AUCKLAND LAND SALES. (CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR AND HIS HONOR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF AUCKLAND ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PIAKO SWAMP SALE, AND OF CERTAIN NATIVE LAND PURCHASES IN THAT PROVINCE.)

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1876 Session I, C-03

C—3.

1876. NEW ZEALAND.

AUCKLAND LAND SALES. (CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR AND HIS HONOR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF AUCKLAND ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PIAKO SWAMP SALE, AND OF CERTAIN NATIVE LAND PURCHASES IN THAT PROVINCE.)

Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency.

No. 1. The Stoeeintendent of Auckland to His Excellency the Goveenob. My Loed, — Superintendent's Office, Auckland, 18th May, 1876. I beg, as Superintendent of the Province of Auckland, to bring under your Excellency's notice an act which I am advised is illegal and unjust, but which, I am informed, is about to be committed under the authority of the name and Proclamation of the Queen's Eepresentative in New Zealand, to the injury of Her Majesty's subjects of both races, in order, at their cost, largely to benefit one or two persons. On the 15th October, 1874, the late Governor of New Zealand issued a Proclamation, in which he solemnly declared that it was necessary that a certain district of land, described in that Proclamation, should be acquired by the public for the following three purposes, namely,— For mining for gold; For special settlements; For the purposes of railway construction. The Proclamation then went on to declare that, after the issue of the Proclamation, it was not lawful for any person to purchase or acquire from the Native owners any right, title, or interest, or contract for the purchase or acquisition from the Native owners of any right, title, or interest, in the lands specified in the Proclamation. It is clear that this Proclamation, issued in conformity with the provisions of " The Immigration and Public "Works Act Amendment Act, 1874," inflicted a grievous disability on the Native owners of the land. It prohibited them from putting their land publicly into the market for sale, and obtaining the best price for it. It bound them to sell to the Government, or not at all; and, in fact, if they were forced or wished to sell, compelled them to take the price the Government chose to give for it. Nothing prevented such a proceeding on the part of the Government being an act of the grossest oppression but the maxim that private interests must give way to the public good. If this maxim is ever enforced to the injury of some of the Queen's subjects within a certain district, it certainly must be applied with the strictest justice and impartiality to all within those limits. I think I neither err nor exaggerate in stating that, to apply it to the poor and defenceless in a district, and to exempt from its operation the powerful and wealthy in the same district, would bo a moral crime of a grave character; and if the powers of the Crown and the authority of the Queen should be used for the perpetration of such an offence, then a crime would be also committed against the majesty and justice of the Empire. Tour Excellency will observe that Natives were the lawful and undoubted owners of the land included in the Proclamation, although, the number and names of the Native owners not having been ascertained by the proper Court, no memorial of ownership could be at that time issued to them ; and I am informed that the Native claims to these lands were only set down for hearing at Cambridge on the 3rd instant, so that up to that date no memorial of ownership could have issued. lam not aware that one has yet been issued. Tour Excellency will further observe that, no provision having been made by law for the sale of any portion of their lands by the Natives interested to any European or other person previously to the issue of such memorial of ownership, therefore no European could have acquired lawful right of ownership in such land up to the present date. Nor do I think they could do so during the currency of the Proclamation. I now beg to state that on the 30th April, 1875, I for the first time heard that Mr. Mackay, who was then Agent for the General Government, was, with the knowledge of the General Government and of the Native Department, purchasing tracts of land for Mr. Eussell from the Natives within the district included in the Proclamation alluded to in this letter. I—C. 3.

C—3

2

I at once wrote to the Government (see enclosures), pointing out that Europeans were, by the Governor's Proclamation, prohibited from purchasing land in that district from the Natives, and that there was also the greatest and most urgent want of land for the public in the same district, on which to locate intending settlers from the Thames. I asked that tho Government would be so kind as to furnish me, or direct Mr. Mackay to furnish me, with copies of all papers relating to such transaction, and of the instructions given to Mr. Mackay regarding it. On the 6th May, 1875, the Government informed me, in reply, that Mr. Mackay was instructed to respect all existing agreements between Natives and Europeans, whether for land or timber, within proclaimed blocks of land ; that Mr. Eussell was buying land at Waiharakeke and Hungahunga before the Government, and previous to the Proclamation under the Immigration and Public Works Act; that the purchase of Waiharakeke included both the east and west side of the Eiver Waihou. The Government further stated that as Mr. Mackay considered it highly desirable that the Government should have the east side of the river south of the Aroha Block, he proposed to Mr. Eussell that he should give up the land on the eastward of the river, and retain that on the western bank ; that the Government afterwards sanctioned the arrangement; and that Mr. Mackay had reported that the greater part of the land which Mr. Eussell was to have was swamp, and unfit for the location of small settlers, as it would require a large expenditure of capital in draining it before it would be fit for occupation. The Government made this statement to me; but they would not furnish me with copies of the papers relating to this subject for which I had asked, nor would they furnish me with copies of papers relating to some of their agreements permitting private persons to take or exchange lands in the Hauraki, Thames, or Piako districts; and they have up to tho present date refrained from furnishing copies of these papers to the Superintendent of this province, as I believe, in violation of the law. I am now informed, and believe, that an agent of Messrs. Whitaker and Russell is, with the sanction of the Government, completing the purchase of the Waiharakeke and Hungahunga Blocks of land, if he has not already completed the transaction. I venture to suggest to your Excellency that these proceedings are unlawful, and in breach of tho rights of the European and Native inhabitants of this province. The Government were not, I am convinced, justified in speaking of the dealings of Mr. Eussell with the Natives regarding these blocks of land as of a purchase made, or which could have lawfully been made. lam advised that no lawful right whatever has been or could have been acquired in them. To compel the Natives, on the grounds of public expediency, to sacrifice their private rights to the public good, they being the lawful owners of the whole block, and to protect in the same block alleged inchoate interests, unknown to the law, of European subjects of the Queen, is, in my belief, a great injustice, and one which ought not to be permitted. The Natives are required to sacrifice their rights, and to lose much. To the European are secured rights which he never lawfully possessed, and to which an immense additional value was given by the land having passed into the hands of the Government, and being certain to receive those improvements and that expenditure which necessarily follow the opening up of a Native district to European occupation. A great injustice is also done to tho public at large. They are deprived of lands to which I believe them, under tho arrangements made by the Governor's Proclamation, to have been entitled, and which are absolutely necessary for tho progress of this province and the welfare of its people. The value of the property of the small settlers would be considerably decreased by one great block in the centre of their respective properties being placed in the hands of a single individual; and their labour and the public funds expended in the district will probably go to give a greatly augmented value to the lands of a large absentee proprietor. Again, the safety of a European population placed in a Native district depends in a great degree upon its density and organization. To place a number of small farmers in such a district, round a great property reserved for ono man, is to weaken them, and imperil their safety, yet at the same time to give a great value to the property so reserved, by placing, as it were, a cordon of men around it. A single individual is thus greatly benefited at the cost of the many. With great respect I would also venture to point out that, in truth, if this arrangement is carried out, the Governor's Proclamation, under which he compels tho Natives to dispose of their property to the Government alone, recites that which is not correct. Eor if, in proclaiming this block of laud as being subject to the Crown's right of pre-emption, it was intended at the time to take from it two large and valuable properties for a private person, and to compel the Natives to dispose of these blocks to him, it never can be alleged that the rights assumed by the Crown over these Native lands were so assumed solely for any one or all of the three objects named in the Proclamation as those for the promotion of which this act was performed. The Proclamation was alike deceptive to the Natives and to the Europeans. The land was not taken from the Natives for the purposes alleged in the Proclamation, and it was not to be given to the European population for the purposes specified in the Proclamation. In the issue of that Proclamation a great act of arbitrary power had been exercised, to the injury of some of the Native raco, but with a view to the benefit or the public at large. Its justification could alone be the righteous application, for the benefit of all, of that which had been taken from the few. Tho moment that principle was violated, it became, in my belief, an act of unjustifiable oppression. Again, the European population, by the proceedings about to bo taken, will be greatly wronged in another respect, from the Government assuming to themselves tho right of determining whether or not a tract of land is fit for the location of small settlers, and whether, therefore, it is to be given to a reputed capitalist because it would require a large expenditure of capital in draining it before it would bo fit for occupation. Neither law nor public morals justify a Government in coming to a decision of this kind, and in acting upon it. To do so is to subvert and trample upon the rights of the public at large —to assume a power unlawful in itself, and certain to become a precedent pregnant with corruption. Your Excellency will, I feel assured, admit that the Crown's authority should not be used for such a purpose

3

Oa—3

as this, and that no Governor could venture, in defiance of the law, to attach his name to a grant of land which, in breach of all public law and justice, was allowed to be obtained by an individual by the Ministry of the day on such principles. A Government can by such a proceeding at once make one or more of their followers great capitalists. To promise to give a man a grant of a large and valuable property, on easy terms, is to make him instantaneously an apparent capitalist, for on it he can raise money to pay for the land, to drain it, to perform all the works in relation to it, which the Government should do for the public; and, worse than all, it is to deprive the public of the right of competing on fair terms for that which is the property of all. The effect of such a proceeding is also to entail unnecessary taxes on them, by robbing the revenue of the fair price of the land, ascertained, as the law directs, by public competition. I therefore earnestly request that your Excellency will cause steps to be taken to prevent any further action going on in this matter, and to prevent the Queen's name being further used in it until a full and searching inquiry has been made into the whole subject. I enclose to your Excellency the copy of a letter I addressed to the Colonial Secretary on the 19th May, 1575, proposing a plan for the settlement of all such cases as that now under consideration. From this you will find that there would be no difficulty in adjusting the claim brought under your notice, by allowing a full and impartial inquiry to be openly made into it, and then by paying a money compensation to tTie claimants if they were able to substantiate a right to such payment. Twice during the last Session of the General Assembly I understood the Government to promise that this course should be pursued in reference to any claims of the nature of that now under consideration ; but no step in that direction has up to this date been taken in the matter. I beg to be permitted to quote one paragraph of my letter of the 19th May, 1875, for your Excellency's perusal: — " Clearly such rights ought not to be dealt with secretly, in a private room, by one man. To expose him, under such circumstances, to the solicitations of private friends, or of the political supporters of the Government ho serves, is a wrong to human nature, to independence of character, to public rights; to the interests of the Native owners, for there is no fair competition for their property; to the the mass of Her Majesty's subjects, because their interests are not fairly protected. A consideration of this will, I hope, make you feel that this system should be instantly stopped, and that perhaps, upon the whole, the proper course would be that an open inquiry should at once be instituted into each past transaction." I also enclose an extract from the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Tairua Investigation Committee during the last Session of the General Assembly. Upon these two extracts I have no hesitation in venturing the opinion that it would have been better not to have intrusted to Mr. Mackay the settlement and adjustment of the claims which Mr. Eussell might have, if any, over the block of land included in the Governor's Proclamation of the 15th October, 1874. I have, &c, His Excellency the Governor. G. Geet.

