NATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT ON PETITION OF ROBERT COOPER, TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1878 Session I, I-03a

I.—3a.

1878. NEW ZEALAND.

NATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT ON PETITION OF ROBERT COOPER, TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

(Report brought up October 18th, 1878, and ordered to be printed.)

Petitioner states that in the month of May, 1877, he purchased from the Maoris certain blocks of land in the County of Cook, and that the surveys thereof were throughout conducted with the knowledge and consent of the Government. The petitioner further states that he has been unable to complete his title to the land because of a caveat lodged by the Government to the effect that the said lands were included in a proclamation issued by the Government in accordance with the Public Works and Immigration Act, 1871, and prays for relief from losses he has suffered in consequence I am directed to report:— That the Committee have found the matters raised by this petition, and the circumstances surrounding it, of an exceedingly complex character; and it is only after much patient consideration that they have arrived at what they believe to be a just conception of the case. With regard to a block of land referred to in the petition, comprising Ngatawakawaka, Puremungahua, and Matatuatonga, the Committee find that the land had been proclaimed as being required for public purposes under the fourty-second Section of the Public Works and Immigration Act, 1871. They also find that the Government had negotiated for its purchase, and had paid money under an agreement, for such purchase, and further that the money was paid to, and the agreement made with, the persons to whom the land was afterwards awarded by the Court which adjudicated upon the title. It appears that the Government were prepared to complete the payment for the land within nine days of the time at which the Court determined the title, and that Mr. Cooper's attempt to purchase was made almost immediately after the Court gave its decision. Mr. Cooper asserts that he did not know at that time that the land had been proclaimed, and was equally ignorant that money had been paid by the Government upon it The Committee cannot understand this want of knowledge on the part of Mr. Cooper, and have arrived at the conclusion that his so-called purchase was an improper transaction, and being bad inlaw, was equally so in equity. The block of land known as Waingaromia No. 2 stands in a different position. The negotiations for the purchase of this block by Mr. Cooper, and negotiations by the Government for the purchase of a larger block called Tauwhareparae, appear to have been going on at the same time, and these blocks respectively overlapped each other to a large extent. The block of land under negotiation by the Government had been notified in the Gazette of 4th March, 1876, as being required for public' purposes. At a sitting of the Native Lands Court held in 1876, the title to these blocks was investigated, and it appears from the decision of the Court that the persons with whom Mr. Cooper had negotiated were the principal owners of Waingaromia No. 2. It seems ou the other hand that the persons with whom the Government had been in treaty for Tauwhareparae, and to whom payments had been made, were not owners of that portion of it known as Waingaromia No. 2 (the block claimed by Mr. Cooper) except to a limited extent. In consequence of the decision thus arrived at by the Native Lands Court, an ' order ' was made for the issue of a memorial of ownership, and this ' order' is still in suspense—the memorial of ownership not yet having been issued. Immediately after the decision of the Native Lands Court as above stated, and within the period prescribed by law, applications for a re-hearing were made by persons dissatisfied with the decision of the Court. These applications were in due course referred to the Chief Judge of the Native Lands Court, who after consultation with the presiding Judge reported to the Government that the re-hearing ought not to be granted. The Government however have not yet decided whether or not a re-hearing shall be allowed, and this non-determination on the part of the Government appears to be the reason why a memorial of ownership has not yet been issued. In the mean time any attempt on the part of Mr. Cooper to deal with the land under the Land Transfer Act is barred by a caveat which has been entered on behalf of the Government. The Committee are of opinion that nothing can be worse than the state of suspense in which all the parties to this case are situated at the present time, and therefore believe that steps should at once be adopted to put an end to it. The Committee recommend (although they have arrived at this conclusion with some reluctance) that, as a means to this end, the re-hearing for which applications have been made should be grantod by the Government, and an early day fixed for the sitting of a Court to re-hear and determine the claims in connection with the land to which a title is asserted by Mr. Cooper. JOHN BEYCE, Chairman. 18th October, 1878.

I.—3a.

