Page 6, Note 1, and Page 7, Note 2.

It is asserted in this Note that when the captives and the persons who had voluntarily migrated to page 7 other places began to return to Taranaki, those families which remained in the new places where they had settled, were never admitted to exercise authority over those who returned, in the disposal by the latter of their own land. It is also asserted, that for the last eighteen years it has been achnowledged amongst themselves that even a family of four people were free to dispose of or to retair their property. In page 7, Note 2, this is asserted broadly as applying to the whole tribe. It is said to have been an acknowledged usage among the Ngati awa that their separate families had secarate rights of alienation.

It is believed that these assertions are incapable of proof. They are directly contradictory to M. McLean's statement, 17th December, 1844, (Taanaki Question, page 19,) and also to Mr. McLean': practice. For, upon the principle now alleged, the visits to Queen Charlotte Sound and Wellington we unnecessary.

So extraordinary an exception to the general rule should have been properly proved, before fore was resorted to.