not know what lands they had bought; and yet--will you believe it?--when the map was laid on the table the inland boundary was found to be cut." And now it comes to this: that I am sneered at by Mr. Richmond (for what else can be meant by the quotation?) as a mere gobe mouche, because I gave credit to a statement officially made by him, a minister of the Crown, in his place in the House of Representatives.

A detailed explanation of all the detached scraps of my evidence collected by the Governor in his despatch, and now given to the public by Mr. Richmond, would be too great a tax on the patience of your readers; I will make an extract, and offer a few further remarks on its contents.-- "When asked whether he is acquainted with the details of the negociations for land in the New Plymouth district, he says, 'I could not say that I was acquainted with the details.' When asked of whom the Bell Block was bought, he says, 'Principally, I believe, from returned slaves from Waikato; so I have been informed.' Of whom the Hua Block? 'I do not know.' Of whom the Taururutangi?' 'I do not know.' When asked whether Wiremu Kingi received any payment for the Bell Block, he says, 'I do not know whether he did or

[Image of page 60]

not.' When asked the territorial boundary of the four hapus of which he says Wiremu Kingi is the head, he says, 'I am not acquainted with the boundaries. I have never professed to be acquainted with the boundaries.'" What inducement could I have been supposed to have had for wasting my time on acquiring a knowledge of the "details" of negociations for land at New Plymouth having no connection whatever with Waitara? Does either the Governor or Mr. Richmond intend to deny that the Bell Block was bought from returned slaves from Waikato? At page 7 of this very "Memorandum" I find that the Governor himself says of the Bell Block-- "The land was bought from the chief Rawiri Waiaua and a part of the Puketapu;" but does any one deny that Rawiri Waiaua was a returned Waikato slave? -- that he was carried away into slavery when the Mikotahi Pa fell? If so he only exposes his own ignorance. Again--what had the "Hua Block" or the "Taururutangi" or the "Bell Block" or "the territorial boundary,"--not subdivisional boundaries --of the "four hapus" to do with the question at issue--whether Teira and a few others acting with him were the only owners of the 600 acres, which they professed to sell to the Government, and which everybody knew bad no connection whatever with the territorial boundary of the "four hapus"? I could proceed with the rest in the same way, and expose more fully than I have yet done the miserable quibbling contained in the document under consideration; but what I have now said will suffice on this subject. For my part I am quite content to let the value of the evidence rest on, firstly, the fact mentioned above, that is, the effect produced on the Committee at the time it was given; and secondly on this, that with all the pains taken by the Governor and Mr. Richmond to invalidate and misrepresent my words and meaning, I do not find that the misstatement of a single fact is alleged against me; certainly none is proved.

I have already directed your attention to the fallacy pervading the whole paragraph of the "Memorandum" on which I have been commenting, namely--that because I had pledged myself to establish a case, if allowed to bring witnesses, I was therefore bound to establish it on my own. The last question and answer at the close of my examination were-- "Do you believe that if you were permitted to summon witnesses from the South, you could substantiate by direct evidence the statements you made before the Committee, where requiring direct confirmation? Yes, I think I could substantiate every one of the statements I have made relating to the Natives at Waitara. I am quite sure I could substantiate all of them." But this was just what the Government refused to permit. I was prepared to give evidence on native tenure of land. I was equally prepared to state the relative positions of William King and Teira in the tribe. I was prepared to state that Teira and those who acted with him were only subordinate members of their own sub-tribe or hapu, Patukakariki, who has all along acted with W. King, being its chief. These and many other points I was ready to give evidence upon. But I did not profess to know the boundaries of each claimant's property; nor could I fairly have been expected to do so. It is quite possible that the best lawyer in England, well versed in every

[Image of page 61]

work of note upon real property beginning even with Coke upon Littleton, may not be acquainted with the actual boundaries of any single estate in the kingdom: and it is quite certain that with the clearest case, he would break down, if precluded from bringing up his witnesses.

At page 14 Mr. Richmond says-- "Perhaps the most important circumstance is, that the sellers have exclusively occupied the block since their return from the South in 1848, with the exception only of the site of King's pa. This fact of the exclusive occupation of the block is not disputed by Archdeacon Hadfield." I have before remarked that it is quite impossible for any ordinary mortal even to guess at Mr. Richmond's mode of reasoning. Suppose Mr. Richmond should have thought proper to assert that Waitara is in the Moon (it would be but little more absurd than many of his assertions), and then call this a fact; is it to be said, because I never disputed such an assertion, of which I had never heard, that I admit the fact? But if Mr. Richmond means that I have ever admitted the fact asserted by him, that "the sellers have exclusively occupied the block since their return," I must inform him that his assertion is untrue. Nor is it likely that I should have made such an admission, when my own published letter of May last, cited from an official statement published at New Plymouth on the 20th of March the following passage:-- King's followers have, however, encroached with their cultivations upon the South side of the river: and, these encroachments have been, for a longtime, a source of continual discussion." It appears, therefore, that the Government itself did not venture to deny what was a notorious fact. I myself had no personal knowledge of these recent cultivations, and therefore declined to give evidence upon the subject. The Government however must lose the benefit of this imaginary "most important circumstance."