2

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Wednesday, 25th September, 1878. Robert Cooper, being in attendance, was examined. 1. The Chairman.] Mr. Cooper, you state that in the month of January, 1877, you completed a purchase from the Natives I —Yes. 2. Have you documentary evidence to prove that?— Yes, I have. 3. Will you produce it I —Mr. Carlile has it. He will be examined. I may state that the land was not proclaimed until after I had purchased it. It was after I completed my purchase that the land was proclaimed ; and when I sold to this company there was no caveat or anything else lodged against this land. I sold it to Graham and Co., as agents for Potter, Wilson and Co., of Glasgow. 4. Before going into the sale, we had better go into the purchase. It was therefore determined that Mr. Carlile's evidence should first be taken. Mr. Carlile being in attendance was examined. 5. The Chairman.] The petitioner informed us that you have documentary evidence of the truth of the allegations contained in the petition I —l have not seen the petition yet, but I have a considerable quantity of documentary evidence relating to the matter. [Petition read by witness.J Yes, I have got certified copies under the hand of the Registrar at Napier of the order which is registered there declaring that the freehold tenure of the land should be vested in Mr. Cooper. 6. Have you the deed by which the land was purchased by Mr. Cooper I—l have not got the deed itself with me. The order under " The Native Lands Act, 1873," really vests the freehold tenure in Mr. Cooper. I have got a copy of the conveyance of Waingaromia No. 3, but not of Waingaromia No. 2. 7. The petitioner states that in the month of January, 1877, he completed the purchase from the Maoris of certain blocks. Have you these deeds I —l have got the order of the Native Land Court Judge, declaring that he was satisfied with the purchase, and that the land should vest in Robert Cooper in freehold tenure from that date. I have not got the deed with me. I could give you the dates of the deed and everything that happened. 8. Where is the deed which was made between the Native sellers and Mr. Cooper ?—lt is in Napier? I could have got it if I had known it would have been wanted. Here is a copy of Waingaromia No. 3, but I thought there was a copy of Waingaromia No. 2 in Wellington. 9. Mr. Ormond ] Is this one produced the same as the other ?— It is in similar terms. 10. The Chairman.] It is stated in the third paragraph of the petition " that the survey of the said blocks of land were throughout conducted with the consent of the then Government Commissioner for the district. Have you any evidence of that I —No ; I have no evidence of that. 11. Hon. Mr. Fox.] Do you know who the Commissioner was who is mentioned there I—l don't even know that. I have acted throughout, I may tell you, as solicitor to the purchasers from Cooper, and I had merely to advise whether a good title was shown in Cooper. I advised that the order of the Natire Land Court Judge, and the fact that there was no proclamation against the land at the time of purchase, was a sufficient root of title in Cooper, seeing that at that time there was no caveat against the purchase or any proclamation over the land in question. 12. The Chairman.] The petitioner goes on to say that he sold to a company the said blocks of land]— That is so. The evidence I can give of rent is, that I acted as solicitor for Potter, Wilson pnd Co., who purchased the land through Graham and Co., of Gisborne, as their agents; and I received instructions from Graham and Co. to see whether Cooper could make out a good title, and if he could I was merely to prepare an agreement, because they were not quite sure of the actual names of the company for whom the land was being bought. I advised that the best way was for Graham and Co., to take an agreement in their own names for the purchase of this land, and afterwards, when I ascertained the names of the purchasers, to have proper transfers under the Land Transfer Act completed. This was done, and the agreement was signed by Cooper, and £15,000 credited to Cooper on account of it. Two or three months afterwards, before the actual transfer was completed, a caveat was lodged in December, 1877. It did not state on the face of the caveat that the land had been proclaimed, but that money had been paid by the Government on account of the land. At the time the agreement was entered into between Cooper and Graham and Kinross, I was asked to find out whether Waingaromia No. 2 was included in any proclamation under the Public Works Act. I made every search, and found it was not. As to these three other blocks —named Ngatawakawaka, Puremengahua, and Matatuotonga—l told them that

3

I.—3a.

