great diversity of opinions on tho subject. Now facts avo of course the grounds alleged, as wo all knew before, but now wo hnve a clear idea what the Native Minister and tho Colonial Socretary meant by the new facts of which they made so much. Tho most renmrlcablc part of the explanation undoubtedly is, that the words " new facts " are a mere figure of speech, meaning not facts but assertions. Of these new assertions, which were considered of sufficient strength to justify a Ministry, formed of colo nials, in stultifying the colony, and making it as ridiculous in tho eyes of the world as it was contemptible in tho eyes of the natives, were, it seems — first, that William King's occupation of part of the Waitara block was not by permission* of a person, but of a tribe ; second, that it had never been stated that there were more than two hundred people living on the block at the time of the purchase ; and thirdly, that there was a question of reserve of some two hundred acres. These are the three new — not 'facts, but assertions, as the Native Minister was careful to inform the House, and wo feel well repaid for all the exhibitions of " stupidity " which can be charged upon us in this matter, if we have been even in a small degree, instrumental in bringing about so important an explanation. The firat of these assertions may be a new one, but it is wholly beyond our power to fathom the difficulties which it seems to have created in the minds of tho late Ministry. Let tis suppose that the assertion was a fact, just for the sake of argu ment, and see what it amounts to. Tamati liaru did not give William .King and his hapu tho right to settle on the Waitara block, but that permission was accorded by Tamati ttaru's hapu. So far, well. If Tamati Rani or Toira said he did, he told an untruth, which was highly reprehensible. It does not, how ever, seem to us to touch in the smallest degree upon the point at issue. 