At page 16 there is a remarkable passage which I feel compelled to notice. In allusion to the Waikanae claimants Mr. Richmond says of me-- "Mr. Parris also privately applied to him through Archdeacon Govett, of New Plymouth, requesting him to use his influence to procure the withdrawal of King's opposition. The Archdeacon replied-- 'That he would not advise natives to sell their land; that he was not pleased with anything the Government had done for the natives, and that the Government would find that a large party of the natives at Otaki would espouse William King's cause.' The natives of Waikanae, which is close to Otaki, were therefore, it is evident, fully aware of what was going on, long before the commencement of hostilities, and ought to have come forward." I must premise the remarks I am going to make by saying that the passage printed in inverted commas in the 'Memorandum,' and purporting to be an extract from a letter of mine to Archdeacon Govett, is not a verbatim extract from that letter. In September, 1859, my friend Archdeacon Govett, at Mr. Parris's request, wrote to me in the following words:-- "I write a line to ask whether you would try and use your influence with William King, to induce him to give up some of his land at Waitara, say, on the south bank of the river. There is a very strong feeling against him, not only on the part of the Europeans, but also of a large number of the natives, on account of his obstinancy. Te Teira and his relations, who are said

[Image of page 62]

to be the rightful owners of the main part of the land, have offered it to the Governor; and he has accepted the offer, and is determined to bring the matter to a conclusion. If William King could be induced to yield, the Governor would be willing to make most liberal allowances; if he persists in holding his land great quarrelling and fighting will most probably ensue." I need hardly say, that while I fully appreciated Archdeacon Govett's motives in acceding to Mr. Parris's request, and delivering his message to me, I felt indignant that an officer of the Government should have asked me to use any influence that I, as a clergyman, might have in reference to a contemplated negotiation about land. I therefore immediately replied, that I certaiuly would not advise William King, or any other native, in reference to his land. I here take the opportunity of noticing an insinuation, if not a statement, publicly made by Mr. Commissioner M'Lean, that I have advised natives not to sell their land to the Government. I now state most distinctly and unequivocally, that I have never, since New Zealand became a British colony, either directly or indirectly advised, or in any way endeavoured to influence, any native, or party of natives, not to sell their lands to the Government; and that Mr. M'Lean's statement is a falsehood, and one, I regret to say, which the many opportunities that have occurred for explanation, render wholly inexcusable. It is frequently said that I have great influence with natives. Whatever the amount of my influence with them may be, it is in a great measure traceable to my systematic and rigid abstinence, during a long course of years, from any interference with their affairs or proceedings where no religious or moral consideration was involved. Whenever, therefore, I have interfered, the natives have been convinced that some such principle was involved. An instance in point was my effective resistance of the Maori King movement in this district in May last, which the Government had made no effort to check. I then enforced only one single principle, namely, that a treaty made twenty years ago is not now open to reconsideration. If this movement should, after this long interval, recover strength, it will have been occasioned by the infatuated folly of the General Government. But to return from this slight digression. That I ever stated in writing, or in any other way, what is now attributed to me --that "I was not pleased with anything the Government had done for the natives," is absolutely false. On the other hand, I have no doubt whatever that I distinctly stated, that under the circumstances contemplated by the Government, "a large party of the natives of Otaki would espouse William King's cause;" though these were not the words I used. I wrote to the Governor himself to the same effect in March last, as I have already proved by publishing extracts from my letter, but by no means limited my prediction to the natives of this district. I might leave this subject were it not that a curious piece of information has now been unwittingly given to the public. Innumerable hard words about the "guilt of blood" have been uttered against me by the Government, because I am said to have withheld my opinion of the probable consequences of a coup-de-main at Waitara, supposed only to require "a couple of volleys," to enable it to effect its object. It is now confessed by the

[Image of page 63]

Government, that Mr. Parris applied to me in September, 1859, through Archdeacon Govett, in reference to the compulsory purchase of some portion of Waitara, and that I then conveyed to him my opinion that the contemplated step would bring on a general war, for that is evidently implied in my answer. That not the slightest weight was attached to my warning has since been, proved by facts. What weight would have been given to it at a subsequent and maturer stage of the proceedings, may not be difficult to conjecture. Here, then, to apply Mr. Richmond's own words to himself, is "an engineer hoisted with his own petard."

