1. Extract of Letter from James Busby, esq. Bristish Resident at New Zealand, to the Honourable the Colonial secretary of New South Wales in relation to Busby's plan for Native Government

In theory and ostensibility the government would be that of the confederated chiefs, but in reality it must necessarily be that of the protecting power. The chiefs would meet annually or oftener, and nominally enact the laws proposed to them ; but in truth the present race of chiefs could not be entrusted with any discretion whatever in the adoption or rejection of any measure that might be submitted to them, moral principle, if it exists amongst them at all, being too weak to withstand the temptation of the slightest personal consideration. That congress would, in fact, be a school in which the chiefs would be instructed in the duties required of them, and the authority confided to them as conservators of the peace in their separate districts, to which they would also carry the knowledge of the laws enacted during its sittings.

As conservators of the peace, a small salary would be given to them ; and this, together with the distinction conferred by the employment, would secure beyond all doubt the entire devotion of the chiefs to the wishes of the resident. A medal containing the name of each chief, and of the district over which his authority extended, would be another highly esteemed distinction.

So simple and primitive are the arrangements which, with entire confidence in their efficiency, I would propose for the government of the native population ; nor could the expense of these arrangements, for several years at least, exceed 1000 L a year, allotting a more considerable salary to certain leading chiefs, to be elected by the congress, with the sanction of the resident, for the purpose of acting with him as a native council and executive authority, and providing also for the accession of more distant tribes, who would hasten to join the confederation when its objects should become understood, and whose adherence it is indeed, under any circumstances, highly necessary to procure, as a bar to the interference of any foreign power.

To those unacquainted with the actual status of a New Zealand chief, it may perhaps appear improbable that he would give up his own proper rank and authority, and become what would be, in fact, little better than an instrument in the hands of British resident. But, in truth, the New Zealand chief has neither rank nor authority but what every person above the condition of a slave, and indeed the most of them, may despise or resist with impunity. It would, in this respect, be to the chiefs rather an acquisition than a surrender of power.

2. His Excellency Sir George Grey visited the Bay of Islands in November, 1861, for the purpose of introducing into that district His Excellency's plan of Native Government.

It was to be expected that some difficulties would be met with in the selection of the Chiefs, arising from jealousy, and a fear that the favoured Chief, supported as he would be by the Government, and made powerful by his large salary and favoured position, should drive other Chiefs of rank into the shade, and thus nullify their hereditary influence in their respective Tribes. In some Tribes the selection had to be made from Chiefs of equal rank, each apparently modest and courteous in naming his neighbour, but hoping to be himself the successful candidate. In these cases I pointed out the usages of Europeans in their choice of members to represent them, both in England and in this country, with which they professed to be satisfied, and generally concluded with " Kei ate Kawana te tikanga." Upon the whole, the Natives are aware that those who are nominated to represent them are Chiefs of the first rank, and are those whose parents ruled iv this District indisputably for nearly half a century. With these preliminary remarks, I proceed to give the general plan of the District.

3. Petition of Merchants and Ship owners of London, trading in the South Seas and the Australian Colonies

Evidence of The Reverend Samuel Hinds, D.D.,

The Question has not been very much discussed ; it has been taken for granted, and I think with Reason, that the Savage is in a State of Pupillage, and must be treated as we treat Children.

The only Principle which it is important to maintain is this:- if you go into a Country at all inhabited by Savages, and take possession of their Land, and become Sovereigns of it, you infringe their Rights if you do not consider their Benefit as well as lour own.

If you were treating with a Child you would not infringe the Rights of that Child simply by acting and deciding for him, but you would infringe his Rights if you acted and decided for your Benefit and not his. So with respect to Savages; they are compared with civilized Men, like Children.

They are of themselves incapable of acquiring the Arts and Habits of civilized Life, unless some Interference, that amongst civilized Men would be considered unjust, takes place, they never can of themselves rise to that higher Condition.

The Injustice to be deprecated is that of seeking our own Benefit solely, and not theirs; and with respect to the New Zealanders our Purchase of the Sovereignty of their Country ougnt not to be represented as being the same Kind of Bargain as if the French, for instance, were bargained with to cede the Sovereignty over any Portion oft heir Territory.

When the French ceded their Sovereign Rights over Martinique, Guadaloupe, and the Mauritius, they strictly ceded all their Sovereign Rights; but in the present Instance what is meant by the Cession of Sovereignty amounts to this-that we purchase the Right to participate in the Sovereignty with them; we do not wish to exclude them, but pay them a Price to partake in the Sovereignty with them. Of course, in the first instance, the civilized Man will be the only Sovereign, but that is because he only will be fit and capable of exercising Sovereign Rights.

As the Savage advances in Civilization he will come in for his Share; and I see no Reason, as soon as the New Zealander is capable of it, against his being Chief-Justice, Governor, or Bishop, or holding any other Office. It is not, therefore, that we take the Sovereignty from him; we purchase the Right of participating with him in the Sovereignty, and by so doing we enable him to become the Sovereign of the Country, which he is not at present.

Extract 1                    Extract 2                   Extract 3

Extract 4                     Extract 5                   Extract 6

Extract 7