the title was not good, though it might be made good afterwards. A mortgage to Graham and Co, of No. 2 was for the sum of £10,000, and of No. 3 for £5000. There was nothing whatever to affect either of these blocks, as far as I could see The mortgage was paid off, but has not been released, in consequence of the registration of the caveat. This caveat prevents dealings with Europeans, and not merely Maoris. 13. This caveat was lodged before the actual transfer was made I—ln the case of No. 2 no transfer has been presented for registration at all. It is an agreement for a sale. The order vesting the freehold tenure in Cooper is dated the 28th of June, 1877. On the 7th of July there was a mortgage to Graham and Kinross, to secure £10,000, registered by me in Napier, on the 12th July, 1877. That mortgage is now vested in the Union Bank, but has been paid off long ago by Potter, Wilson and Co. On the 13th of October, 1877, there was this agreement for the sale, which was taken in the names of Graham and Co , but really on behalf of Potter, Wilson and Co. I was told by Graham and Co. that they had no interest in it whatever, except that they received a commission, of course, for effecting the purchase. But this agreement was really on behalf of Potter, Wilson and Co., whose names we did not know then. At that time I advised that, as far as I could see, the title to No. 2 and No. 3 was good, but that as to Ngatarakawaka, Matatuotonga, and the other block, it was not complete, because I was not quite sure that this proclamation under the Public Works Act might not be acted upon. When matters were at that state, on the 27th December this caveat was lodged against dealing with No. 2, but none was ever lodged against dealing with No. 3. I was under the impression that No. 3 was free from all claims by anybody. A proclamation was subsequently gazetted under " The Government Native Land Purchases Act, 1877," in which No. 3 was included. There was no caveat, however, entered then. I then got a transfer from Cooper to Potter, Wilson and Co., there being no caveat. I presented the transfer on the 12th of August, and later in the afternoon I received the news that there was a caveat in the office, although not registered. They registered the caveat, and refused to register my transfer. 14. This block, No. 3, stands in a different position in your mind to the others ?—They do not allege that No. 3 was comprised under any Public Works Proclamation. The Government say that some portion of No. 2 was comprised under another name in one of the other blocks proclaimed ; but it seems to me that a purchaser, after searching and not finding anything against the land, is quite entitled to presume that there is nothing against it. Nothing could be found against it in this instance. 15. Have you a copy of the proclamation referred to in the caveat?—l think it is a mistake to say the proclamation was referred to in the caveat. To the best of my recollection, all it states is that we only had been paid on account of it, and this is the proclamation, no doubt, that is referred to. But I fail to see anything that justifies the assertion that No. 2 was included in that. Then I would call your attention to the Public Works Act that gives power to issue these caveats. The preamble states that land may be taken for mining purposes or for special settlement. It is not likely that this land is required for either purpose. 16. Was Cooper aware of the existence of this proclamation at the time he entered into negotiations with the Maoris for the purchase of the land ?—I am not sure about that. He told me he was not aware of any proclamation about No. 2at the time he completed the purchase. I have never acted in any way as Cooper's solicitor. I have been merely acting for the purchasers. 17. Do you understand this: that it is tacitly alleged that the order of the Native Land Court was made in error or in ignorance?—l believe they think that the order of the Court is wrong, because they say that the six months had not elapsed from the date of the original memorial of ownership. But I think that is quite a mistake. The only clause in the Act of 1873 which bears that construction was the 78th clause, which was repealed. An order may be made vesting land in freehold tenure in any European, subject to the chance of a re-hearing being granted. If none is granted, the sale holds good, and may be taken for good. Six months have now passed in the case of Waingaromia, Nos. 2, 4, and also 3. I cannot conceive on what grounds the Government can prevent dealings with Europeans to appear on the register, on any such grounds as that the Natives may not be entitled to deal. 18. Can you give the date of the sitting of the Court at which the title was adjudicated upon ?—ln the case of No. 2, the 20th December, 1876. 19. Was the Court aware of the proclamation at tbe time it adjudicated on this case?—l don't know. 20. And you also say that you don't know whether Cooper was aware of the proclamation at that time ?—He told me he was not aware of any proclamation affecting that, but further than that I don't know. I had nothing to do with the matter until a later time. The date of No. 3is the 16th of March, 1876, long before. 21. Hon. Mr. Fox.) Were you acting for Cooper, or for Potter and Wilson ?—For Potter and Wilson, in negotiating the thing. 22. And in preparing the documents?—ln preparing the documents. 23. The Chairman] Have you any other point which you wish to bring to the notice of the Committee ?—I should like to bring this to the notice of the Committee, that the order for vesting the freehold was made in the case of No. 2 and in the case of No. 3, and signed by the Judge; and that under the 75th section of the Act of 1873 dealings under that order are good. There was first a mortgage and this agreement by which £20,500 was paid to Cooper. £15,000 was paid by Potter, Wilson ard Co. at once and £5500 afterwards, and there is still owing a balance of £6000. The total acreage is 40,000 acres. The price agreed upon amounts to £26,000. £20,500 has been actually paid, going on the order of the Native Land Court Judge, which he has clearly power to make, as against the Government at all events. The act of their own officer in granting a title must be absolutely final; and I consider that looking to this order I was justified in taking that as a sufficient title. That is the way in which I acted for Potter, Wilson and Co. The caveat deadlocks the whole, and prevents a release being taken. You have told the Committee what the company were to give Cooper. Can you tell the Committee what Cooper gave the Maoris for the land ?—I cannot recollect that. Cooper will probably be able to tell you that. The mere purchase money he gave to the Maoris would not be all the expense he wonld be put to in journeys, Court sittings, &c, which would probably be more than double the purchase money he actually gave the Maoris.

L—3a.