Enclosures in No. 1. The SUPEEINTENDENT of AUCKLAND to the COLONIAL SECEETAET. (Telegrams.) Auckland, 30th April, 1875. Me. Mackay, Agent of the General Government, has told me that he is, with the knowledge of the General Government and of the Native Department, purchasing a tract of land from the Natives near the Te Aroha Mountain, for Mr. Thomas Eussell. Europeans are prohibited from purchasing land from the Natives, and there is the greatest want of land at the Thames on which to locate intending settlers. Would the Government be so kind as to furnish me, or to direct Mr. Mackay to furnish me, with copies of all papers relating to this transaction, and of the instructions to Mr. Mackay regarding it ? G. Geet, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, Wellington. Superintendent.

The Colonial Seceetaet to the Stoeeintendent of Auckland. Government Buildings, Wellington, 3rd May, 1875. Toue telegram of 30th April has been referred to Sir Donald McLean; an answer will be sent as soon as possible. Chas. C. Bowen, His Honor the Superintendent, Auckland. (in the absence of the Colonial Secretary).

The Colonial Seceetaet to the Supeeintendent of Auckland. Government Buildings, "Wellington, 6th May, 1875. With reference to your telegram 30th April last, Mr. Mackay was instructed to respect all existing agreements between Natives and Europeans, whether for land or timber, within proclaimed blocks. Mr. Russell was buying land at Waiharakeke and Hungahunga before the Government, and previous to the Proclamation under the Immigration and Public Works Act. The purchase of "Waiharakeke included both the east and west side of the Eiver "Waihou. As Mr. Mackay considered it highly desirable that the Government should have the east side of the river south of the Aroha Block, Mr. Mackay proposed to Mr. Eussell that he should give up the land to the eastward of the river, and retain that on the western bank. The Government afterwards sanctioned this arrangement. Mr. Mackay reports that the greater part of the land which Mr. Eussell is to have is swamp, and unfit for

C—3.

4

the location of small settlers, as it would require a large expenditure of capital in draining it before it would be fit for occupation. Mr. Mackay informs the Government that he has explained this to your Honor. Chas. C. Bowen, His Honor the Superintendent, Auckland. (in the absence of the Colonial Secretary).

The Superintendent of Auckland to the Colonial Seceetaet. Auckland, 15th May, 1875. You have not yet supplied me, or said whether or not you would supply me, with copies of the papers for which I asked in my telegram of the 30th April. Would you be so good as to direct me to be furnished with such copies ? It is important that I should get them at once. Might I also have copies of all papers relating to similar agreements, permitting private persons to take or exchange lands in the Hauraki, Thames, or Piako districts ? It is right, when the whole future of this province depends upon lands in those districts being open to all, that I should have the fullest knowledge regarding the questions I have alluded to. The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, Wellington. G. Geet.

The Colonial Seceetaet to the Superintendent of Auckland. Government Buildings, Wellington, 17th May, 1875. Toue telegrams asking for papers will be submitted to Colonial Secretary and Native Minister on their return to Wellington in a few days. His Honor the Superintendent, Auckland. Chas. C. Bowen, (in the absence of the Colonial Secretary).

The Superintendent of Auckland to the Colonial Seceetaet. Sib, — Superintendent's Office, Auckland, 19th May, 1875. I have the honor to submit, for your consideration, a proposal for modifying certain arrangements authorized by the Minister for Public Works on the 4th March, 1872. Mr. Mackay, who had apparently been acting as a private agent, was at that time about to be employed by the Government in the purchase of Native lands, and he, in his letter to the Minister for Public Works of the 24th January, 1872, suggested, in reference to the large blocks of land which he was to purchase from the Natives, that in some cases Europeans had claims to the timber on such blocks, and in other cases had made agreements with the Natives regarding lands contained in the blocks, some of which leases or agreements might be valid, having been made subsequent to the issue of certificates of title by the Native Land Court, whilst others were invalid and unlawful, the agreements regarding them having been made previous to the issue of certificates of title for the lands comprised in such agreements. Mr. Mackay admitted that a majority of the leases and agreements he alluded to were neither legal nor valid, yet many of these, he said, had been made by and with the assistance of officers of the Native Department. The Minister for Public Works, in his letter of the 4th of March, 1872, apparently undertook that the Government would respect all such claims, whether they were legal or equitable, or the contrary, because he was fully aware of the influence which the holders of such claims might exercise in opposition to the sale of the lands by the Natives to the Government. What I would propose is this : That whenever the Provincial Government takes over from the General Government a block of land purchased from the Natives, it should take it over subject to all agreements and leases with which it may be encumbered. In this case, it of course would only be bound to respect those agreements and leases which were really legal and valid, and which had not been similarly made to appear to be so, whilst those leases and agreements which were not legal or valid could in no way bind the Provincial Government; but I would suggest that every such case should be referred to the Legislature, or to the Committee which represents that body, or to some Court, that it should be fairly and openly heard, and the amount of compensation to which the holder of it might be entitled, if any, should be ascertained, and be liquidated by a money compensation, voted by the General Legislature. I propose this, because I think all the reasons that have been alleged for requiring the Province to respect the leases and agreements I allude to would be of no force if they were illegal or invalid in themselves. For instance, in your telegram of the Gth instant, you make it appear that a reason for recognizing such agreements might be that the land included in them is, as the Government believes, swamp, unfit for the location of small settlers, and which would require a large expenditure of capital in draining it before it would be fit for occupation. But the Government can have no knowledge whether one or more of Her Majesty's subjects really possess capital or not, and lauds in which the population of this province have a direct or contingent interest cannot be lawfully dealt with on any suppositions of this kind. The united capital of a number of small settlers may far exceed that of any one settler, and privileges of this sort ought not to be recognized, and cannot be maintained against the general rights of the public. Again, if the agreement or lease was originally illegal, the approval of the Agent of the Government, or of the Minister for Public Works, cannot stamp such lease or agreement with legality. They are mere executive officers to carry out the law, not to make new laws to suit their own views. Any attempts to make such invalid leases or agreements legal can only produce a bad impression upon the public mind, as these attempts would possibly constitute a manifest evasion of that law which it was the duty of those authorities who allowed the evasion to have supported. To make such unlawful leases legal would also be to reward wrong-doers and law-breakers, by recognizing their illegal acts, and this would be done at the expense of the rest of Her Majesty's

C—3

5

subjects, who had faithfully observed the law, and who deserved, in recognition of their conduct, to have been protected in the rights which the law secures to them, rather than to be deprived of those rights, in order that privileges of great, possibly of enormous value, may be given to those of their fellow-subjects who had set the law at defiance. I pass over the statement of the Minister for Public Works that it will be necessary to reward those breakers of the law to prevent them from exercising their influence over the Natives to the detriment of the Government and their fellow-settlers by preventing them from selling lands which the public necessity requires should become the property of the community at large. Certainly people who could be guilty of such conduct ought to be punished instead of receiving large rewards. I think, also, that in each instance of the unlawful leases and agreements to which Mr. Mackay alludes, he should,be directed forthwith to supply the Superintendent of this province with the name of the officer of the Native Dejjartment who broke the law by negotiating such unlawful lease or agreement, in order that inquiries may be made as to whose authority this was done by, and why such exclusive privileges were given to some of Her Majesty's subjects, and why —whilst the inhabitants of this country at large were, by carefully framed laws, shut out from dealings with the Natives regarding certain lands —other individuals, who were favoured, were allowed to carry on such dealings, and were even granted the assistance of those officers of the Government to aid them in these transactions, whose duty required them to prevent such dealings from being carried on. The more fair and legal any such transaction may have been, the more reason is there that a full inquiry should be made into it, in order that the blamelessness of the parties concerned in it may be openly and fairly established beyond all future question. Upon the whole, therefore, I think I am doing that which is, in every respect, for the public interest, in recommending that, whilst all legal and valid agreements and leases should be scrupulously observed, all those regarding which any doubt exists should be strictly investigated, and that only such a money compensation should be given to the respective claimants as a full and impartial inquiry may prove them to be entitled to. My observations apply equally also to all exchanges of land which the General Government propose to carry out without a full and open inquiry, I do not think that the Government will be justified in taking lands from any of the blocks purchased with public money, and giving them in exchange, at the will of the Native Minister, or any other person, to Europeans or Natives, until a full and open inquiry has been made into the circumstances of each case. Land is now so essential to the interests of this province, for the purpose of settling intending immigrants upon, or those of our population who have hitherto been unable to obtain land, that I earnestly request that the recommendations I have made may receive the approval and sanction of the General Government, and that I may be authorized at once to give effect to them. I would yet add another reason, of a general nature, in favour of the course I recommend. The rights of property disposed of, under the arrangements made by the Minister for Public Works and Mr. Mackay, must be very great indeed. The parties interested in these are the public, the Native owners, the European claimants. Clearly such rights ought not to be dealt with secretly, in a private room, by one man. To expose him, under such circumstances, to the solicitations of private friends, or of the political supporters of the Government he serves, is a wrong to human nature, to independence of character, to public rights; to the interests of the Native owners, for there is no fair competition for their property; and to the mass of Her Majesty's subjects, because their interests are not fairly protected. A consideration of this will, I hope, make you feel that this system should be instantly stopped, and that perhaps, upon the whole, the proper course would be that an open inquiry should at once be instituted into each past transaction. I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, Wellington. G. Geey.