I refrain from further comments on Mr. Richmond's peculiar logic. It really seems very silly to say in an official paper, that because I thought the natives of Otaki would take a certain view of an event still future, of which at the time they had never heard, "therefore it is evident" that the natives of Waikanae, "which is close to Otaki," ought to have brought forward their claims to a block of land, about the contemplated purchase of which they knew nothing.

I abstain for the present from any general notice of this "Memorandum." I deliberately pronounce my opinion, formed from a tolerable acquaintance with the facts touched on, that it contains the most barefaced and disgraceful mis-statements and misrepresentations that I ever saw. I can say nothing more condemnatory of a State Paper. I conclude with one word of advice to any one who, having read Sir W. Martin's pamphlet, thinks that its facts or arguments are in any way impugned or affected by this reply, that is--Read it again.

I remain, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
OCTAVIUS HADFIELD.

I.

NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR, MARCH 6, 1861.

To the Editor of the Neiv Zealand Spectator.

Otaki, February 7, 1861.

SIR,--I wish to offer a few remarks on the following passage from Mr. Richmond's "Memorandum," page 16: --

"Riwai names in his letter of 23rd June, three specific claims, one on behalf of Te Patukakariki, who, being on the spot, never claimed for himself. Another on behalf of King himself, whose cultivation within the block, he says is called Te Porepore. A third on behalf of King's two children. The cultivations which belonged to their mothers^ are, he says, 'at Hurirapa, the pa which was burnt by the soldiers; and another at Oropa on the south of their old pas,' As regards the cultivations of King himself, Riwai is directly contradicted by the evidence above cited, which establishes that neither Kingi nor any of his people have had cultivations on the block. Nor is it at all likely that if he had been entitled to cultivate on the block in right of his wives or children, he would have omitted to do so, were it merely for the purpose of asserting his title. Riwai's passionate inaccuracy is shewn in his

[Image of page 64]

statement that Hurirapa was burnt by the soldiers. Hurirapa was not burnt. No pa was burnt by the soldiers. In the same spirit he scoffingly denies the fact that W. King had leave to place his pa on the block: 'How, then, can it be said that they gave W. Kingi leave to settle on the block, when he came from Waikanae? A fine saying, indeed! No. Each man knew that cultivation of his own ancestor. Was it they who gave W. Kingi leave to cultivate Te Porepore, when he went from Waikanae? Was it they who gave his children leave to cultivate at Te Hurirapa (Teira's pa), when they went from Waikanae, which cultivations have been taken from them by the soldiers?' The statements implied in these questions are, as have already been seen, absolutely contradicted by the officers charged with the investigations, and are inconsistent with the proved facts of the case. Sir W. Martin may have good ground for his expressed belief in the Rev. Riwai Te Ahu's general honesty of character, but it is evident that in the present case, his (the Deacon's) statements show strong passion and slender information."

Allow me to say that there has been no "evidence cited" that contradicts any statements by the Rev. Riwai Te Ahu, as to King's cultivations within the disputed block. Mr. Richmond asserts that the evidence cited "establishes that neither Kingi, nor any of his people, have had cultivations on the block;" but this is contradicted by an official statement, published at New Plymouth on the 20th of March last, which says,-- "Kingi's followers have, however, encroached with their cultivations upon the south side of the river; and these encroachments have been, for a long time, a source of continual dissension." But even if the fact asserted by Mr. Richmond were established, which it is not, Riwai Te Ahu's inaccuracy would not be proved: he says nothing about recent "cultivations;" he speaks of mara (translated in the version of his letter printed in my evidence given before the House of Representatives, "portions of land")--fields--former cultivations, as is clear from his saying,-- fields of their "mothers" and their "ancestors." Mr. Richmond's inference, therefore, is worthless, being founded upon a blunder of his own.

Any inference drawn from Mr. Richmond's conjectures, as expressed in such words as--"nor is it at all likely, &c," I must leave to those who think that a charge of inaccuracy can be substantiated by such a trashy mode of reasoning as this.

Mr. Richmond contradicts Riwai Te Ahu, and says that "Hurirapa pa was not burnt." I am requested to forward to you a statement made by Wi Tako in reference to this disputed point: "April 6, 1860. This was when I arrived at Waitara. I saw that W. King's pas were all destroyed by fire. The names of these pas are Werohia, Te Hurirapa, and Kuikui: not a whare remained: all were burnt. One whare remained; it was a building for meetings; it was outside Te Hurirapa pa. We were two hours there. I went on board the steamer; we sailed to Waitohi. This is all. From Wi Tako." 1 This statement of Wi Tako's appears perfectly conclusive as to the point at issue.