4

24. Hon. Mr. Fox.] Supposing the fact was that the Government had paid money upon these blocks which Cooper purchased, would the issue of this proclamation at a period subsequent to his purchase have retrospective action ? I think not. I think it should not, especially where purchasers had no notice of the Government paying such money. 25. Then the proclamation would simply be null and void ?—I think so, in regard to a proclamation where there had been dealings with the land three and four deep. With regard to No. 2 (even if they say that part of it—T don't believe they intend to say the whole—was included in the Government purchase), it was very gross negligence on the part of the Government to allow the thing to remain under another name without issuing a proclamation stating the right name, so that purchasers might be made aware of it. This proclamation was only issued after there had been dealings four deep in the land. I don't think a proclamation issued under these circumstances could have any effect. 26. Mr. Taiaroa.] Are you aware whether Mr. Cooper tendered the duty payable on this land to the Government, and whether they accepted it ?—I am aware that he did, and that they took it. lam aware that Judge Rogan certified the duty, and it was paid. The duty was assessed and paid. 27. Do you say that after the Government accepted the duty they proclaimed the land ?—They entered a caveat after they accepted the duty, and did proclaim the land afterwards. Thursday, 26th September, 1878. Robert Cooper, being in attendance, was examined :— 28. The Chairman.] We have received a good deal of information regarding this petition from Mr. Carlile, but the Committee are desirous of knowing whether, at the time the Court adjudicated upon your claim on this land—whether at that time you knew that there was a proclamation in existence affecting it ?—There was no proclamation in existence affecting Nos. 2 and 3. 29. This proclamation did affect a portion of the land ?—lt was under a different name altogether, namely, Tauwhareparae. It was not proclaimed under the name of Waingaromia No. 2. 30. A very considerable block of Maori land has a number of Maori names? —This land was surveyed previously, and called Waingaromia No. 2. The survey had been completed in the General Government Survey Office, so that they could not put it under another name. The Government came along with another survey and overlapped me. It was then decided that the case should be heard in the Native Land Court. The Government bought from one section of Natives: I bought from another section. The Judge awarded the land to the Natives I had purchased it from, holding that tbey were the rightful owners. The other people were defeated in Court, and did not get in the grant. Then I started my purchase, and completed it. I waited for six months to elapse for a re-hearing. I then applied under the Native Land Act to the Judge of the Native Land Court to vest the freehold tenure in me, and also paid the duty (ten per cent). I had to bring all the Natives to him to be examined. They were satisfied that the land had passed from them to me, and then the Judge gave me these orders vesting the freehold tenure in me until such time as Crown grants should be issued. With regard to Ngatawakawaka, Puremungahua, and Matatuo'.onga, they were gazetted, but I did not know they were gazetted at the time. I had not seen any Gazettes for mouths. The Natives told me that the Government refused to have anything to do with them. They came to me to purchase. I was not aware that there was any proclamation over them, or I should not have purchased them. We very seldom see a proclamation or a Gazette at all. If proclamations were published in the newspapers, it would be different; but I don't see the Gazettes once in six months. 31. If you had known at the time that this proclamation existed with reference to the latter block, you would not have had anything at all to do with it ?—No. 32. Do I understand voir to admit, by saying that, that the proclamation vitiates your purchase ?— I don't know whether it does or not. The Government got notice that I had purchased this land, and it was proclaimed. This was after my purchase was completed. They did not take any steps beforehand. 33. How did the Government know that you had purchased ?—The Land Purchase Commissioner of that district was there, and I presume lie reported to the Government. 34. Hon. Mr. Fox. ] Who was the Commissioner ?—Mr. J. A. Wilson. He wrote a letter to the Natives before I purchased, stating that the Government were not going to have anything to do with these blocks ; that he had been down to Wellington to get money to pay the Natives for these three small blocks, and came back without any money. That letter was written to the Natives by G. Wilson. 35. What date was that?—ln July, 1876,"I think. 36. The Clmirman.] You state that the surveys were conducted throughout with the consent of the then Government Commissioner of the district ?—Yes. 37. Mr. Wilson, is it ?—No ; Mr. Locke. I should like hi in called to give evidence as to that point. I had authority from him in 1873 for the survey of that land. 38. Was consent given in writing ?—lt was given to the Natives iv writing. The Government can survey land for Natives, and the Natives make the application. 39. You do not produce these letters? They are in the hands of the Natives?— They are in the hands of the Natives. The application was granted by Mr. Locke for the survey. He was then District Officer. 40. You state that the company to whom you sold began extensive farming operations?— Yes. 41. Was that before or after the caveat was lodged ?—Before. Directly I sold to them they started to work, improving the laud. 42. There is a very short interval between the time of your sale and the lodging of the caveat?— We did not know the caveats were lodged until such time as we went to register these other documents. I had to wait four or five months to get word from England as to whom the transfers were to be made. 43. Can you state what you paid the Natives for this land ?—2s. an acre. 44. What would that come to?— The large block was £2870, and Waingaromia No. 3, £500 odd. When you come to take the expense of paying for survey, licensed interpreter, and lawyers, travelling expense*, Ac, it comes fully to 7s. 6d. an acre.

