"Such was the origin of Mr. Wentworth's claim to twenty millions of acres in the Middle Island," continued Sir George, "and it was the legality and validity of this transaction that he appeared before the Council to defend." The magnitude of the property at stake naturally excited Mr. Wentworth to his most eloquent effort, and in an address of considerable length and subtlety he argued that before the proclamations issued by Sir George Gipps and Captain Hobson, nullifying all titles to land not derived from the Queen, could be binding upon British subjects, they must be founded upon some law previously existing; and if they were so founded then it was the duty of those who had issued them to satisfy the Council what that law was. The principle contained in the preamble of the Bill--that no chiefs, or other individuals of tribes of uncivilised savages had any right to dispose of the lands occupied by them--was, he contended, at variance with British law and with the Law of Nations. Numerous authorities were marshalled in support of this view, and also to prove that it mattered nothing whether the New Zealanders were an independent nation or only a few errant tribes scattered over the country; they still possessed the demesne of the soil to do with as they pleased. This being so, those who purchased land from them were only acting in accordance with the natural rights of the natives and in compliance with the Law of Nations. According to Vattel--one of the world's most eminent authorities upon the relation of one nation to another--individuals landing in an uninhabited country might not only establish colonies, but also erect a government and an empire, and he argued that if such a proceeding was permissible in an uninhabited country, it resulted _a fortiori_, that it might be done in a country that was peopled, provided the natives of that country gave their consent thereto. The story of the first New England Settlement under Davenport and others, in 1620, was urged as conclusive proof that British subjects, unsupported by a Royal Charter, might form colonies and erect governments, as had been done in Connecticut, where the government so established had lasted for over two centuries. He denied that there was any merit in the official assumption that the Crown had derived sovereignty over the Islands of New Zealand by right of discovery. Discovery gave no right of occupation in an inhabited country, nor would the Law of Nations acknowledge the property and sovereignty of any nation unless its possession were real, unless its settlements were actual, or it had in some way made practical use of the soil. The Bill rested upon the principle that the native was incompetent to sell his own land, and the British subject was incompetent to buy--a principle which he thought he had clearly disproved. Confiscation was the key-note of the measure. It was a Bill designed to take away property, annul grants,