remark that the quotation from my letter is not correct; the words of my letter are " Give me a copy of the Bill as it now stands," i.e., as it was then worded. It was after getting a printed copy of the proposed amended Bill of 1858, "and thinking the case over and over again for days," that I got the concession made from 12J acres of suburban land to 37| acres, anl from 50 acres of rural land to 75 acres. I think that my letter of the 2nd August, 1858, to Mr. Richmond shows the fact to be so, for I there refer to clause 8 of the amended Act, and say " substituting for 12 J acres of suburban land acres; for 50 acres of rural land 75 acres." Note 6. "Mr. McLean told me that had he not been called away from the Waitara." {Page 8. Par. 1.) The following are Mr. McLean's own words, which I now transcribe: — * * * " Taranaki by Sir George Grey a few years before, to adjust other important land questions at the South, and had it not been that his purchasing operations were suspended in consequence of a correspondence pending between the New Zealand Company and the Imperial Government in reference to the question of future purchases for the Company's Settlers, that the Waitara and Hua districts would then have been acquired."

F—No. 2 (Appendix.)

No. 2. Taranaki Confiscation Acts, 1856 & 1858. [MEMORANDUM BY ME. ABRAHAM.] Melbourne, 9th August, 1861. Mr. C. W. Richmond is reported to have said in the House of Assembly, " It is of the operation of the Law (Scrip Act) in the interval between 1856 and 1858 that Mr. Abraham complains," and he adds "It was quite unnecessary for the Government to coerce the claimants into a settlement since settlement had already been made two years before." Does Mr. Richmond mean to say that Mr. Abraham's complaint has been or is limited to that period ? Will Mr. Richmond answer the following questions ? Was not Mr. Richmond about 1851 or 1858 the author of a Provincial Act having for its object, in effect, the confiscation of the land claims at Waitara ?if not, who was tho author ? Was not Mr. Richmond the Provincial Attorney of the Province at the time the legislation referred to was attempted ? (See New Plymouth Gazette and Proceedings of Provincial Council.) Was not such Provincial Act disallowed by the Governor in consequence of a Memorial from the land claimants ? Does Mr. Richmond deny the existence of a party in Taranaki who ridiculed the notion of the Waitara lands being acquired and then handed over to private individuals, and who exerted themselves by various means to induce individual land claimants to re-select, &c. ?—(Mr. St. George and others could give information on this point if they pleased.) Can Mr. Richmond deny that he has held himself out at Taranaki as the champion of the settlers and avowed his object to be to break through the alleged Native Land League ? Will Mr. Richmond say that Mr. Sewell not only moved the resolutions in 1856 but that he also suggested them ? Does iVlr. Richmond deny having had anything to do with the framing of these resolutions, especially so far as they affected Taranaki ? Perhaps he merely assisted Mr. Sewell with a "Memorandum" and so inaugurated the system of Irresponsible Government by endorsement lately so much the fashion in New Zealand. When Mr. Abraham returned to Auckland in Christmas, 1856, and found the " Scrip Act"passed he had an interview with Governor Browne and remonstrated, who told him that he had been obliged to assent to the Act because (as Mr. Abraham understood him) his Advisers made it a Ministerial question, that he considered the Act nothing more or less than a confiscation of the right of the Land Claimants, aud that lie had written home to the authorities to that effect, and hoped it would not be allowed to become Law. Mr. Richmond says, "the ' Scrip Act, 1856' after long consideration received the Royal Assent." Was not the delay in consequence of the Governor's Despatch ? and did not the Assent come out after the Government had set to woik to amend the Act ? Is it true then that a " settlement" had been made two years before 1858, as stated by Mr. Richmond ? The facts are these : — Mr. Abraham on his visit (Christmas, 1856) also remonstrated with Messrs. Stafford, Whitaker, and Richmond about the Act, the case of hardship was admitted by them; interests of the public and public expediency were talked about, but each Minister shifted the blame from himself upon his fellows, and upon Mr. Sewell (then absent) and who was alleged to be mainly responsible. Mr. Sewell on his

Professedly an Ordinance to regulate the administration of Lands at Taranaki,

Drafted by Mr. Abraham.

Mr, Abraham having been absent in Australia so much, is dependent on hearsay for much which may not be strictly coriecl,

That is the leaving the Act to its operation.—See Gazette of June, 1851), 38th and 30th, I think.

4

PETITION OF A. B. ABRAHAM.