Page 24.

The important subject of the feuds referred to in this Note is reserved for consideration in connection with the Note on page 82.

The ambiguity of the word "tribe" has been page 11 admitted. I did not intend to assert that William King is the Chief of the whole tribe of the Ngati awa. He is certainly the Chief of that section of the Ngati awa to which the Waitara belongs.

Before leaving, this branch of the subject, I subjoin an extract from a speech delivered by Mr. Dillon Bell, in the House of Representatives, 3rd August, 1860:—"Towards the end of 1839, Colonel Wakefield (the Company's agent) arrived in New Zealand and among other places went to Waikanae, where Wiremu Kingi, even at that time an intelligent and enterprising man, took great interest in the Colonel's proceedings, and accompanied him in the ship Tory on a visit to the Ngati awa Chiefs of Queen Charlotte Sound, to buy land. It was on that occasion that Wiremu Kingi signed the deed of which so much has been said; but for my part I never attached much importance to his signature except as it may he held to bar his individual right. About this time the Ngapuhi and Waikato tribes determined on manumitting their slaves taken in war, and almost simultaneously with the introduction of European Settlers into Taranaki, numbers of the Ngati awa captives returned to their ancient location; while those who belonged to the first migration followed their example, and also began to come up from the South in small detached parlies. Wiremu Kingi and his father remained at Waikanae, but according to Maori law were equally entitled to reclaim their old possessions at Taranaki when page 12 they say should return. I need not remind the House of the disputes which immediately followed the return of the Ngati awa, in the first years of the settlement, nor how they and the English settlers contested the possession of the soil: still less need I remind them that in 1844 Mr. Spain, the Queen's Commissioner for investigating and determining titles to land, held his Court at Taranaki, and decided that the Company was entitled to a grant of 60,000 acres: or that Governor Fitzroy disallowed that decision, on the ground of its setting aside the claims of unreturned captives and absentees. I do not believe that Governor Fitzroy meant absolutely to annul the Company's purchase; I think it is clear he intended that compensation should be given to the absentees as they came in, not that they should have all the land back. But whatever he may have thought, there was never a doubt on my mind that the natives understood his decision practically to be a recognition of their ownership and a giving back of the land." (New Zealander, 8th August, 1860.)

Another circumstance should be noticed. Various points are relied on from time to time, in support of the Government case: at one time the Waikato Invasion; at another, the Cession to Governor Hobson; at another, Governor Grey's policy; and so forth. Each of these taken singly, supposing it to have the effect ascribed to it, would set aside Teira's title as much as William King's: yet, in some way or other out of the combination or conflict of all, Teira emerges as "rightful owner," as "undisputed owner," page 13 whilst the rights of the Community and of the Chief have been lost. The result of this view is that Teira reappears with a title not worse, nor just as good, but far better than it would have been if none of these adverse circumstances had existed. For he is now conceived to possess a power of alienation, even without the consent of the Community to which he belongs.

It was not sufficiently considered how little the arbitrary severance, made by the Government theory, between the rights of the individual holder and those of the Community and the Chief, could be expected to commend itself to the people of the Waitara. The Waikato invasion is the point from which Mr. McLean dates the alleged change in the Rules of Tenure at Taranaki, the commencement of the exceptional state of things in that district. If the individual holders were not affected by all that had passed from the Waikato invasion downwards, how could the Community and the Chief regard themselves as deprived of their old rights by those same events?