[3. Extract from the Minutes of Evidence taken lefore the Tairua Investigation Committee of the House of Bepresentatives, I.—l. 1875.] Thuesdat, 12th August, 1875. Mr. James Mackay examined on oath. 15. The Chairman.'] In the case of the Hihi and Piraunui Blocks, did you purchase these from the Natives on the 21st September, 1872 ?—I cannot say the exact date when they were purchased. It is probably mentioned in the report of 24th March, 1873. It might possibly be September. Ido not recollect the date of these deeds. 16. On the day before the purchase of that block, was a lease of the timber and incidental rights for ninety-nine years given by the Natives to Messrs. Eussell, Stone, and Wilson ? —Yes. 17. Then the Opango block —did you purchase that on the 24th August, 1872, or about that date ? —Yes, about that date. 18. On the 29th of July, was the lease of the timber and incidental rights given by the Natives to the same gentlemen ?—I believe so. 19. Did you receive any money from them for these timber leases—from Messrs. Eussell, Wilson, and Stone, or any of them ? —They were originally my own purchases. I bought that timber and transferred it to them. 20. What did you sell to them for ?—I got £100 over and above what I had paid to the Natives. 21. What was the sum paid to the Natives ? —I paid the Natives £500. They paid the Natives £1,000 more. They carried out my original agreement for the Waiwhakaurunga and Opango Blocks. I did not get anything for Hihi and Piraunui; I had not paid any money to signify on Hihi and Piraunui. I transferred to them before I had anything to do with the Government land purchase. I had nothing to do with the Government between 18G9 and when I commenced to buy land in 1872. 22. Why was not mention made in the lease that you were the real person that sold to them ?—

C—3

6

I suppose that nobody had anything to do with my private transactions when I was not purchasing land for the Government. Between the 31st July, 1869, and the time when I undertook to buy for the Government, I had as much right to buy timber as any other of Her Majesty's subjects, and therefore had a right to transfer. I transferred before I had anything to do with purchasing land. I had no personal interest when Mr. Eussell and the others acquired the lease. 23. Why was it stated that the Natives were the real sellers ?—Because the agreement had only been made, and I had not paid the balance of the purchase money to the Natives. They (Eussell and others) were the actual purchasers. 24. Mr. Bolleston.] You sold an inchoate agreement to them ?—Exactly so. 25. The Chairman.] Have you any copy of the agreement ? —I did not keep any copy. I handed it to them. I gave over all the documents to the parties. I stated in my report that the timber on Whakairi and Kauaeranga had been purchased by a company. (Whakairi and Waiwhak-aurunga are the same.)

No. 2. His Excellency the Goyeeitob to the SirrEEiNTETn>ENT of Auckland. Sir, — Government House, Auckland, 19th May, 1876. I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your Honor's letter dated the 18th instant, in which you prefer grave charges against my Government in regard to the purchase of certain Native lands. 2. I have forwarded that letter for the consideration and report of my Constitutional Advisers ; but at the same time I beg to remind your Honor that under the system of Eesponsible Government which has been wisely conferred upon this colony, considerable discretionary powers must necessarily be left in the hands of the Government, their actions being of course controlled in the first instance by the action of law, and in the next by the pleasure of Parliament. Tour Honor must therefore excuse me when I say that it appears to me that the complaint which you prefer would be best decided by recourse to one or other of these alternatives. I have, &c, His Honor the Superintendent of Auckland. NoEimfßY,

No. 3. The Supeeihtendent of AircKLAin) to His Excellency the Goveenob. My Lobd, — Superintendent's Office, Auckland, 23rd May, 187 G. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter of the 19th instant, and, in reply thereto, beg to represent as follows : — As Superintendent of this province, I am, by Act of Parliament, responsible to the Crown for the peace, order, and good government thereof. The superior officer whom the Act of Parliament requires me to obey and to look to for support in my duties, is the Governor of New Zealand. By the same Act of Parliament and by the Boyal Instructions, the Governor is authorized to exercise in this country certain powers belonging to the Crown. He is responsible to the Queen and the British Parliament for the proper use of those powers, and is removable from his office, or punishable by those authorities, and by no other, for any misuse of such powers. The Governor is not authorized by law or by the Eoyal Instructions to delegate those powers to any other person. Even to meet such events as his death or absence from the colony, he is not permitted to bequeath or delegate temporarily those powers to any other person. The Crown carefully provides for such cases, and nominates the officer who, in the event of their occurrence, is for a time to exercise such powers for the Crown. Certainly, therefore, the Governor cannot delegate the powers of the Crown intrusted to him to persons who are in no way responsible to the Queen or the British Parliament for any abuse of such powers. The so-called "Eesponsible Ministers" in this colony are not, in truth, responsible to the Queen or British Parliament for any abuse which they may commit of the powers of the Crown, nor are they responsible to the New Zealand Assembly for any such abuse of the powers of the Crown, for these powers do not belong to the General Assembly, and do not emanate from that body, nor are they conceded to the Ministers by it. What was conferred upon this Colony by the Queen and Parliament, under the Constitution Act, was the power of governing itself, by the bodies named in that Act. The Government to which your Excellency apparently alludes, in your letter of the 19th instant, is an Executive Council, called by your Excellency your " Eesponsible Government." No such Government has been conferred upon this colony, nor has the Crown or its Ministers the right to confer or impose such a Government as now exists under that name, and which, in truth, is not a Eesponsible Government, upon New Zealand. The Executive Council given to your Excellency by the Eoyal Instructions is simply a Council of advice, and you are especially authorized in those Instructions, when you differ in opinion from your Executive Council, to act in opposition to their advice, the responsibility arising from any act done in the Queen's name, under the powers of the Crown, being thus distinctly thrown upon the Governor. A due and wise precaution for the preservation of the rights of the Native race, of the Crown lands, of the Native lands, of other large interests in this colony, and of its own good name in reference to those matters, necessitated this provision in its instructions upon the part of the Crown. The law upon such subjects is also this : When the Queen, conjointly with the Imperial Legislature, has bestowed upon a colony a Constitution, Her Majesty cannot infringe upon, alter, or vary in any respect whatever that Constitution. Even when Letters Patent have been formally issued by the Crown, under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, which had any one of the above-named effects,

7

0.—3

such Letters Patent have by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council been declared null and void. If the Crown cannot perform such acts by Letters Patent, much less can it do so by Eoyal Instructions or by Orders from a Secretary of State. The Constitution Act carefully defines the subjects upon which a Secretary of State can issue Orders or Instructions to the Governor, and any Secretary of State has no powers except such as are in those respects conferred upon him by the Constitution Act. If the law says that the Governor is to do certain acts, he is responsible to the Crown and the British Parliament for the manner in which he performs them, and must, I submit, himself do that which the law directs him to do. The act so done must be regarded as his act, and he must incur all responsibility springing from it. I venture to point out to your Excellency that, to prevent acts being committed such as I have complained of, the British Parliament'provided that there should be in New Zealand in the first instance, — Provincial Legislatures, and then a General Assembly, which was to consist of — The Governor, The Legislative Council, The House of Eepresentatives ; and to accomplish the wise intentions of Parliament, a complete balance of powers was established between the three bodies composing the General Assembly of New Zealand, which, in fact, if carried out, guaranteed and provided for the preservation of the rights of all persons, and rendered it almost impracticable that acts of oppression such as I, the Superintendent of this province, complain of, could have been committed. Your Excellency is aware that, the Provincial Legislatures have been prevented from meeting, by an Act of the General Assembly, passed in its last Session, to which your Excellency's assent was given, although I believe the General Assembly had no power to do this, the assent of the Provincial Legislatures to such a proceeding not having been previously obtained. Thus the first and a very great guarantee for the preservation of public rights has for the present disappeared. It is admitted in your Excellency's letter of the 19th instant, that the Governor, quasi the Governor of the Constitution Act, no longer exists, but that the Minister for the hour has to all intents and purposes become the Governor of New Zealand, even in"respect of exercising the rights of the Crown in this country. Then the Legislative Council being nominated by the same Minister, or rather increased to any extent he pleases by members nominated by himself, another of the means provided for the protection of the rights of the colonists has been swept away ; for by the Constitution Act it was provided that these Legislative Councillors should only be such person or persons as Her Majesty might think fit to summon to the Assembly, but that pcrwer was, by the 31 and 32 Viet. c. 57, given to the Governor, that is, to the Minister for the time being. Lastly, the principle regarding the Members of the House of Eepresentatives recognized by the Constitution has been altogether departed from, as, in fixing the number of members for each district, fair regard has not been had to the number of electors within the same, so that the number of members assigned to any one district should bear to the whole number of the members of the House of Eepresentatives as nearly as may be the same proportion as the number of electors within such district shall bear to the whole number of electors in New Zealand. I unhesitatingly state that every just and impartial man would admit that at present there is no fair representation of the people of New Zealand in the House of Eepresentatives as now constituted. Indeed, an Act of last Session, introducing new representatives into the House of Assembly, struck a fatal blow at the fair representation of the people of this colony. These circumstances would all seem conclusively to show the great necessity which exists for the Governor to carry out fairly and fully that system of Government which the law requires, and expects him to conform to. Tour Excellency will observe that in the case of the act I have particularly complained of in my letter of the 18th instant, as well as in other acts, it is complained that grievous wrongs have been inflicted on some of the Queen's subjects in this province by the agency of the Sovereign's Eepresentative. These acts have been begun, continued, and it is proposed to end them, in the name of the Queen, that name being used for this purpose by absolutely irresponsible persons. My contention is that the Queen has never, directly nor indirectly, nor could Her Majesty lawfully, have allowed her name to be used in this manner for such purposes. All who have observed with unanimous admiration Her Majesty's actions, during the many years of a most illustrious reign, must well know that the Queen would never assent to give her name for the promotion of such purposes or the accomplishment of such objects. To allow this to bo done would indeed cut off all hope from the Queen's subjects. If the persons who unlawfully usurp the powers of the Crown commit in its name a wrongful act, no redress can be obtained in the Courts unless the name of the Crown is afforded to the suitor to give him a right to commence an action against the alleged wrong-doers. The same persons, therefore, who had used the name of the Queen, to commit a wrong, would have the power of refusing her subjects the right of ,using the name of the Crown in the Courts of the Crown for the purpose of obtaining a remedy for the wrong suffered. Tour Excellency will find, upon inquiry, that in this portion of the British dominions, in which all persons as British subjects are said to possess equal rights, whilst the public at large have been unable to obtain from the Crown land required by pressing necessities, many thousands of acres of Crown land, the property of the entire Empire, have unlawfully, wrongfully, and privately been pretended to be given to persons favoured by those who have usurped the right of using the name of the Crown, — a right, as I maintain, unlawfully yielded and unlawfully taken, so that these wrongs are done in the Queen's name to British subjects, and no redress is left open to them. The heads of the Provincial Governments and the Provincial Legislatures are, equally with all other classes of subjects, injured by these proceedings. They are deprived of rights which the Constitution Act, in the most clear and deliberate language, assures to them, and are thus placed under grevious disabilities without any power of obtaining relief.