5

I.—3a,

45. Hon. Mr. Fox.] That falls on the purchaser ?—Yes. This land stood me in 7s. 6d. an acre. 46. The Chairman?] You pray that the House shall afford you relief. What is the nature of the relief you would suggest ?—To have the caveats removed off the land, so that I could register these deeds, and complete the sale. 47. Would there be any contingent claim ?—-I presume that if the caveats were removed by the Government, they would not withhold the Crown grants. In these blocks you never know when you will get the Crown grants. In the case of Ngatawakawaka, Puremungahua, Matatuotonga, I would be perfectly willing to refund any sums of money which the Government may have paid to the grantees in that block. 48. Hon. Mr. Fox.] Have you any idea what they have paid?—lt is not much; perhaps £150. It is all very rough country there. 49. What did the Government agree to pay per acre ?—2s ; the same as myself. I did not know there was a caveat lodged against No. 3 till yesterday. I want to amend my petition to that extent. This block of land the Government never paid a sixpence on, or interfered with at all. I have accidentally omitted to put in No. 3 in my petition. 50. Tiie Chairman.] We cannot alter this petition, but your statement will be taken down by the short-hand writer. 51. Mr. Taiaroa.] Have you paid the duty to the Government on all these blocks ?—Yes ; on all of them. 52. And they accepted it?— Yes ; the Government accepted. 53. Was it the same Government accepted the duty and lodged the caveat?— Yes. 54. Mr. Hobbs.] What was the amount of duty ?—£2Bo odd in one block, and £50 odd in another— ten per cent, on the purchase money. 55. Mr. Taiaroa.] Did any other Natives who were aggrieved at the time request the Government to lodge the caveat against your purchase f —-No. 56. It was not done by the Natives ?—No. 57. Mr. Hamlin.] Are you sure that this proclamation about No. 2 was not included in the block known as Tauwhareparae ?—When I came to look over the boundaries, I find that they take in a portion of it. 58. Was not that the name by which the block was known ?—No. It went through the Court as Waingaromia No. 2. The Natives from whom Wilson purchased claimed to own laud there. Last year, after about a week's trial, my Natives proved their claim, and the others got defeated. 59. Who was the Judge presiding?— Judge Rogan. Mr. Wilson was in the Court, too, looking after the interests of his section of Natives. 60. Are you aware that Wilson was not dispensed with as a Government officer at the date you refer to ?—I don't think so. Friday, 27th September, 1878. Mr. Gill, being in attendance, was examined. 61. The Chairman.] Will you please resume your evidence from that point at which you left off yesterday ?—I now put in a copy of the Gazette containing the notification of intention to purchase the lands Tauwhareparae and Parariki (including Waingaromia No. 2), have examined Gazette, No. 26, March 4, 1876, for public purposes. The Court's order for the Block Waingaromia No. 2is dated the 19th February, 1877, I also hand in the applications received for rehearing this block. The first from Henare Potai and others, received in September, 1876, was referred to the Chief Judge, and returned to Native office in January, 1877. It was again referred in February, and returned in August. These dates have some bearing on the present petition. There is also a second application for a re-hearing, dated the 10th of March, referred to the Chief Judge in April. 62. _Z7te Chairman.] The point, as I understand it, is not when these applications were returned by the Judge, but the period when they were made by the applicants ?—True; but I would draw attention to the date when these applications were returned by the Chief Judge being after the Judge of the Court had given an order that the freehold tenure of the land should vest in Mr. Cooper. 63. Provision is made in the Native Land Court Act for claimants applying for a re-hearing, but is there any provision made for the withdrawal of applications ?—No, not for the withdrawal of applications for a re-hearing. The Government either approves or disapproves. 64. An application for a re-hearing is a valid document in law, but an application for a withdrawal is not a valid document ?—lt is not contemplated by the Act. I have other applications for the re-hear-ing of this block, one from Henare Ruru, dated the 24th June, 1877, also an application from Henare Ruru to the Chief Judge dated July, 1877. 65. I see the Chief Judge has refused a re-hearing, apparently acting on the advice of Judge Rogan ?—Yes. 66. Mr. Rolleston.] Is that subsequent to the request for a withdrawal? —Yes; the request to withdraw the application is dated 25th May. Judge Rogan's minute, read yesterday, is dated 12th July. There is another application for a re-hearing from Henare Ruru, dated 23rd July, 1877 ; also, an application from Ketene Kuhukuhu and others, dated 12th June, 1877. 67. The Chairman.] Does the Chief Judge uniformly refuse to recommend a re-hearing in each of these cases? —Yes. This is a letter from Henare Potai to the Government, dated 3rd May, 1877, withdrawing the application. A similar letter, dated 25th May, 1877, appears to have been sent to Judge Rogan himself. (Letter put in.) 68. This letter you have just put in, asking that his application may be cancelled, may be taken for what it is worth ?—The Government have not decided the question of a re-hearing or otherwise. I would call the attention of the Committee to the 50th section of " The Native Lands Act, 1873," in which the decision of the Court must be published in the Government Gazette. This block, known as Waingaromia No. 2, was gazetted on the 10th of April, in terms of the section of the Act referred to, with the names of the intended grantees.