[Image of page 65]

Mr. Richmond's assertion that "no pa was burnt by the soldiers," is a mere evasive quibble. The pas referred to by Wi Tako and Riwai Te Ahu, were burnt by native allies, bearing arms under the authority of the officer in command of the soldiers, and acting under his protection. Most men would be ashamed of such a transparent attempt to evade an awkward fact.

Mr. Richmond says,-- "He scoffingly denies the fact that W. King had leave to place his pa on the block." He does not say one word about it. He certainly would have denied it, if any allusion had been made by him to the subject, because he knew, as I know, that the assumed fact is an absurd falsehood. No question was ever raised as to W. King's right to settle on the "block;" the only one was that explained by me in my published letter of May, namely,-- "whether his pa should stand a few chains nearer the water side than it would have stood, had it been erected on his own land on the same side of the river."

It will hardly satisfy any impartial person, to be told that Riwai Te Ahu's statements are "inaccurate," and that he possesses only "slender information," because they have "been absolutely contradicted by the officers charged with the investigation" Why! these are the very persons whose whole conduct and proceedings in reference to the Waitara purchase have been impugned. Anything more absurd, except on the hypothesis of the absolute infallibility of these officials, can scarcely be conceived; and, if that is the assumption, it might as well have been broadly asserted from the beginning. What "the proved facts of the case" are, or where they are to be found, would, I fear, puzzle Mr. Richmond to show.

It will be seen that not a single statement made by the Rev. Riwai Te Ahu has been in any degree invalidated by Mr. Richmond's rash counter statements.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
OCTAVIUS HADFIELD.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.

Otaki, February 26, 1861.

SIR,--You will oblige me by publishing the enclosed letter, being the copy of one addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
OCTAVIUS HADFIELD.

[Image of page 66]

J.

(COPY.)

Otaki, Wellington, New Zealand, February 25, 1861.

MY LORD DUKE,--I request to be allowed to draw your Grace's attention to some very serious charges brought against me in an official document contained in certain "Miscellaneous Papers" forming part of an Appendix to a Memorandum by Mr. Richmond, on Sir W. Martin's "Taranaki Question." The document referred to is-- "Copy of a letter from the Chief-Land-Purchase Commissioner to the Governor," dated 1st December, 1860; and purports to be a reply to a letter of mine published in the New Zealand Spectator of the 12th October, 1860.

I forbear to trouble your Grace with any remarks on Mr. Donald M'Lean's contradictions of my statements. What I wish to bring under your Grace's notice is the following passage:--

"And now I shall briefly advert to some observations which appear in Archdeacon Hadfield's evidence before the House of Representatives in the last Session. (Ans. to Q. 44), 'I was absent from the Colony about twelve months, and on my return I found that the [King] movement had made rapid strides in the South. The progress of the King movement is to be attributed, in my opinion, to the action of the Land Purchase Department in the South part of this Island.' In making an assertion of this description the Venerable Archdeacon should have had the candour to avow that the "anti-land-selling-league"--which eventually merged into the King party--was really a project of his own, and was recommended by him to the natives as early as the years 1848 and 1849. The natives have openly stated at their meetings, on the subject of land-selling, that they had been instructed by the Archdeacon not to alienate any portion of their territory to the Government. Mr. Hadfield seems to find it very convenient to conceal the part which he took in influencing the minds of the natives, and very adroitly to endeavour to impute to the Land Purchase Department the blame due to his own acts. I apprehend it would require a measure of more than the Archdeacon's ingenuity--great as it may be--to defend his efforts to embarrass the Government in their operations with the natives, and by his advice and counsel to lead them on to their own destruction."

In reference to this extract, I beg leave to make the following observations:--

1. I have no doubt whatever that the opinion I gave in my evidence before the House of Representatives as to the King movement is correct. I shall be prepared to prove its truth whenever an opportunity is afforded me of adducing evidence in support of it.

2. I have proved in a letter published in the New Zealand Spectator, November 3, I860, that there never has been any "anti-land-selling-league" in New Zealand.

3. I have never had any project whatever as to an "anti-land-selling-league"; nor have I ever recommended anything of the kind to any native.

4. During the whole of the year 1848 I was ill and confined to my

[Image of page 67]

bed, at the house of a friend in Wellington, and had no communication with natives. It was not till near the end of the year 1849 that I recovered and returned to this place: but the subject of land was never once mentioned, there being at that time no negotiation for the purchase of any land in my district.