C.—3

8

I feel it personally so intolerable a burden and so great an indignity thus to be deprived of rights, and to be compelled, as Superintendent, to submit to see from amongst those people, whose interests are intrusted to me, some deprived of legal rights, and others greatly, and, as I believe, wrongfully and unlawfully enriched at the cost and to the detriment of good, dutiful, and law-respecting subjects of the Queen, that I find it difficult to repress my indignation ; and I feel confident that, if some relief is not in a lawful and constitutional manner afforded, difficulties of a serious nature will occur in this country. Under such circumstances, if unlawful transactions of this kind, as your Excellency suggests, were to be left to the pleasure of Parliament alone, our Judges and Courts would be useless. The most unlawful and oppressive acts could be performed by a Government, and then ratified by a mere party majority in the Assembly. Every trace of liberty, and all security for equal rights and property, would be swept away. I could not, therefore, as Superintendent of this province, give my assent to referring questions in which such great interests of its people are involved to a mere party tribunal, instead of to the calm deliberation and justice of the ordinary Courts of law. I beg, however, with great gratitude to acknowledge the consideration which your Excellency was so good as to give to my letter of the 18th instant. I feel that in signifying your assent to my appealing to the Courts of the country by the action of law, for the purpose of setting aside the act of which I complained in that letter, Your Excellency has done your utmost, in the difficult position in which you are placed to enable the inhabitants of the Province of Auckland to obtain redress : and I will, availing myself of your Excellency's permission, immediately direct the necessary steps to be taken to obtain a legal decision upon the question at issue, feeling assured that, after the expressions used by your Excellency on this subject, if any more formal instrument should be required to enable me to use the name of the Crown in the requisite action at law, you will take care that the necessary powers are conceded to me for that purpose —this, indeed, being nothing more than I believe the Crown invariably does in similar cases. Your Excellency might still further aid the inhabitants of the Province of Auckland in obtaining that justice to which I feel they are entitled by preventing, as I requested in my former letter, any action in the name and upon behalf of the Crown being taken for confirming or completing the transaction complained of, until the Courts of law have had an opportunity of pronouncing their opinion upon the question submitted to them. • I have, &c, His Excellency the Governor. G-. G-bet.

No. 4. His Excellency the Goteenoe to the Superintendent of Auckland. Sir, — Government House, Auckland, 24th May, 1876. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Honor's second letter, dated 23rd of May. 2. Eeferring to the latter portion of that letter, in which your Honor announces your intention of commencing legal proceedings, I have only to state that if, in your position as Superintendent of the Province of Auckland, you deem it necessary for the protection of the interests of the Province to take such a step, no technical objection such as your Honor refers to will be made to prevent it. 3. I purposely avoid making any reference to the ojrinions expressed by your Honor upon the subject of the Constitution and Parliament of this country, because differing as I do entirely from most of them, it would only entail a controversy which I must decline entering into. 4. I am fully sensible of the responsibility which your Honor states I owe to Her Majesty and the British Parliament, and I am perfectly ready to assume any responsibility which may properly attach to my acts ; but with every respect for the experience which your Honor possesses, I must claim the right to exercise my own discretion, and must decline to accept the opinions or to act upon the advice of any one who is not in the position of one of my Constitutional Advisers. I have, &c., To His Honor the Superintendent of Auckland. Noemanby.

No. 5. The Superintendent of Auckland to His Excellency the Governor. Mt Lord, — Superintendent's Office, Auckland, 27th May, 1876. I have the honor to express my thanks to your Excellency for your letter of the 24th instant, and especially for your assurance that, in such legal action as I may take, as Superintendent of this province, for the protection of the interests of its inhabitants, no technical objection shall be allowed to intervene to prevent me from so doing. I now further beg your Excellency's permission to have a like privilege afforded to me, as Superintendent of this province, in legal steps I propose to take in the Supreme Court for the purpose of endeavouring to obtain redress for the inhabitants of the Province of Auckland, for a wrong inflicted on them in the case of a tract of 80,000 acres of land in the Waikato district, which the Government, under the sanction of the Queen's name, have attempted to give to Mr. Russell, in violation of the law and the rights of those of Her Majesty's subjects, European and Native, whose interests the law confides to my care. The lands I allude to formed part of a large district which had been taken by British troops from the Native owners who had carried on an insurrection against the Government, and had for a long time endangered the safety of the inhabitants of various settlements in the Province of Auckland.

9

C—3

Portions of these lands which belonged to the Natives engaged in the war were subsequently declared confiscated by the Crown. This was done partly to defray the expenses of the war, and to give an example to the Natives of the losses which would result to them, if they engaged in hostile undertakings for the future, but also in great part to secure the safety of the settlements lying near the Waikato River, by the introduction of a sufficient number of settlers able to protect themselves, and to preserve the peace of the country, into districts which, had they remained in the hands of powerful and disaffected Natives, would have been a source of constant danger. Great Britain, having accomplished this, handed over these lands to the General Assembly of New Zealand, the Governor forming an independent and constituent part of that Assembly. Laws were made by the Assembly, and a code of regulations was lawfully established on the 11th of May, 1871, for guidance in the disposal of these lands, whicli secured equal rights in them to all the Queen's subjects, and which apparently afforded an absolute guarantee that nothing wrong could be done in regard to them. The regulations provided that all lands disposed of under them should be divided into town land, suburban land, rural land, mineral land; should be sold by public auction; should only be so sold after survey of the lands; should only be so sold after notice of the intended sale had been given to the public in the New Zealand Government Gazette "of not less than one month, nor more than three months," of the day appointed for the sale, of the locality of such lands, of their acreage, of the terms and upset price at which they were to be offered for sale. The law also required that all lands should be openly offered for sale in the Land Office of the province in which they were situated, or in such other place as the Government should, by public notice, direct; that one-fourth of the purchase money should bo paid at the time of the sale, and the remaining three-fourths within three months after such sale. The custom of the Land Office also required that immediately after the sale a public notice should be published by the Government giving the date of the sale, the number, locality, and area of each lot sold, the name of each purchaser, the price per acre paid for eacli lot. The fullest publicity was thus to be given to each part of the transaction, and the most effectual guarantees appeared to be interposed to prevent any wrong dealings witii these lands. Nevertheless Mr. Russell was, by an arrangement privately concluded, I believe, with Sir J. Vogel in April, 1873, put into the possession of the block of 80,000 acres of land I allude to, on the understanding that he was to pay a very small sum per acre, and to make a road; but of the details of this transaction I am not certain. I use the word "privately" advisedly, because when any of these lands were parted with to one or more of the Queen's subjects, this fact was publicly announced in the Gazette. The name of the purchaser was stated, the date of the purchase, and the price given ; whilst in the instance I am referring to, the agreement was privately made between two persons, the Minister, who was the giver, and the receiver of the boon. Ths fact of these lands having been parted with was then not notified, and no announcement, official or otherwise, as far as I, as Superintendent of this province, can learn, was made of this transaction whilst in carrying it out every rule laid down by the law and regulations was broken, and I believe that to the present day no money has been paid for the land. The Government, with the large sums at its disposal for public works, could have rendered that land a fitting and profitable home for at least 400 families on a system of deferred payments, could then have located them there, and thus have placed them in a position which would have insured their prosperity and future well-being. Pour hundred male defenders have thus been lost to a district where it is almost certain that their absence will soon be greatly felt and deplored, for there is in its vicinity a large Native population in so unsettled a state that, although an expensive police force is maintained there by the colony, they dare not even attempt to apprehend a Native who is at large, and who the other Natives admit to have committed an atrocious and unprovoked murder upon a young European within a few miles of the capital of this province. Four hundred producing families and a like number of consumers are also lost to the district, together with the trade and commerce which they would have created. I would now beg your Excellency to consider what is the result of a design, if it is quietly carried out and successful, of giving to a favoured individual, unlawfully, a block of 80,000 acres of land. It means this in the first place : that a large number of families in the vicinity, who labour hard for years, must by their labour, their industry, their devotion to their duty, gradually, by the general improvement they by these means effect in the district, and the general value they give to property in it, greatly enhance the value of every acre of the 80,000 acres unlawfully taken from the public. Again, the taxation in this colony, which in part goes to public improvements throughout it, such as railroads, roads, bridges, telegraphs, &c, is raised by duties imposed on all the prime necessaries of life, and is in fact a revenue raised almost equally on rich and poor, in proportion to the number of tho population. Thus tho gradually increasing and ultimately almost necessarily large population in the vicinity of this unlawfully acquired block of 80,000 acres of land, as well as the population of New Zealand generally, are year by year taxed to give a great value to the vast property of those who in my belief originally injured them, by taking from them that to which they had no more right than themselves. I pass over the lasting wrong done to the same people by a tract of such vast extent being unlawfully shut up in such few hands —to the shock given to public morals by such unlawful and unjust dealings with public property being perpetrated on such a large scale ; but I wish to point out to your Excellency that the people who have observed the law, and paid highly and fairly for their small estates, and who, as well as their heirs and descendants, are to labour and to be taxed to make others (wrong-doers) and their heirs and descendants wealthy, must also, for many generations, occupy a very inferior social position to that of the heirs and descendants of those who have wronged them, for such vast disparity of property must lead to social elevations and corresponding degradations. Had this great disparity of property arisen from lawful and legitimate causes, it would have been a very different question; but, as the Superintendent of this province, I will make any sacrifice in the 2 C—3.