I.—3a,

6

69. Was this inquiry held at this date, December, 1876. The order of the Court is dated 19th February, 1877, and should agree with the Gazette notice. On the question of re-hearing, the 58th section of the Act fixes the limit to which an application for a re-hearing can be entertained —namely, six months from the date of publication in the Gazette. So that the applications for a re-hearing would hold good up to the 16th of October. All the applications for a re-hearing were received before that date. On the 28th June, 1877, the Judge gave an order in which the freehold teuure of this land should vest in Mr. Cooper from the 28th of June, 1877, and this was during the time that the question of a re-hearing was pending. The issue of that certificate led to the order being placed upon the provisional register of the district in which the land was situate, under the 10th section of the Land Transfer Act. The 12th section of the Act reads;—lf the Governor in Council shall annul any such order by ordering a re-hearing, all entries on the provisional register shall be cancelled. 70. Does this mean it shall be absolutely cancelled ?—I understand that to be so. On the Native Office becoming aware of this document being registered, steps were taken to lodge a caveat to protect the Crown's interests, and a caveat was lodged. 71. The caveat was lodged on the advice of Mr. Reid?—Yes. I next call attention to the deed between the Natives and Cooper, in which he claims the right to this land. It is dated the 9th of January, 1877, some time before the Court's order was given for the land to vest in those Natives. 72. The order was made subsequently to the date of this agreement ?—Exactly. 73. Has it been made to antedate in this case ?—I am not aware of it. 74. The terms of this conveyance appear to be in the usual form?— Yes. I would call the Committee's attention to the 87th section of " The Native Lands Act of 1873 ;" I will now put in the documents on which Mr. Wilson entered into negotiations for first the lease and afterwards the purchase of this land. The agreement to lease is dated 30th January, 1875, and for the purchase 23rd November, 1875. 75. Were these Natives the real owners of the land ?—No ; but at that time the land had not been through the Court, and the owners were not known. 76. The Natives from whom the Government made a purchase appear not to have been the real owners ?—The Court so decided. Hence the question of re-hearing. 77. Then, Mr. Gill, in reference to the lease and the purchase, if they were not made with the real owners, of what value are the transactions?— The land is proclaimed under the 42nd section of the Immigration and Public Works Act as land required for public purposes. 78. Mr. Rolleston.] Do you think it therefore immaterial whether the negotiations have been made with the real owners?—l will not go the length of saying that. Everything that could be done was done at the time. The intention of the Government was to acquire the land. 79. Tiie Cliairman.] It was a real attempt on the part of the Government to possess themselves of this land?— That is all I wish to shew. The blocks known as Tauwhareparae and Parariki is land for which the Government have advanced to the Natives on account of purchase £2880, and survey and other expenses amounting to £580. That is not intended only for this Waingaromea No. 2, but for land in which Waingaromia No. 2 is included. 80. What proportion does that No. 2 form to the whole ? —28,745 acres out of 74,000. 81. Mr. Rolleston.] The applications for a re-hearing have been referred to the Chief Judge, I understand ?—Yes. 82. And I understand that he has advised that a re-hearing ought not to be granted ?—Yes. 83. The Chairman.] How far do the Government attach weight to such a recommendation of the Chief Judge ?—lt is a question that I can scarcely answer. 84. Do you know of any cases where a re-hearing has been granted contrary to the expressed opinion ofthe Chief Judge?—l am not prepared to say now, but will be at the next sitting ofthe Committee 85. Do you know how the applications for a re-hearing came to be made? At whose instance they were made?—l have no knowlege, further than their being received in the office. 86. Were they spontaneous ?—The office knows no more than having received them. 87. You have no reason to believe they were anything but spontaneous ?—None at all. 88. I understand that most of your evidence has reference to Waingaromia No. 2 ?—Yes. 89. In what position does No. 3 stand ? Is there any proclamation respecting this No. 3 in the Gazette dated January, 1878?— Yes. Waingaromia No. 3 is part of the block known as Waihora, notified as land required for public purposes in Gazette No. 20, May 4, 1876. Mr. Wilson entered into an agreement to purchase this land, about 16,400 acres, in June, 1875, on behalf of the Government. 90. Mr. Rolleston.] Please show me the provision in the Act under which the Court assigns to Mr. Cooper this order, saying that the ownership vests in him on the 20th of June?— Section 61 bears on this, but no memorial of ownership has been issued for the land. 91. Hon. Mr. Nahe.] Has the memorial of ownership ever been issued for this land ?—No; it has not been issued. 92. The Chairman.] The order of the Court has issued for the memorial of ownership ?—Yes. 93. Is it usual to go a step further, and issue the memorial of ownership ?—Not while the decision for re-hearing is pending. 94. In cases where there is no such decision pending, is the memorial of ownership issued ?—lt would follow in the usual course, seven months after the day of hearing. 95. Have any such memorials of ownership actually been issued ?—Several. Monday, 30th September, 1878. 96. Hon. Mr. NaJie.] Have you any other evidence to give with respect to block No. 2 ?—I have confined my evidence to No. 2. The Government had purchased interests in block No. 3 from the grantees. Two of the grantees in this block have assigned their interest to the Crown. In January and February, 1875, Mr. Wilson, as Land Purchase Officer, entered into an agreement for the purchase of three blocks—namely, Ngatawakawaka, Natatuotonga, and Puremungahua. I hand in the three agreements for the purchase of these blocks.