5. Before I had seen the charges on which I am now commenting, I had said in a letter published in the New Zealand Spectator of the 6th inst., "I here take the opportunity of noticing an insinuation, if not a statement, publicly made by Mr. Commissioner M'Lean, that I have advised natives not to sell their lands to the Government. I now state most distinctly and unequivocally, that I have never since New Zealand became a British colony, either directly or indirectly advised, or in any way endeavoured to influence any native, or party of natives, not to sell their land to the Government: and that Mr. M'Lean's statement is a falsehood, and one, I regret to say, which the many opportunities which have occurred for explanation render wholly inexcusable." As Mr. M'Lean gives no information as to who "the natives" are, and when and where they made the statements imputed to them, I can add nothing more on this head.

6. Your Grace will not expect that I should condescend to reply to the calumnious and malignant insinuations contained in the latter portion of the extract from Mr. M'Lean's letter. But what the effect of my advice and counsel has really been among those natives over whom I may be supposed to have any influence is pointed out in a letter addressed by me to the Southern Cross, August 24, 1860, when a similar attack was made on me by the Native Minister. "It is twenty years since I first went to reside at Waikanae and Otaki. During the whole of my residence in the district there has been profound peace. No Englishman or Maori has ever beemurdered. No collision has ever taken place among the natives themselves. No outrage has ever been committed on the person or property of an Englishman. During the last twelve years--when law first began to be enforced--there has never been an attempt to prevent the execution of a warrant issued by the Resident Magistrate of Wellington, though placed in the hands of only a single constable. I boldly challenge any one to point to a single instance of disloyalty on the part of any of the natives of my district, or of any act which has the slightest tendency to produce disloyalty, until the month of May last, when after the Taranaki war began, a colour from the Maori King was sent from Waikato, and an attempt was made to erect it."

I should not have troubled yeur Grace with this letter, were it not that peculiar circumstances, which it is unnecessary for me to explain, render it unadvisable that I should at present take legal proceedings against Mr. Commissioner M'Lean.

I have the honour to be,
Your Grace's most obedient servant,
OCTAVIUS HADFIELD.
The Right Honourable the Duke of Newcastle.

[Image of page 68]

K.

From certain Members of the Ngatiawa Tribe to the Superintendent of the Province of Wellington.

Waikanae, July 29, 1860.

MR. SUPERINTENDENT,--Greeting to you. These are our words: hear them, that you may declare them openly in the presence of the Governor.

We have portions of laNd also at Waitara within the piece of land which was wrongly sold by Teira to the Governor; we, as well as those who have been driven off that piece of land. It belonged to all our ancestors. We never heard from the old men who have lately died, that that land belonged only to Ngatituaho and Ngatihinga, or to the ancestors of Teira and his companions, whose pedigree has been lately set forth, or to his father, and that by them it was given to our ancestors and to our fathers as to dependents, who should raise food for the ancestors of Teira and his companions, or for his father and the fathers of his companions.

Nor is it land that has lately been discovered by Teira, or by his father or by his companions, that we should be mistaken in what we say about it, or that it should be right to make strong assertions with reference to that land in order to justify their making no account of us and those who have been forcibly driven off it. No. It is old land that belonged to our ancestors.

Now we have heard the defence of Parris' wrong doing with reference to our portions of land there, which says, "A long time was allowed to elapse, and nothing was said about the land: Parris, the Land Commissioner of Taranaki, carefully inquired that he might find out who were the owners of the land which was offered to him. Parris searched, and at length he found them out."

These words were intended to excite everybody's admiration, that it might be thought that he really had searched. Listen. We were all the time living at Waikanae; one of us at Otaki. Now Parris never came to make inquiries of us as to whether we had land there or not; nor did any assistant of his in that work come to inquire; nor did he write any letter of inquiry; nor did he, in the course of that year, print in the newspaper his inquiries as to the owners of that land, None, none at all.

Off goes one of the land purchasers to make inquiries of some people of Arapawa, passing over us without inquiry.

We did not hear of it until the time when Teira received the money. Still we felt no apprehension of losing our lands, because we were continually bearing of the strong declaration of Wiremu Kingi, that he would keep our lands for us. For he is our chief, a protecting shade for our lands.

The second time was when they went to survey it.

The third time was when the soldiers were sent to take it. How could we get a word in? When the trouble had become serious, then Parris goes and prints in the newspaper that be has made inquiry.

[Image of page 69]

We ask this question. What are we, peaceable persons, who are not joining in the fighting, to do when our lands are wrongly taken away by the Governor? Where shall we seek a way by which we may get our lands restored to us? Shall we seek it from the Queen, or from whom? We imagined that it was for the law to rectify wrongs. Up to this time our hearts keep anxiously inquiring. We will say no more.

From us, members of Ngatiawa, and owners of that land at Waitara.

