A.—l

16

No. 15. (No. 127.) Sir, — Christchurch, 16th December, 1885. I have the honour to state that I duly forwarded to Tawhiao a copy of your Despatch No. 39, of the 23rd June last, concerning the Maori chiefs' memorial, presented by them to Her Majesty's Government whilst in England. 2. I have received from him in reply a letter, a translation of which, in accordance with the request contained in the last paragraph, I transmit herewith. I have, on the advice of my Ministers, informed him that there is nothing to add to the communications that have already been made. 3. It is the desire and practice of the Government of this colony to treat the Native population with the most perfect justice, and, as far as possible, in the same manner as the other subjects of Her Majesty in New Zealand. I submit that no good end can be served by prolonging this correspondence. I have, &c, Wm. c. dpummond JEPVOIS. The Eight Hon. Colonel Stanley, M.P.

A.-2, 1885, No. G3.

Enclosure. Tawhiao to Sir William Jervois. (Translation.) Friend, — Whatiwhatihoe, 21st September, 1885. Greeting. I have received your letter of the 27th of August, with the copies of communications from yourself, your Ministers, and Her Majesty's Government relative to the subjectmatter of the petition from the Maori people that I and my fellow Native chiefs took to lay before Her Majesty's Government and the people of England. In your letter you inform us of one only of the words of Her Majesty's Government—namely, that the government of all Her Majesty's subjects in New Zealand is controlled by Ministers responsible to the Parliament. Your so informing us is well. But you did not also inform us of another important word of the Government of England with reference to the Maori people—namely, that you should intimate to your Government that they should protect and promote the welfare of the Natives by a generous consideration of all their reasonable representations. Well, we see that these directions from the Government of England are no mere random words, but have a bearing upon the petition, which petition your Ministers said had no significance, and that England would not interfere. Your communications and those of the Government of England have been circulated among the Maori people of this Island. However, with reference to the statement made by your Ministers that they do not consider that there is any allegation in this petition that they have not answered before, I and my fellow Native chiefs would say, Where are the replies taking exception to those petitions? and why are they not quoted in connection with this petition for the consideration of the Native people ? and who is it that can say that the complaints raised in those petitions are similar to those made in this ? And, further, with reference to the statement that since 1865 England ceased to interfere in the management of affairs in New Zealand, and left them to be managed by the Government of New Zealand, it may be so. But the Maori people are not aware of the reasons that led their pakeha friends to apply to have the sole management of affairs in New Zealand; and the assent thereto of the Queen's Government was given without considering the Maori people, or making any inquiries of them. Because the right of governing and the occupation of the Island by Europeans dates from the Treaty of Waitangi; and it was left to the chiefs, the hapus of the Native people, and Her Majesty to carry out the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, which became a covenant on the descendants. And, further, with reference to the statement made by your Ministers that " there has been no infraction of the Treaty of Waitangi," we would ask, What portion of the Treaty of Waitangi, what hapus, or what chiefs placed the authority over the Native lands under the Native Land Court, or gave the Europeans the sole power to deal with Maori lands in that Court, as stated in the paragraph respecting the Native Land Court in that petition ? And, further, with reference to the statement respecting the presence of Native members in the Legislature, the status of those members was pointed out in the petition : taking the basis of population, one Native member is returned for more than twenty thousand persons, whereas one European member is returned for every five thousand. When, indeed, have the applications of those members for increased representation been acceded to by that Parliament ? When, indeed, have the applications of those members to have the grievances of the Native people redressed been acceded to by that Parliament ? When, indeed, have the applications of those members asking that the Natives should have the power of administering their own lands been acceded to by that Parliament ? Well, it is seen that the reason why the Government admitted