7

I.—3a,

97. Have you got the orders passing this land through the Court ?—Yes; I have got copies of the orders. [Orders handed in.] After the arrangements for the purchase of these lands were made, Mr. Wilson made advances upon them to the Natives to the amount of £60, when the preliminary agreements were entered into. The Survey Department were moved to survey the land, and surveyed it at a cost to the Government of £97 17s. On the 18th November, 1876, the lands were notified as lands required for public purposes, under the Immigration and Public Works Act. In July, 1876, the cases came before the Court at Tologa Bay, Judge Rogan being the presiding Judge. Mr. Wilson was not present at the sitting of the Court. After the lands had been through the Court, the question arose as to the Government officer not being present to pay any money upon them, or to complete the purchase ; and Cooper, who was present, arranged with the Natives to sell the lands to him. He had deeds prepared, and the signatures were witnessed by Mr. Campbell, Resident Magistrate, and Mr. Ferris, as interpreter. I may say that these three blocks of land were the subject of inquiry at the Commission that sat at Gisborne to investigate the charges which Mr. Wilson made. Judge Rogan, in his evidence (which was given on oath), refers specially to these three blocks of land. On the Native Office becoming aware of these orders being endorsed to Mr. Cooper, steps were ordered to lodge a caveat against further dealings with the land. It was done. The instructions were given by the then Minister for Lands, Mr. Donald Reid, and the lands have been locked up ever since. I would also point out to the Committee that there are several minors in the orders assigned to Mr. Cooper, and the Native Lands Act of 1873 is very particular in dealing with the property of minors. 98. The Cliairman.] What is the total number of names, and the total number of minors ?—ln the Ngatawakawaka Block there are eleven grantees, six of whom are minors ; in the Puremungahua Block there are twelve grantees, two of whom are minors. 99. Hon. Mr. Nahe.] Have any trustees been appointed by the minors?— No. 100. Why have they not been appointed ?—No applications for the appointment of trustees have been received. 101. Have any of these people died?—l cannot say. 102. Is not the law compulsory on the point of recommendation as to the appointment of trustees for minors?— The Committee have the Act before them. I would rather not give an opinion on that point. I would only further say upon this matter that the Government have paid £284 of public money for these three small blocks of land. 103. How is it that the Court has not made a recommendation to the Government for the appointment of trustees in these three cases ?—I cannot say. It may be one reason why the Judge has not been moved to recommend trustees, that the Government have lodged a caveat against further dealing with the law. 104. How is it that these lands have been specially exempted from the operation of the law ? In other cases, trustees have been appointed for minors. How is it that these three blocks are exempted ?— I cannot say. It may be the reason : that the Government have directed that no further dealings with the lands shall take place. 105. Do you think that it a re-hearing between Cooper and the Government had been granted these difficulties would have continued or been wiped away ? —I cannot say. 106. Do you think that if a re-hearing had been granted these troubles would have continued, or that matters would have been cleared up ?—I cannot express an opinion in the matter. They might be. 107. You have already said that no memorial has issued for Waingaromia No. 2. How do the others stand ?—The Government have stopped action in these three blocks. It was done under caveat. 108. Mr. Tawhiti.] Who are the Natives who sold to the Government in the first instance ?— There was a lease in the first instance. 109. Who were the people who sold or leased to Cooper, whichever it was ?—I only know they are named in the deed. 110. Henare Potai did not sell to Cooper?—Henare Potai is not a grantee for Waingaromia No. 2. 111. When the judgment was given, who got the land, Cooper's men or the Government men?—l have no knowledge of the men Cooper dealt with outside his deed of purchase, and his deed is signed by the grantees. 112. Tlis Chairman.] You state that £200 odd were paid in respect of several blocks ?—Yes. 113. Was that included in the larger sum of £4100?— No; tbere were certain preliminary deeds of purchase. 114. With respect to this £200 odd, was that paid to the rightful owners?— Yes. 115. Was that £4100 odd paid to the rightful owners ?—That lam not prepared to say. I don't know how the money is divided. Here is £600 paid in one sum. No doubt that money would be distributed. Henare Potai signed the receipt for it 116. And he was found not to be owner of No. 2 ?—Yes ; the receipts are all here. 117. You stated that when the Court sat Mr. Wilson was not present to make payments on behalf of the Government, and the Maoris were disappointed ?—lt appears so. 118. Is there any special reason for his absence?— Yes; he assigned a reason, which will be found in the evidence, that he had to visit Wellington for the purpose of getting funds, and that the money he had tendered for the purchase of those blocks did not arrive at Gisborne until the day or the day after the lands had passed the Court. That is the reason he assigned himself. 119. And I understand you to say that Cooper told the Maoris that he would take the place of the Government, and make the purchase instead of them ?—I was not present, but the evidence given by Judge Rogan himself would be conclusive, I think, on that matter. 120. How would this have come to the knowledge of Judge Rogan ? Was it done in open Court, or how ?—He states in his evidence that Cooper came to him, and asked him to endorse the deed or witness the signatures. 121. That would so far account for the deed having been made after the decision, but previous to the order of the Court?—lt has been explained in this manner : that the Judge, in his minute book, entered it on the 20th, and afterwards a copy was made on the back of the order signed by the Judge. It may be that the Judge did not sign the memorial until the 21st.