HOHEPA NGAPAKI, X.
KIRIPATA PAKE.
PATIHANA TIKARA.
EPIHA PAIKAU TUPOKI, X.

PlNAREPE te NEKE, x.
HENARE TE MARAU, X.
PAORA MATUA AWAKA.
HUTANA AWATEA.
WlPERAHAMA PUTIKI.
TERETIU TAMAKA.
RIWAI TE AHU.

L.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator.

Waikanae, November 23, 1860.

FRIEND,--Will you print our letter in your paper.

When we read Mr. M'Lean's false answer to the following questions put to him we were very sad; we were sad because, though he knew nothing about our claims to that land at Waitara, or the connections of the various tribes and their chiefs, he nevertheless gave evidence at random on these subjects. But we will point out the errors of his answers, that all the Pakehas may understand, and that they may not ignorantly condemn William King and his tribe. These are all the answers that we have in Maori--from the New Zealand Spectator, October 6, 1860.

1. THE HON. MR. RICHMOND--Had the Ngatituaho and Ngatihinga a right to the disputed block, independent of the hapus of the Ngatiawa? --Yes; decidedly. We say--It is quite false to assert that it belongs to these tribes alone, we now hear for the first time from Mr. M'Lean that it belongs to these tribes alone.

2. Do the sellers, including Ropoama and his people at Queen Charlotte's Sound, properly represent these two hapus?--They do. We say--This is false, some of those men are not real members of those tribes, some are slaves from Totorewa and from Ngaitahu; the principal men of those tribes are those (at Waitara) who are being trampled upon, Patukakariki and others.

3. After the inquiry you have made do you know of any outstanding claim?--I have referred to one man who may have a claim, that is Patukakariki, though I do not know that he has. We say--This an-

[Image of page 70]

swer is intended to deceive. He did not make proper inquiries of the people to whom the land belonged; but he is quite right to confess his ignorance, for he is only talking at random about what he knows nothing in denying Patukakariki's and our claims to that land.

4. Do you believe that any considerable claim can be outstanding?-- I do not. We say---This is false. We, who are connected with that land, say that there are persons who have real claims, that is, to the lands cultivated by their ancestors and parents; he has no right to deny their claims.

5. As to Te Patukakariki, did he oppose Teira's offer?--No, he never did. We say--He did (see 35), and everybody has heard that the Government survey was resisted by women. Now, some of those women were Patukakarika's wife and his two daughters. What more could they do to shew that they opposed the sale?

6. Has he ever made a claim?-- He never, to my knowledge, made a claim to that particular block. We say--He did strongly assert a claim to that block of land, both he and his nephew, Paora Karewa. He (Mr. M'Lean) heard it with his own ears on the day that Teira gave his parawai to the Governor; but he had determined not to listen.

7. Do you think he possibly has a claim to any extent?--I think he may possibly have a claim to a small extent. We say--He has a claim; he has several pieces within the block. All the pieces held by individuals within the block, whether by those who have been driven off it, or by us, or by those who sold it, are equally small; each person may have two, or one, or four, as the case may be.

8. Do you consider that Riwai Te Ahu has a valid claim to any part of the block?--I do not consider that he has. We say--He has a just claim. Mr. M'Lean could know nothing justifying his denial of it; he is stating what is false when he denies the claim; it was his desire to have the land that made him say this.

9. Has King ever made a claim of proprietary right?--William King has never made such a claim, to my knowledge. We say--This is quite false. Mr. M'Lean would not listen to what he said, in the same way that he would not listen to what Patukakariki said (Question 6).

10 Under the peculiar circumstances of the Taranaki case, had King in your opinion any right to interfere with the sale by another hapu of their lands?--Decidedly he had not. We say--It is only this land-jobber who would venture to deny William King's right to withhold the land: we say that he had a clear right to withhold the land, for it did not belong to those hapus alone, or to other tribes, or other ancestors. Was it his animosity to William King that made him say this?

11. Has any similar interference by the chief been recognised in Taranaki, either in favour of King or of any other?--Never in connection with any of the purchases made there. We say--That the land purchaser refused to listen, and that chiefs who opposed sales did not always think proper to enforce their claims.

33. MR. FOX--You have stated that Riwai Te Ahu had no claim. How can you be sure of this if you have never investigated claims at Otaki, where he lived, nor notified the sale to him?--I am sure of it

[Image of page 71]

from this fact, that he once preferred a claim to land there, which I investigated. I was under the impression that it was of considerable extent, but I found on inquiry from the parties through whom he claimed, and whose names he gave, that his claims were really insignificant, and were situated near the river Waiongana. Even those small claims the natives disputed, as the land was occupied by a sister of his. The extent of the land as represented to me is not larger than the floor of this house. I communicated the result of my inquiries to Riwai, who was disappointed at it.

