page 38

Chapter VIII.

May be tested—when the facts are undisputed—according to all the foregoing considerations.

Whether he had any show of title or not depends upon facts which the writer does not know to have been yet ascertained beyond dispute, and on views of Maori rights and customs much disputed, though possibly without any just cause.

That King did not object to the sale on the ground of title is assumed from authorized statements.

That he never claimed justice for an infraction of a right from the representative of the Crown is also assumed.

That his subsequent conduct, whether he had a title and set it up or not, amounted to a repudiation of the Queen's sove-reignty and to rebellion, is also pretty plain.

But the course of the case points out what may be an over-sight and omission which it might be well to avoid in future.

The person who acts as agent for the Crown in the purchase of land does not seem to be the most proper person to decide whether there be any substantial dispute or not.

Perhaps it would be wise to provide in future that if any opposition or objection should be made de facto to a sale or proposed sale, some tribunal, with a competent Maori element, ought to decide the dispute or that there is no dispute, before the agent of the Crown should be allowed to purchase.