ex

Ca—3

10

world to prevent those who have done wrong from advancing themselves and their heirs in this way, and from degrading their fellow-men and their heirs for generations to come. If the lands, confiscated in the name of the Crown for certain declared reasons and objects, are not dealt with for the purposes prescribed by the law under which they are taken, but are privately allowed to pass, as great estates, into the hands of others of the Queen's subjects of a different race from those from whom they are taken, then in my belief a very great wrong is committed, which reflects discredit on the nation. I would further venture to maintain that in such a caso that has been done which may form a precedent for the gravest evils. For if some of the Queen's subjects, under the name of "Eesponsible Ministers," can use the name of the Crown to take, for some offence, from another race under the Queen's rule, and consequently under her protection, largo tracts of territory, and have again the power, by making use of the name of the Crown, of privately and unlawfully appropriating valuable portions of these lands to themselves or their friends, a great danger must be created that, under the existence of so vicious a system, lands might at last bo taken, in the name of the Crown, rather for some ulterior personal objects than from the sole desire of securing the general safety and welfare; and nothing could be worse for any country, or reflect more discredit on the Crown and Empire, than the introduction of such a system. I wish to point out that the objection I thus raise here is not to an individual who may have been a Eesponsible Minister, or a supporter of such Minister, acquiring at any time directly from the Crown, by lawful and legitimate means, a portion of land which had been confiscated; but what I object to is the unlawful or unfair acquisition of such lands by such persons. An attempt was made during the last Session of the Assembly to prevent the completion of the transaction of conveying to Mr. ltussell 80,000 acres of confiscated land which I am bringing under your Excellency's notice; but it soon became evident that the matter would be dealt with solely as a party question. I therefore felt strongly the impropriety of attempting to settle in a Legislature disturbed by party feelings and party strife a question which could only be justly and calmly settled in the Courts of law provided for such purpose. And in pursuance of the resolution I formed of submitting the question to the legal tribunals, I now respectfully solicit your Excellency to comply with the request I have referred to you, with the view of obtaining the powers requisite to enable me to adopt this course, and to recover, if possible, from those who have taken and held possession of this land for more than three years, the losses this province may show it has sustained by settlers having been for so long a period shut out from the occupation of the land, and from having been compelled to contribute so largely to the cost of an expensive police force, which would have been in great part unnecessary if I could have placed fitting settlers on the land. I now respectfully request that you will be so good as to transmit to the Secretary of State copies of my three letters to your Excellency. I can assure you that I make this request with no intention of embarrassing your Excellency, as you have given me all the aid I ask for in prosecuting my duties, but I wish to bring under the notice of the Home Government and the British Parliament the very serious questions which have arisen here, and from which I believe very important results will inevitably spring. I have, &c, His Excellency the Governor. G. Geet.

No. 6. His Excellency the Goveenoe to the Superintendent of Auckland. Sib, — Government House, Auckland, 29th May, 1876. I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Honor's letter dated the 27th instant, and I beg to inform you that I will forward it to "Wellington by next mail for the consideration of my Responsible Advisers. 2. 1 shall have no objection to forwarding this correspondence to the Secretary of State as you request, provided your Honor will furnish me with two more copies of your letters, which will be required for that purpose. I have, &c, To his Honor the Superintendent of Auckland. Noemanby.

No. 7. The Superintendent of Auckland to His Excellency the Goveenoe. Mr Loud, — Superintendent's Office, Auckland, 2nd June, 187 G. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's letter of the 29th ultimo, informing me that you would have no objections to forwarding copies of a correspondence to the Secretary of State, as I requested, provided I "would furnish your Excellency ■with two more copies of my letters, which would be required for that purpose. In reply, I transmit, in compliance with your Excellency's desire, copies of the letters (as noted in the margin) required by you. I have, &c, His Excellency the Governor. G. Gkex.

11

C—3

No. 8. Memorandum by the Premier to His Excellency the Governor. Ministers respectfully lay before His Excellency the attached Memoranda by Dr. Pollen on sundry letters from Sir George Grey, which Memoranda have been approved of and adopted in Cabinet. 2. Ministers desire to represent to His Excellency that, in their opinion, it is not expedient to treat Sir George Grey differently from any other Superintendent. If another Superintendent addressed such letters to the Governor, he would probably be told that his criticisms on the action of Governor, Executive, and Assembly were in excess of what his position warranted; and he would be asked to address his communications, in usual course, to the Colonial Secretary. Since any consideration extended to Sir George Grey only provokes longer and more confused letters, Ministers think it would be better at once to place him on the footing of other Superintendents. 3. As a further reply will have to be sent to Sir George Grey's letter of 27th May, Ministers suggest that a communication in the following terms be addressed to him by the Colonial Secretary:— " Tour Honor's letter of May 27th to the Governor has been submitted by His Excellency "to Ministers; and I have the honor, with Lord Norinanby's approval, to return you the " following reply to it. " I am to remind your Honor that the conduct of Her Majesty's Executive in the colony is " amenable to the deliberation and action of the Assembly, and that it is inexpedient to discuss their " proceedings with you. " The subject of the sale of the Piako Swamp has been under the consideration of the Assembly, " and your Honor amply exercised your right, as a Member of the House of Representatives, of " commenting upon it. The Governor thinks it altogether unnecessary to discuss the question with " your Honor. " Regarding your request to take legal proceedings, the nature of your Honor's desire is not clear. " If you wish to sue the Crown for injury sustained by any persons in the Province of Auckland, " permission will be given, if you show the Government clearly what you desire, and that you do not " propose to wantonly waste the revenues of the province, or subject it to liabilities for expenditure of " a doubtful character ; or, if your Honor is prepared to hold the province harmless of cost, permission " to sue the Crown,will be given you without such conditions. " If your desire is to assume the power, and sue on behalf, of the Crown, permission so to do " cannot be accorded to your Honor. You cannot even advise the Crown, much less act for it, unless " you constitutionally attain to the position of one of Her Majesty's Executive in the colony." Julius Vogel. "Wellington, 9th June, 1876.

Enclosures in No. 8. Memorandum on the Letter of the Superintendent of Auckland to His Excellency the Governor of date 18th May, 1876. I understand that this letter has been referred to me for explanation, or for such information regarding the subject of it as I may be able to afford. The necessity for any remark upon it arises, in my opinion, only out of the fact that His Excellency may be invited, or may think it necessary, to transmit the letter itself to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Here all the circumstances of the case are well known, as the subject was discussed in the General Assembly last Session, and was made matter of inquiry before Select Committees of the Houses. The whole is, as the letter itself shows, but a rechauffe of a stale subject, with an ingenious flavouring of personalities for party purposes. In order to make the subject intelligible to those who are not conversant with our Native land laws, it is necessary to premise that there have been two systems of dealing with Native lands operative for certain periods in this colony. During the first of these periods, from the Treaty of Waitangi down to the year 1862, the Crown's right of pre-emption was rigidly maintained excepting for the time when Governor Fitzroy's Proclamations were regarded as having the force of law. These Proclamations having been revoked, there was passed in 1846 an Act of the Legislative Council intituled "An " Ordinance to provide for the Prevention, by Summary Proceeding, of Unauthorized Purchases and " Leases of Land." The Ist clause of this Act was as follows:— " 1. If any person shall, after the passing of this Ordinance, purchase, or by writing or otherwise " agree to purchase, any estate or interest in land from any person of the Native race, or shall by " writing or otherwise agree with any such person for the purchase of the right of cutting timber or " other trees, or of the right of mining, or of the right of pasturage, or for the use or occupation of " land ; and also if any person, who shall not hold a license from the Government for that purpose, " shall, after the passing of this Ordinance, be found using or occupying any land not comprised within " a grant from the Crown, either by depasturing any sheep or cattle thereon, or by residing thereon, " or by erecting any house or building thereon, or by clearing enclosing or cultivating any part thereof, " or who shall be found without such license aforesaid to have cut timber or other trees thereon, or to ': have gotten any mineral therefrom, every such person shall, upon conviction of any of the offences " hereinbefore mentioned, forfeit and pay any sum not less than five pounds nor more than one hundred " pounds, to be recovered in a summary way: Provided that no person shall be convicted of any of " the offences aforesaid except on the information or complaint of the Surveyor-General, or of some " other officer duly authorized iv that behalf by His Excellency the Governor." In the northern province, for reasons which it is not necessary to set out, this law was generally observed ; but in the southern part of the North Island it was deliberately and openly violated, and

