Page 80, Note 2.

This Note furnishes a remarkable instance of a practical fallacy which pervades these Notes. These so-called "rules" and "decisions" were in fact merely plans of proceeding or schemes of policy. They might be very beneficial, if they could be carried out, but they had no binding effect or authority whatever. To page 22 induce the Natives to yield up tracts of land and accept compensation for them, was in many cases very proper; and Mr Clarke and the officers of his department often had influence enough with the Natives to obtain their assent. But no one was bound by those transactions, except the persons who were actually parties to them.

What is here called Governor Grey's decision was no decision at all in any proper sense. Governor Grey found himself in the midst of those difficulties which followed upon that act of Governor Fitzroy, which has been expressly admitted by the present Governor to have been both just and politic. (Parl. Pap. July, 1860, p. 177.)

Governor Grey did not directly impugn the proceeding of his predecessor, but he felt the practical inconveniences which followed upon it. To escape them, he attempted an intermediate and singular policy. The titles of the returned owners were not to be acknowledged in words by the Government, but their claims were to be bought, if they were disposed to sell, at a rate not exceeding 1s. 6d. an acre.

It is idle to quote this policy of Governor Grey as an authority or precedent for the present proceedings. That policy has been entirely abandoned by the present Governor. The titles of the individual cultivators, which Governor Grey would not directly acknowledge, have been in this very transaction (not to go further back) fully acknowledged by the present Government. Teira and his companions have been recognized as "rightful owners," as "undisputed owners." (E. No. 3, page 23 p. 22.) And as to the price, have the present sellers received no more than Is. 6d. an acre?