I, Hapakuka Mache, say, That Riwai Te Ahu has land which belonged to his ancestors between Mangoraka and Waiongana in that portion of land which Katatore offered for sale before his death. It is the right to this piece of land which Mr. M'Lean denies. Again, he says, "I found on inquiring from parties through whom he claimed, and whose names he gave." I, Riwai Te Ahu., say, This is false. I never named any persons of whom he should make inquiries; he asked Mahau, in the town at Taranaki, a person who had no connection whatever with the lands of our ancestors. Again he says, "His claims were really insignificant." All lands held by individual Maories are small pieces (it is only Pakehas who have 100 or 200 acres each); these pieces may be small, but they are inherited from ancestors. It is not a man's fault that his land is small; what is unjust is to seize lands which belong to others. He further says, "Levi seemed disappointed;" yes, because he only inquired of Mahau, who knew nothing about the land.

34. In investigating Riwai Te Ahu's claim, was he present, and had he the opportunity of examining the witnesses on whose evidence his claim was negatived by you?--I believe I have answered that question already. He was not present, and indeed it would have been of little use if he had, as he knew almost nothing about his claim, which he referred wholly to me. Riwai Te Ahu--Was Mr. M'Lean likely to know better than I did? He said to me at Otaki, March 25, 1858, "If the land offered by Katatore is purchased, I will settle about your piece of land there." I assented to his proposal, assuming that he would act in good faith.

35. Believing that Patukakariki has possibly a claim to the disputed block, why have you not endeavoured to ascertain it, and to treat with him?--He has had frequent opportunities of preferring his claim. I have already read a letter dated 18th of March, 1859, inviting him and others to come forward and prove their claims. We say--Who can tell whether he would have been attended to; for when he and his nephew, Paora Karewa spoke, at the time the parawai was given, they were not attended to, and what could they say more than they had said then?

36. How was that letter published and circulated?--It was not published at all; it was written by me to the chiefs of the district, without being otherwise notified than by being put into their hands. We say -- It was useless his writing. Patukakariki and the other chiefs would not come to him, when they had objected all along to the sale, and no attention was paid to what they said.

37. Was a copy delivered to Patukakariki?--The letter was addressed to William King, Patukakariki, and all the people at Waitara.

[Image of page 72]

We say--Mr. M'Lean had heard the words of William King and others when they refused to sell Waitara; why then write? Why should they pay any attention to his letter?

38. Is not Patukakariki the head of the hapu to which Te Teira belongs? If he is not, who is? -- I never recognised him as such. I know the contrary. I admit, however, that he is a chief of some importance. The principal chief of these hapus died some years ago. Ropoama, at Queen Charlotte's Sound, represents them. We say--The father of Te Patukakariki was the principal chief of those (two) tribes; his name was Karewa; he is dead; he died long since, about twenty-three years ago. We all knew him as the chief. Where did Mr. M'Lean learn that Patukakariki was not the chief of those tribes? and where did he hear that the chief of those tribes was dead? We should like to know the name of the chief who, he says, is dead.

39. Suppose that Patukakariki's claim is a good one, is he bound to prefer it? and if he does not, what law will bar its future assertion?--I really do not think that I am called upon to state what his claim is. I had to hear his title adduced, which universal custom recognises as the manner in which he should prefer his claims, We say--Mr. Fox is quite right; he is only inquiring of the person who professes to know all about it. If they did not wish to sell their land, why should they go, more especially when what they had said on previous occasions had not been attended to?

46. You have heard of the eleven claims mentioned by the claimants as existing at Otaki: have you investigated them?--I have not investigated those claims, with the exception of the one to which I have referred in answering a previous question. We say--Take not of his prevarication. Listen: that is a different piece of land about which he had spoken; it is at Waiongana, about five or six miles distant, in the block offered by Katatore before his death. See at question 33, what was said about that land. But this, about which he was questioned, is the land now being fought about at Waitara. Having nothing to say, he said what was false, it being quite impossible for him to prove that our claims at Waitara are not good and valid.

48. Did you ever hear of a meeting at which Te Teira offered to give up to the parties opposing the sale some lands belonging to him outside the block in exchange for the lands he was offering to the Government? --I did not hear of a meeting at which any proposal of that nature was made in reference to the land he was offering to the Government. I am aware that there was a meeting at which there was some discussion about the accommodation of their claims. This was a considerable time prior to the purchase. We say--See how clever he is at quibbling. Teira did make that offer; we heard it from Tipene Ngaruna, who was present at the meeting at Waitara.