C—3

12

large estates of leasehold and freehold were obtained from the Native owners before the eyes of Governor Grey, who, then a despotic ruler, took no step to vindicate the law, or to prevent a land monopoly which he now appears to regard with so much horror. This system of restriction, tempered by favouritism for districts or individuals, lasted^with much friction and complaint until 1862, when the necessity of a change was first recognized by the Colonial Legislature, and the Native Lands Act of that year was passed. It was not, however, until the year 18G5 that the new system was really operative; and, from that time to 1870, the whole policy of the colony as evinced by its legislation was to facilitate the alienation of land by Natives, and to encourage Europeans to purchase or lease directly from the owners. Long previously to the war, from want of funds, and between 18C5 and 1870 from policy, the Colonial Government may be said to have ceased to purchase land for re-sale. In 1870 the first indication was given of the intention of the Colonial Government to resume land-purchasing operations by the proposal to dedicate £200,000 of the Immigration and Public Works Loan to be raised under the Act of that year to provide for land purchase in the North Island. In the Immigration and Public "Works Amending Act of 1871 the following enactment was made : — " 42. Whereas it may be desirable from time to time to acquire particular portions of land in the " North Island, for the purpose of mining for gold, for the establishment of special settlements, or for " the purposes of railway construction : It is hereby enacted that it shall be lawful for the Governor " to enter into arrangements for such purpose previous to the land passing through the Native Land " Court; but it shall be necessary that, subsequent to such arrangements, the land shall be passed " through the Native Land Court, and a certificate of title of the person entering into such arrange- " ment with the Governor obtained, and, on such certificate of title being obtained, the arrangements " entered into shall be as binding on both parties as if made after the order of the Court. It shall be " lawful for the Governor, whenever he shall have determined to enter into negotiations for the pur- " chase of such land, to insert a notice in the New Zealand Gazette that it is his intention to enter " into such negotiations, and, after such notice is inserted, it shall not be lawful for any one to purchase " or acquire from the Native owners any right, title, or interest, or contract for the purchase or acqui- " sitiou from the Native owners of any right, title, or interest, in the lands specified in such notice, " unless the notice be cancelled by the Governor : Provided that no such notice shall have longer opera- " tion than for the period of two years." Armed with money, and with these special privileges, the Government went into the Native land market avowedly in fair and opeu competition with, and not to the exclusion of, private individuals for the acquisition of territory. This power with regard to land at the Thames has been twice exercised, —■ on the first occasion by Governor Bowen in his Proclamation of date 23rd July, 1875, which Proclamation was revoked, when Mr. Stafford became Premier, in October of that year; and secondly by Governor Fergusson, on 15th October, 1874. This last Proclamation is still operative, and will remain so, unless revoked, until the 15th October next. Prints of the New Zealand Gazettes containing the several Proclamations noted are annexed. The Superintendent of Auckland has been urging the Colonial Government to acquire the auriferous land in the Coromandcl Peninsula, with a view to the acquisition of the gold fields revenue, the greater portion of which, in the shape of miners' rights fees, &c, was paid to the Native owners of the land, instead of the Provincial Treasury; and it was also desired that the Ohinemuri and Aroha, as well as the agricultural land in the valley of the Thames and Piako, should be acquired. The influence of the Native Anti-land-selling League had long been paramount in the Thames district. The Government had been unable to complete purchases there the negotiations for which had been begun many years before, and upon which payments on account had been made out of the Land Purchase Loan of 185G ; as evidence of which it may be stated that in " The Immigration and Public Works Act, 1872," clause 47, it was provided that £17,917 should be paid to the Province of Auckland by way of compensation, or of refund of interest and sinking fund paid by the province on the amount deposited on these inchoate purchases. But during this period the Natives of the Thames district freely sold, as they believed they had a perfect right to do, the timber growing on the land to Europeans; and the most valuable and important industry in the Province of Auckland was thus established. Individuals like Mr. Firth, favoured by the Natives, by degrees obtained large leasehold or freehold interests in the Thames Valley, and no one was more successful in such dealings, on account of his great personal influence with them, than Mr. Mackay, who was acting as a private land agent. In 1872, Mr. Fox being then Premier, Mr. Ormond, the Minister for Public Works, employed Mr. Mackay to do the land purchase work of the Government in the Thames district. The correspondence is printed in the Appendix to the Journals of the House of Eepresentatives, 1873, G. —8. One of the stipulations which Mr. Mackay made as the condition of success for his negotiation was, that the equitable rights of those who had dealings with the Natives for the use of land and timber should be respected by the Crown ; and this was agreed to by Mr. Ormond. The mode of dealing in Native lands generally adopted by those who desire to buy is thus described by Mr. Mackay:— " Before entering on this subject, it may be as well to consider what was the process generally '; adopted by private persons in acquiring land from the Natives. " The Native owner generally made the first offer to sell, but in some cases the European first ': expressed his desire to purchase. A Native Land Purchase Agent was consulted, and he probably " advised the would-be purchaser to advance a sum of money to the Native; part of it being a deposit "to bind the bargain, and the remainder to defray the expenses of survey. This as a general rule was " represented to be a payment to defray the expenses of survey and the investigation of the title by " the Native Land Court; and, as such, a lieu over the land was taken in accordance with the provisions "of ' The Native Land Act.' After survey the title was investigated by the Court, and the European " completed the purchase by handing the balance of the consideration money to the persons found to

13

C—3

"be the owners. Two cases of this class have arisen in the district within which I have been " instructed to purchase land." The history of the particular case, the alleged purchase of Waiharakeke and Hungahunga by Mr. Russell, around which Sir George Grey winds all this declamation is thus given by Mr. Mackay: — " The second case is that of Mr. Thomas Russell, respecting the purchase of the Hungahunga and " Waiharakeke Blocks, at the Upper Thames. These were not included in the area which I was authorized "to purchase in accordance with the instructions conveyed in the Hon. Mr. Ormond's letter of the 4th " March, 1872. "Neither were these blocks included in the Proclamation of the 9th October, 1872, made under " the provisions of ' The Immigration and Public Works Act Amendment Act, 1871.' I found, " about the end of 1872, that Mr. Thomas Russell was in treaty for the Hungahunga and Wai- " harakeke Blocks, the latter being situated on tho east and west banks of the River Waihou "or Thames. Although not strictly within my instructions, I deemed it advisable in the interest "of the public, to endeavour to secure the eastern portion of the Waiharakeke Block for the " Crown, it being an extension southwards of the Aroha Block, which is reported to be auriferous. " I therefore proposed to Mr. Russell, who was conducting his purchase through Messrs. Preece and "Graham, that he should relinquish the part of Waiharakeke on the eastern side of the River Waihou, 'and complete his negotiations for the western portion of the block, and for the Hungahunga Block " adjacent to it. I had no right at the time to ask him to do this, but considered it to be my duty to " look after the interest of the public. On submitting the question for the consideration of the Govern- " ment, they approved of my proceedings." It thus appears that the intending purchaser, Mr. Russell, and the intending Native vendors followed the usual and perfectly open course of dealing for the blocks in question, and that both were doing that which law and public policy enabled and encouraged them to do. The blocks ought properly to have been exempted from the operation of the Proclamation of October, 1874, and would no doubt have been so if it had been possible at once to describe their boundaries. But, whether they had been so exempt or not, the ultimate result would have been tho same: the Government could not have obtained those blocks for the simple reason that the Natives, having once come to an honorable understanding for the sale of the land to Mr. Russell, would not allow even the Superintendent of the Province of Auckland to induce them to repudiate a fair bargain. They are honest, and their view of moral obligation as between man and man is not clouded by speculations regarding the interests of the Empire and the whole human race. Having proved their title to the land, as I understand they have recently done at Hamilton, these Natives now need only wait until the currency of the Proclamatjon by Sir James Pergusson ends, namely in October next, when they will have an unquestionable right to sell to whom they choose. It does not appear that they have as yet attempted to complete the intended sale, or that they will be able to do so in the face of the Proclamation, and, if that be true, all this alarm of the Superintendent of the Province of Auckland is premature or baseless. 6th June, 1876. Daniel Pollen.

(Extract from the New Zealand Gazette, of July 31, 1872..} G. P. Bowen, Governor. Wheeeas by " The Immigration and Public "Works Act Amendment Act, 1871," the Governor is among other things, empowered to enter into arrangements for the acquisition of particular portions of land in the North Island, for the purpose of mining for gold, for the establishment of special settlements, or for the purposes of railway construction: And by the said Act it is also provided that it shall be lawful for the Governor, whenever he shall have determined to enter into negotiations for tho purchase of such land, to insert a notice in the New Zealand Gazette that it is his intention to enter into such negotiations, and after such notice is inserted it shall not be lawful for any one to purchase or acquire from the Native owners any right, title, or interest, or contract for the purchase or acquisition from the Native owners of any right, title, or interest, in the lands specified in such notice, unless the notice be cancelled by the Governor: Provided that no such notice shall have longer operation than for the period of two years. Now, therefore, I, Sir George Ferguson Bowen, the Governor of tho Colony of New Zealand, in pursuance of the provisions of the hereinbefore in part recited Act, and in exercise of the powers thereby vested in me, do hereby give notice that it is my intention forthwith to enter into negotiations for the purchase from the Native owners of the block or parcel of land situate in the Province of Auckland, and described as follows (that is to say) :— Commencing on the North on the sea coast at Cape Colville (or Moehau), in the District of Hauraki, in the Province of Auckland ; thence by the East Coast to Ngakuri-a-whare ; thence by a straight line to the summit of Te Aroha Mountain (being the northern boundary of the Tauranga District, as proclaimed under the New Zealand Settlements Act) ; thence by the watershed range between Tauranga Harbour and the River Thames (or Waihou) to Puapuatirohia, at the south-eastern angle of Te Aroha Block; thence by the southern boundary of Te Aroha block to Huakaramea, on the banks of the Eiver Thames (or Waihou) ; thence by the River Thames (or Waihou) to its mouth; thence by the sea coast of the Hauraki Gulf to Cape Colville (or Moehau), the point of cemmencement. Given under the hand of His Excellency Sir George Ferguson Bowen, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over Her Majesty's Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies, and Vice-Admiral of the same, at tho Government House, at Wellington, this twenty-third day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two. J. D. Oemojtd.

C—3

14

Extract from New Zealand Gazette of 10th, October, 1872.

