TO NATIVE AFFAIRS.

5

E—No. Sα

consider as a stronghold, we must be persuaded that we no longer require it. I venture therefore to suggest that steps be taken to assure the Native mind that they shall have no reason for the future to distrust the proceedings of the Government—that regulations shall be laid down with respect to the purchase of land which shall render it impossible for irregularities to occur, such as those of which the Natives have complained. If this course were adopted, I have little doubt but that confidence would be speedily restored; that the King movement would be willingly abandoned, and that the Colony would soon resume its former prosperity. Feeling that the subject of this letter is of serious importance, may I request that your Excellency will be pleased to direct that a copy of it my be forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I have, &c, To His Excellency, William Waiaptj. The Governor, &c, &c, &c.

No. 2. MEMORANDUM OF MB. MCLEAN ON THE LETTER OF THE BISHOP OF WAIAPU. June 26, 1861. I have to offer the following remarks upon some of the statements contained in a letter of the sth instant addressed by Bishop Williams to His Excellency. With respect to the statement of Mr. Shortland quoted by the Bishop on the subject of the old land claims, it may be proper to refer to the opinion of the Chief Protector of Aborigines, Mr. Clarke, given in July 1845, in the following terms :— " Notwithstanding the time, labor, and expense which has been bestowed upon the Land " Commission, the result of the enquiry has been far from satisfactory. All that has been ascertained " is that various Europeans have made purchases from certain Natives; but whether those Natives had " a right to sell, or how that was acquired, is still, in the majority of cases, quite a matter of doubt." With regard to the purchases of the New Zealand Company, the Bishop says, " The effect upon " the Native mind was, at first a distrust in the proceedings of the Company, but afterwards satisfaction, " when tbey found that justice was done to them by the Government." An examination of Commissioner Spain's Report will show that in the settlement he endeavoured to make with the Natives, he met with very serious difficulties. He says "In cases where they (the " Natives) have only sought for compensation and never denied a partial sale, the moment the amount " to be paid to them was decided upon, they began to object to accept it and to propose terms that " could not be enteitained. In fact it appears to me that they have determined totally to disregard " British law and authority; and that they have come to the conclusion that we are not strong enough " to enforce the one or maintain the other." Bishop Williams is not ignorant of the influences brought to bear against colonizing efforts generally, whether those of the New Zealand Company, the early Settlers, or the Government. The Bishop expresses himself satisfied with the earlier purchases of the Land Purchase Department, but finds fault with the latter ones. He fails, however, to show that the latter are conducted on any different principle. The fact is that the system pursued has been the same throughout. The change has not been in the system but in the views of the Natives. That a great change has taken place in these is beyond question, and could hardly escape the notice of an attentive observer. The Bishop, however, either ignores or overlooks thia feature of the case. The reference by Bishop Williams to the Hapuku feud, shows that he obtained his information from one of the parties only. Had his enquiries been more impartial, he would have discovered that the land question was only one among the many elements in this feud. The extreme rivalry and jealousy existing between Te Moananui and Te Hapuku, years before any land was acquired by the Government in that District, were well known to every peison who had any acquaintance with those tribes. Had the Bishop taken pains to inform himself thoroughly on this subject, he would have found that the land selling, as far it had formed an element in the dispute, had been completely eliminated from the question. As the Bishop has chosen, by quoting Renata's statements, to endorse them, I feel called upon to give them that notice which I should not otherwise have done. I regret very much that the Bishop has condescended to found his animadversions against the Land Purchase Department, on the unproved assertions of others, rather than upon facts coming under his own observations. I cannot believe that he is aware of the position in which he is thus placing himself as the apologist of the Maori King and Anti-land-selling League. It is perhaps, however, doing the Bishop no injustice to assume that his sympathies were with the latter movement, and that the Natives generally in his Diocese have for many years fully understood that such was the case, in evidence of which I would refer to a leter of his own dated 18th January, 1854, addressed to an important Ctnef near Table Cape, in which he exhorts him not to alienate any lands to the Europeans. I herewith enclose a copy of the letter.