58. What are the rules of alienation in the Ngatiawa tribe?--In the Ngatiawa a family of three or four people has been regarded as empowered to dispose ot its common property. We say--We of this Ngatiawa, now hear for the first time of this mode of proceeding (in alienating land), but perhaps he is in an underhand way laying down a new rule for this Ngatiawa, or does he mean for Ngatiawa at Tauranga (of whom we know nothing).

[Image of page 73]

59. Have they long enjoyed this right?--It has been so for the last eighteen years. We say--We have never heard of this custom all these years. We now hear it for the first time in this answer.

64. Did not Patukakariki protest repeatedly, three or four times, at public meetings against the sale of the disputed block?--Never against the sale of the block in question; but he has protested against the sale of other land. We say--What other portion of Waitara was ever sold by any natives to any other land purchaser, that he should have had an opportunity of objecting? No, it was that same block of land which they are fighting about. What Mr. M'Lean says is quite false, that "he has protested against the sale of other land."

65. Has he claims within the block?--I have stated, he may have claims; he has never proved any title. We say--See, he merely conjectures, from utter ignorance of the facts. We positively assert that he has land there.

66. Do you believe he has claims?--It is altogether conjectural; it is probable he may have a claim within the block. We say--If he does not know, why does be venture to give evidence about that land, and thus expose his ignorance?

75. Mr. Bell: In the evidence of Archdeacon Hadfield, he says that Te Teira is not a Chief at all, but a "tutua:" is that your opinion as to his position in the tribe?--Certainly not. We say--Archdeacon Hadfield was quite right. He lived five years with us in our pa at Waikanae; he was therefore well able to know who were Chiefs, and who were men of no rank at all; but this person, who contradicts another, has never lived among us, that he should know who are Chiefs and who are not.

79. Mr. Domett: Did you advise the Governor that the title of the sellers of Te Teira's block was good, before the purchase of the block was made?--I advised the Governor to accept the offer, and proceed with the purchase of the block, because it appeared to me that Te Teira had an unquestionable title. We say--He had a claim to his own little piece of land scattered among those of all of us. It is very wrong to doggedly persist, without any ground for his assertion, in saying that our pieces of land belong to Teira only.

80. Mr. Fox: When did you give that advice to his Excellency?-- In March, 1859. We say--Exactly so; then it is he who has misled the Governor.

81. Had the title at that time been fully investigated?--The offer was made publicly, which was the first and best evidence you could get of title, and a more minute investigation into the titles of the various claimants was afterwards instituted. We say--That afforded no evidence for a decision; the greater part of that Assembly were Puketapu natives and natives from the town, and he would not listen to Patukakariki, and Paora Karewa, and William King, when they openly protested against the sale that day in the presence of the Governor, when Teira gave his parawai; perhaps he thought that they had no right to interfere, or, which is more probable, he had determined in his own mind that if they refused their assent the soldiers should take the land.

84. Was a contemporaneous, or nearly contemporaneous, notice of

[Image of page 74]

the meeting of March, 1859, at which Teira's block was offered, published in the Maori Messenger?--A notice of that meeting was published in the Maori Messenger. We say--There was no mention of Teira's having offered land for sale in the Maori Messenger. Ngamotu, Taranaki, March 8, 1859, and Auckland, March 31, 1859. The account of the meeting to which he alludes was in these two Kareres.

95. MR. RICHMOND: Archdeacon Hadfield has stated that Ropoama refused to come up to the meeting at Kohimarama, because he disapproved of the transactions, falsely alleging illness as an excuse: was this the case?--It was certainly not so; he was scarcely able to stand. I sent a boat for him. He expressed himself willing to come, but he was really so unwell that he might have died at sea. In fact, I could not think of bringing him. In the short interview which I had with him on board the steamer, he again expressed his intention of selling his claims to the Government. We say--What Archdeacon Hadfield said is quite correct; we heard it from the natives who came across from Queen Charlotte's Sound. Illness was not the reason why he and Hone Tuhata remained. No; they staid on account of the Governor's proceedings against William King. Notice the fact that not even one of those people went to Kohimarama.

We conclude by saying that Mr. M'Lean had better leave off telling untruths about William King's land.

From us,

(Signed)
HERUINI TE TUPEOTU.
EPIHA POIHA.
HOHEPA NGAPAKI.
HENERE TE MARAU.
TAMATI TE HAWE.
RAWIRI NGAWAKA.
WIPERAHAMA PUTIKI.
WIREMU TAMIHANA TE NEKE.
PAOHA MATUAWAKA.
KIRIPATA PAKE.
TIPENE NGARUNA.
HUTANA AWATEA.
TERETIU TAMAKA.
HONE TUHATA.
RIWAI TE AHU.