G. F. Bo wen, Governor Whekeas by " The Immigration and Public Works Act Amendment Act, 1871," the Governor is, among other things, empowered to enter into arrangements for the acquisition of particular portions of land in the North Island, for the purpose of mining for gold, for the establishment of special settlements, or for the purpose, of railway construction ; and by the said Act it is also provided that it shall be lawful for the Governor, whenever he shall have determined to enter into negotiations for the purchase of such land, to insert a notice in the New Zealand Gazette that it is his intention to enter into such negotiations, and after such notice is inserted it shall not be lawful for any one to purchase or acquire from the Native owners any right, title, or interest, or contract for the purchase or acquisition from the Native owners of any right, title, or interest, in the lands specified in such notice, unless the notice be cancelled by the Governor: Provided that no such notice shall have longer operation than for the period of two years : And whereas by a Proclamation bearing date the twenty-third day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, and published in the New Zealand Gazette, No. 3S, of the thirty-first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, I, Sir George Ferguson Bowen, G.C.M.G., the Governor of the Colony of New Zealand, did declare my intention forthwith to enter into negotiations for the purchase from the Native owners of the block or parcel of land described therein: And whereas it is deemed expedient to revoke the samo: Now, therefore, I, Sir George Ferguson Bowen, G.C.M.G., the Governor as aforesaid of the said Colony of New Zealand, in pursuance of the provisions of the hereinbefore in part recited Act, and in exercise of the powers thereby vested in me, do hereby revoke the said Proclamation of the twentythird day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, and do further proclaim and declare my intention forthwith to enter into negotiations for the purchase from the Native owners of the block or parcel of land situate in the Province of Auckland, and described as follows (that is to say) : — Commencing on the North on the sea coast at Cape Colville (or Moehau), in the District of Hauraki, in the Province of Auckland ; thence by the East Coast to Ngakuri-a-whare ; thence by a straight lino to the summit of Te Aroha Mountain (being the northern boundary of the Tauranga District, as proclaimed under the New Zealand Settlements Act) ; thence by the watershed range between Tauranga Harbour and the River Thames (or Waihou) to Puapuatirohia, at the south-eastern angle of Te Aroha Block ; thence by the southern boundary of Te Aroha Block to the base of the hills to Okurere, near Hikutaia ; thence by a straight line to the nearest point of the telegraph line ; thence by telegraph line to Omahuhu Stream ; thence by Omahuhu Stream to the boundary of Native reserve, as described in the Proclamation of the Hauraki Gold Mining Districts in the New Zealand Gazette, No. 1, of 6th January, 1572 ; thence by that reserve to the point where it crosses the River Waiwhakamunga ; thence by a straight line to the trigonometrical survey station on the hill known as Pukeoraka, or Gentle Annie ; thence by a straight line to the north-eastern angle of the lands granted to the Church Mission Society, adjoining the Town of Shortland ; thence by the north and west boundaries of the lands granted to Church Mission Society to the River Waiwhakamunga; thence by that river to the sea; thence by the sea coast to Cape Colville, the point of commencement. Excluding also from the boundary described the Towns of Shortland, Grahamstown, and Tararu, as described in Government Gazette No. 1, of 6th January, 1872. Given under the hand of His Excellency Sir George Ferguson Bowen, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over Her Majesty's Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies, and Vice-Admiral of the same, at the Government House at Wellington, this ninth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two. E. W. Stafford.

[Extract from the New Zealand Gazette of 22nd October, 1874.] Notice of intention to negotiate for the Purchase of certain Native Lands in the Province of Auckland. (1.5.) James Febgusson, Governor. A PROCLAMATION. Whebeas by " The Immigration and Public Works Act Amendment Act, 1871," the Governor is among other things, empowered to enter into arrangements for the acquisition of particular portions of land in the North Island, for the purpose of mining for gold, for the establishment of special settlements, or for the purposes of railway construction: And by the said Act it is also provided that it shall be lawful for the Governor, whenever he shall have determined to enter into negotiations for the purchase of such land, to insert a notice in the New Zealand Gazette that it is his intention to enter into such negotiations, and after such notice is inserted it shall not be lawful for any one to purchase or acquire from the Native owners any right, title, or interest, or contract for the purchase or acquisition from the Native owners of any right, title, or interest, in the lands specified in such notice, unless the notice be cancelled by the Governor: Provided that no such notice shall have longer operation than for the period of two years : Now, therefore, I, Sir James Fergusson, the Governor of the Colony of New Zealand, in pursuance of the provisions of the hereinbefore in part recited Act, and in exercise of the powers thereby vested in me, do hereby give notice that it is my intention forthwith to enter into negotiations for the purchase from the Native owners of the block or parcel of land situate in the Province of Auckland, and described in the Schedule hereto.

15

C.-3

SCHEDULE. Commencing at Pukorokoro, on the western shore of the Frith of Thames, thence by the eastern boundary of the lands comprising the District of Waikato, as taken under the " New Zealand Settlements Act," to the north-west angle of the Hangawera Block ; thence by the northern boundary of the Hangawera Block, the western and northern boundaries of the Awaroa Block, and the northern boundary of the Mangakahika Block to the River Piako ; thence by that river to the junction of the AVaiharakcke Stream ; thence by that stream to the AVaihongai Block ; thence by the northern boundaries of the "Waihongai and Kahia Blocks to the River Waitoa ; thence by that river to the Uruhau Block ; thence by the eastern boundaries of the Uruhau and Matamata Blocks to the Wharetangata Block; thence by the northern boundary of the Wharetangata Block to the Turangamoana Block ; thence by the western boundary of the Turangamoana Block to the River Waihou; thence southwards by that river to the junction of the Oraka Stream; thence by a line due east to the western boundary of the lands comprising the District of Tauranga, as taken under the New Zealand Settlements Act; thence by that boundary to the summit of Te Aroha Mountain ; thence by the northern boundary of the aforesaid district of Tauranga to Nga-Kuri-a-AVhare, on the coast of the Bay of Plenty ; thence by the East Coast of the North Island of New Zealand to Cape Colville ; thence by the shores of the Frith of Thames, or Hauraki Gulf, to the point of commencement at Pukorokoro aforesaid. Given under the hand of His Excellency the Right Honorable Sir James Fergusson, Baronet, a Member of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over Her Majesty's Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies, and ViceAdmiral of the same; and issued under the Seal of the said Colony, at Wellington, this fifteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventyfour. Donald McLean. God sate the Queen!

Memoeandum on Letters from the Supeeintendent of the Province of Auckland to His Excellency the Goteenob, of date 23rd May and 27th May, 187 G. I hate read two letters from the Superintendent of Auckland, of dates respectively May 23rd and May 27th ultimo, which His Excellency the Governor has been pleased to refer to the Hon. the Premier for information of Ministers. The former of these letters is a disqiiisition upon the Constitution, which only shows that Sir George Grey does not understand the functions of a constitutional Governor amongst a free people enjoying representative institutions. Sir George Grey glorifies his position as Superintendent of the Province of Auckland, and appears to believe that a Provincial Council is the only true exponent of popular opinion, and the only true representative body that we possess. It is curious and instructive to note the manner in which he treats even a Provincial Council when it presumes to have an opinion opposed to his. On the 20th May, 1875, the Auckland Provincial Council, by a majority of five, adopted a resolution affirming the desirability of abolishing the whole of the Provincial Governments. On the next clay that resolution was rescinded at the instance of the Superintendent, who took occasion to convey to the Council directly through a gentleman, not of the number of his Executive, and in apparent opposition to the will of his official representative in the Council, an indignant remonstrance. Copy of the resolution and a report of the debate are annexed. The subject of the second letter, that of 27th May, is the sale of the Piako Swamp. Sir George Grey brought this question before the House of Representatives in its last session, and with great zeal and energy sought to establish a charge of corruption against Ministers in connection with this sale. The report of the Select Committee appointed to investigate this charge, and the printed minutes of the evidence taken on oath before it, are a complete answer to, and refutation of, Sir George Grey's assertions. A threat to have recourse to legal proceedings would appear to be no more than a fashion in which Sir George Grey signalizes more forcibly his belief in his own statements ; such threats have been made before, but they have not been put into execution or attempted to be so put. It is probable that the result will not be different on the present occasion. But if the Superintendent of the Province of Auckland really desires to try this question of the loss which he alleges his province has sustained by reason, as he says, of his not having been able to place fitting immigrants in the Piako Swamp, and will put his proposal in a form somewhat less vague and rhetorical, it would be the duty of Ministers to give it due consideration. It is not clear if Sir George Grey desires to proceed against the Crown or to proceed on behalf of the Crown, and probably he has not a clear idea himself, but merely, as I have said, talks of proceedings to emphasise his assertions. It may, however, be urged that if Sir George Grey desires to use the name of the Crown to upset what the Crown has done, the request would be without precedent. It would be as unsafe as unusual to intrust such a power to Sir George Grey. The constitutional method of undoing an action of the Crown is for the Governor to have recourse to responsible advisers prepared to recommend such a course. In his correspondence Sir George Grey has thought it becoming to be offensive to Ministers personally, as well as to speak disparagingly of the action of Parliament. It is considered quite unnecessary to notice these parts of his letter. 6th June, 1876. Daniel Pollen.

C—3

16

Extract from the " Daily Southern Cross " Newspaper. Auckland Peovincial Council, 20th Mat, 1875. constitutional change. Mr. Bagnall moved, " That in the opinion of this Council the time has arrived when some change should be made in the dual system of Government at present existing in this colony. That the whole of the Provincial Governments of the colony, as at present existing, should be abolished, and a more efficient and local form of self-government established in lieu thereof." Question carried. Ayes, 19; Noes, 14; Majority for, 5.

Auckland Provincial Council, 21st Mat, 1875. constitutional changes. The following order of the day was called on. :— Mr. Siieehan moved, " That the resolution arrived at on the motion No. 1, moved yesterday by Mr. Bagnall, be rescinded. 1. That it is not desirable that any large constitutional changes should be made until the people of the colony have been fully informed of the details of the scheme of local selfgovernment which is to be set up in place of the provincial forms of Government, and have had ample time to consider the same. 2. That such change could not be attempted to be made during the next session of Parliament, but should be dealt with by the next Parliament. 3. That any such constitutional changes should apply to the whole colony, and not to any particular part thereof." Mr. Caeleton rose to a question of order. The notice of the first resolution was given separately, and he would like to have reference made to the original notice, or the proof copy of the Order Paper. After some discussion, Mr. Carleton produced the proof Order Paper, with the first resolution separate. The Speaker said the Order Paper had been altered by his directions, as the mover said he intended to add other resolutions to the first. Mr. Sheehan said he would move the first resolution separately. He admitted that on the previous occasion there had not been any attempt to entrap the Council into a division, and explained the reason why the resolution went unexpectedly to the vote. The honorable member, Mr. Bagnall, had become famous in a night. Instead of such a question having been brought forward by an old member, it was introduced by a comparatively young politician. He might say — An Eagle soaring in his pride of place, Was by a mousing owl hawked at and killed. The honorable member for the Bay of Islands had proved by his persistent opposition that he was a good hater. Although in his old age he still groped blindly about for some one to attack, like the giant in the fable whose eyes had been thrust out Mr. Caeleton rose to order. The honorable member was misquoting the classics. He was confusing Jack and the giant with Ulysses and Polyphemus. (Laughter.) Mr. Sheeiian bowed to the honorable member's correction. Being in his second political childhood he was better acquainted with infantile literature. (Laughter.) The intention was to have tabled counter resolutions, and to have fought the battle out fairly, so that ho was justified in asking the Council to reconsider its decision. The country, in unanimously electing Sir George Grey as Superintendent, had accepted his holding opinions identical with those embodied in the resolutions before the Council, and the people expected that the Council would not tie down Sir George Grey by passing such a resolution as Mr. Bagnall's, but leave him free to employ his ability in treating the great Constitutional questions in the House of Assembly. It was right that any change in the Constitution should not be decided by a moribund Parliament, but by a new one which would be elected by the people after a fair consideration of the subject. Mr. Vogel could not arrive in the colony until September, and he might not be able to resume his public duties at all. If the determination of these Constitutional questions were left to the other members of the Ministry, it would be left to less than ciphers. The general opinion was, that the question would not be touched next Session, as the beginning and end of the Ministry would not be present, But there were independent members in the House who would make the Government proceed with their reform, or admit their complete incapability to carry on the affairs of the colony. The Council ought to allow the Superintendent to go down to Wellington unfettered. The honorable member's (Mr. Bagnall's) resolution having been carried, it would not bo in accordance with parliamentary practice to refer in the debate to the question of constitutional reform in an antagonistic manner. Therefore, he would ask them to rescind the resolution and have a fair stand-up fight. The opinion of the Council to have any weight ought to be come to after a long debate. Those who would vote against the resolution would be refusing fair play. (No, no.) Mr. Caeleton said if anything were wanting to show the decadence of Provincialism, it was the honorable member unblushingly asking them to make themselves ridiculous by passing his motion. Honorable members had made up their minds and could not be affected by listening to the assembled wisdom of the Council. It was well known that the private opinion of a majority of honorable members were in favour of the abolition of Provincialism, and public feeling was with them. Sir George Grey's election did not indicate, as the honorable member (Mr. Sheehan) implied, that the bulk of the people were in favour of his views, for the argument was generally used, " Provincialism is doomed. Let us put in a clever man." He denied that it was a parliamentary rule that an old House could not deal with constitutional questions. The first Eeform Bill was a ease in point. The argument of the honorable member on this point implied delegation as against representation, and was not in accordance with those principles on which the British Constitution was based. It was immaterial whether constitutional changes were brought on next Session or any future one. He looked forward for this for a long time, and one Session made no difference—the triumph was bound to come. He

17

C—3

would vote against the first resolution, and let the others pass. Some honorable members who voted for Mr. Bagnall's resolutions might change their minds, but the vote had gone forth nevertheless. Mr. Caepentee supported the motion. It would not be wise to hand the province over to the tender mercies of such an unscrupulous Government as that at present in office. Mr. LtrsK said he did not vote on the previous day, because he did not agree with the resolution of the honorable member (Mr. Bagnall), although there was a good deal in it which coincided with his views. There could bo no argument against the fullest discussion of the main question. Mr. BoZLAH said the question was, would Sir George Grey go down to "Wellington hampered by such a resolution as that passed on the previous day, in spite of the opinion of the constituencies, who would be unanimous in their reprobation of the resolution which had been passed? He trusted the Council would allow the motion to be rescinded. It was true it would have been flashed through the wires shortly after it was passed, but the next day the manner in which it was passed would be known, and then there would be re-action. Mr. Reader "Wood said it was true the Council could not suffer by rescinding the resolution. The only question was, had there been sufficient reasons given for such an unusual course. In his opinion such reasons had not been given. There was not one simple reason why the course proposed should not be pursued. There was nothing in the resolution of Mr. Baguall which would hamper the Superintendent. Hon. members said that it was not right to hamper the Superintendent by passing such a resolution, and yet if Mr. Sheehan's motion were carried, they would come down with three other motions, which would hamper the Superintendent still more. If those gentlemen would say they ■would withdraw the three resolutions, and that in their opinion it was advisable that the Council should exjn-ess no judgment on the subject at all, he would vote for rescinding Mr. Bagnall's resolutions, and let them stand where they were. They could not adopt a wiser course. There was not a man in the Province who had given any attention to the subject who did not agree with Mr. Bagnall's resolution. From Auckland to Otago Provincialism had broken down, and was disgusting the people, causing irritation, and ought to be removed. With regard to Mr. Bagnall's resolution, every one would agree that the present form of dual Government was unsatisfactory, and also that a better one should be provided. It was a most harmless resolution, and it did not much matter whether it passed or not. Mr. Bagnall did not even ask that it should be forwarded to the Superintendent. He would ask, was Sir George Grey an advocate for the system that was going on now ? A great deal had been said about hampering his Honor, but had ifc ever occurred to honorable members to think whether they could fetter him ? They tried the other day to do so, in the matter of the Police, but failed. He (Mr. Wood), had known Sir George Grey for many years, and served him in different capacities, and right or wrong, good, bad, or indifferent, he would always apt and think for himself. When Sir George asked, him (Mr. Wood) to take the office of Provincial Treasurer, ho told his Honor that probably the Council would like to know what his views were with regard to the question of what was called ministerial responsibility in provincial affairs. He said, i; Well, Wood, if the Council think that lam in this way going to act as a constitutional Governor acts, who does nothing without the advice of his ministers, I had better go back again to Kawau." Mr. Rees said the Council had no right and no power to pass such a resolution as that of Mr. Bagnall. Those honorable members who voted for it had no business in the Council. The resolution would not have the slightest efficacy, but if it would not hamper Sir George Grey, it would injure tho Province. It was only fair, at any rate, that what should go forth as the deliberate opinion of the Council should be fully and fairly debated. Sir Robert Douglas said his views had been thoroughly expressed by Mr. Wood, and he only rose to say, with regard to a remark by Mr. Rees, that his constituents were opposed to Provincialism. Mr. Bagnall was surprised that the resolutions should have caused so much excitement. Those whose fault it was that the division had taken place so unexpectedly, should accept the position. Mr. Huxt moved the previous question, in order to curtail discussion. Mr. Rees would like to know the effect of the previous question. The Speakeii said all honorable members who had already spoken could do so again, but no amendment could be moved. Mr. Daegaville thought it was a pity that the honorable member had moved the previous question. It burked discussion. He himself had intended to move an amendment. Mr. Sheehan said the " scouts " of the other side had come in with the news that the resolution ■was likely to be rescinded, and honorable members thought to improve their position by moving an amendment. It was a mistake to say that his resolutions would hamper Sir George Grey more than those of Mr. Bagnall, because they were taken from his own mouth, and could not fetter him in his opinions at all. Mr. Cableton : It would prevent him changing them. Mr. Sheeiiau said that if honorable members were so sure that the people were in favour of a change, why should they be afraid of letting the people decide? Wiih all due deference to his honorable colleague, he had the authority of Sir George Grey for saying that he regarded the action taken on the previous day as most disastrous, and fettered him to such a degree that it, became a question whether it was worth while carrying on any further. Sir George Grey said he had left liis retirement for the purpose of taking up this question. The people heard him, he proclaimed openly what views he held ; resolutions of confidence were passed in him ; the provincial Press teemed with articles of approval, and yet the Council, which he expected to assist and aid him in this matter, appeared determined to convert him into nothing more or less than a mouthpiece. He appealed to honorable members not to spoil the chance the province had of getting a fair consideration of its claims on the General Assembly. Mr. Mat was in favour of total abolition and the localization of the land revenue. He would support the Superintendent with regard to the hitter point But to say that the Auckland members must necessarily follow the Superintendent was absurd. The resolutions of Mr. Bagnall would be taken in Wellington as the opinion of the Council. The Superintendent could, of course, express his own views as member for City West. 3—o. 3.

a—3

18

Question put, " That Mr. Sheehan's motion be now put," upon which the Council divided, with the following result: —Ayes, 19 : Boylan, Cadman, Carpenter, Cheeseman, Dignan, Goldie, Hamlin, Hurst, Lundon, Lusk, Macready, McLeod, Peacocke, Prime, Reed, Rees, Sheehan, Swanson, Wilson. Noes, 18: Bagnall, Ball, Brown, Buckland, Carleton, Crawford, Dargaville, Davies, Douglas, Johnson, Kelly, Lloyd, May, Moat, Morris, Shepherd, Taylor, Wood.

No. 9. The Colonial Secretary to the Supehixtendent of Auckland. (No. 244.) Sib,— Colonial Secretary's Office, Wellington, 20th June, 1876. Tour Honor's letter of the 27th May, to the Governor, has been submitted by His Excellency to Ministers; and I have the honor, with Lord Normanby's approval, to return you the following reply to it: — I am to remind your Honor that the conduct of Her Majesty's Executive in the colony is amenable to the deliberation and action of the Assembly, and that it is inexpedient to discuss their proceedings with you. The subject of the sale of the Piako Swamp has been under the consideration of the Assembly, and your Honor amply exercised your right, as a member of the House of Representatives, of commenting upon it. The Governor thinks it unnecessary to discuss the question with your Honor. Regarding your request to take legal proceedings, the nature of your Honor's desire is not clear. If you wish to sue the Crown for injury sustained by any persons in the Province of Auckland, permission will be given if you show the Government clearly what you desire, and that you do not purpose to wantonly waste the revenues of the province or subject it to any liabilities for expenditure of a doubtful character; or, if your Honor is prepared to hold the province harmless of cost, permission to sue the Crown will be given you without such conditions. If your desire is to assume the power, and sue on behalf, of the Crown, permission so to do cannot be accorded to your Honor. You cannot even advise the Crown, much less act for it, iinless you con,stitutionally attain to the position of one of Her Majesty's Executive in the colony. I have, &c, His Honor the Superintendent of Auckland, "Wellington. Daniel Pollen.

By Authority: G-eobgi: Didsbtjby, Government Printer, Wellington. —1876. Price 91]