8

I.—3a,

122. Hon. Mr. Nahe.] Did Mr. Wilson tell the Maoris that the Government did not wish to proceed further with the purchase of the land ?—I think not. I never heard it. On the contrary, Mr. Wilson was determined, as far as his evidence goes at Gisborne, to carry it on. As a fact, one of the Natives, who signed to Cooper afterwards, received money from Wilson. 123. Did the Government refuse to provide him with the necessary funds to purchase these blocks ?—No. 124. Didn't that induce Mr. Wilson to say that the Government did not intend to proceed further ? —I am not aware he ever did so ; on the contrary. 125. Mr. Rolleston.] What formal steps did the department take to bring under the notice of the Judge the proclamation of the Government declaring that these lands were under negotiation? Did the department take steps?— They did not. 126. Was there any official notification to the Judge in Court that the lands were under negotiation?—No, sir. 127. As a matter of practice, ought there not to have been ?—There was not, in the first instance. 128. How can you understand Judge Rogan not being aware of it, and making the orders he did ?—I cannot account for it. All Gazettes are furnished to the Judges, and all public notices are intended to be seen by all concerned. 129. As a matter of practice, when there is a proclamation of this kind, ought not the department to serve notice of its existence on the Judge ?—The department did not in this instance. 130. Mr. Ormond?] Is it not the duty of the District Land Purchaser to watch the proceedings in Court in the interests of the Government ?—Yes, but unfortunately he was not present on this case. Captain Porter was deputed as Mr. Locke's deputy. 131. The Cliairman.] The formal notice was given in the Gazette, but special means were not taken to acquaint the Judge at the time ?—That is the fact. Henare Potae examined. 132. The Cliairman.] Have you seen the petition of Mr. Cooper to the House?—No; I have not seen it. [Petition interpreted to witness.] 133. Do you remember the sitting of the Native Land Court where this matter was adjudicated upon ?—Yes ; I know the circumstances of the petition, and 1 remember the sitting of the Native Land Court. 134. Were you present ?—I was. Who would be absent when his land claims were to be investigated ? 135. Were you satisfied with the decision the Court arrived at at that time?— The decision of the Court was just towards the people whose title it thought to be just. No one interfered with the decision or objected to it. 136. Were you satisfied with the decision as regards yourself? Yes; there was no trouble caused in Court about it. 137. We have it in evidence that you applied for a re-hearing. Why did you apply for a re-hearing if you were satisfied with the decision of the Court ?—I am speaking of the petition generally. My objection was to Waingaromia No. 2 alone. 138. Was your application in respect to this Waingaromia No. 2 alone?— Yes 139. Why were you dissatisfied with the decision of the Court as respects that block ?—I considered that the land belonged to me. It was because I was friendly to Mr. Wilson that the land was adjudged to my opponents—it was because I was friendly with Mr. Wilson that Judge Rogan decided against me in all my cases. 140. Then you think he decided unjustly as respects that block ?—Yes. 141. You thereupon applied for a re-heaiing, so as to get a just judgment?— Yes. 142. But it appears also from evidence that you subsequently withdrew that application for a re-hearing ? Is that so I —-I was bought by Cooper with money ; I won't conceal the fact. 143. What do you mean by that ?—He gave me £50 to withdraw the application. This is as to Waingaromia No. 2. He gave each of the signers £23 and me £50. 144. Then you withdrew the application for a re-hearing, not because you were satisfied with the decision of the Court, but because Cooper paid you money to withdraw ?—Yes; £50 was my price. 145. Did that application for a rehearing and subsequent withdrawal affect the interests of other people as well as yourself ?—Yes; it affected the interests of all our hapu. The interests of many others were prejudiced by it. 146. Then you not only sold your own interest, but the interests of other people, for this £50?— 1 did not bother myself about the hapu. I only troubled myself about myself. 147. Were your interests in this block of land, No. 2, greater than £50, or did the £50 fairly represent that interest ?—I did not go into that question. He simply offered me the money and I took it. 148. Hon. Mr. Sheehan.] Was the decision given adverse not only to yourself but to your people ?— The decision was adverse to myself and to my hapu also. 149. Was this Waingaromia No. 2 not part of the larger block called Tauwhareparae ?—There is 5000 acres of Tauwhareparae in Waingaromia No. 2. 150. It was the Tauwhareparae Block that you and your people were negotiating to the Government ?—Yes ; also, Waingaromia No. 2 and Tuakau. 151. Didn't the Court give you to understand that the block and the smaller blocks would not be taken until Tauwhareparae was ready for investigation?— The Judge of the Court said in his seat on the bench to me —" I will give no decision in the case of Waingaromia No. 2 and Tuakau until the Tauwhareparae case is investigated." 152. Do you know why the Court didn't abide by that determination ? —lt is because Mr. Wilson and Mr. Rogan got into hot water with each other, and some of your European tilcanga led to this. 153. What notice had you of this change of front on the part of the Judge?—Mr. Rogan and Mr. Wilson were at enmity. There was mutual recrimination. Mr. Rogan at this time was at Nukutauru,

9

I.—3a.

and he went to Tologa Bay and gave a decision in the cases of Tuakau and Waingaromia No. 2. These were the cases he said he would not give a decision upon until Tauwhareparae was settled. Tauwhareparae is not through the Court yet. 154. Did you know that judgment was going to be given there on those two cases?—l was not aware of it. It was because I sided with Wilson that he (Judge Rogan) gave the decision. If I had been friendly with him, he would have given it in my favor. Because I was friendly with Wilson he give his decision upon it. That was my only crime—being friendly with Wilson. 155. When Cooper asked you to withdraw the re-hearing application, and you made the noblehearted sacrifice of your people, did Cooper use any argument why you should withdraw the application for a re-hearing and take £50 ?—He said, " Here's the money ; sign the document withdrawing your application for a re-hearing." He was dealing with me My hand was the strongest to write, and my head the strongest to think. 156. That is the reason why you did not go to the other people?—l looked upon the £50 as my own, and I " collared "it for myself. The coat that was given to me I put on. 157. But you did not consult with the rest of the people about it?— Why should I go to the hapu ? If a woman offered herself to me, I should not consult the other people. 158. Then you received the £50 and withdrew the application for a re-hearing without reference to the hapu ?—lt was not offered to me for the whole hapu. It was given to me for myself. 159. But the people had rights in themselves for these blocks ?—Yes. 160. Did you make the application for a re-hearing on behalf of yourself and your people when it was first made ?—I made it on behalf of myself aud all the others, but the money was for me alone. 161. In withdrawing, did you withdraw for yourself only or for yourself and the whole of the hapu ?—I won't say that; I will say because it was my hand that was the strongest to write ;it was my own act. 162. You have told us that Cooper paid you the money for yourself. Did you understand that you were withdrawing your own personal right of a re-hearing, or that you were acting on behalf of the whole of the hapu?—-The Government have the application for a re-hearing, and have delayed granting it. I did not sign that application for a re-hearing ; my child did. I was frightened of Cooper, and that is why I didn't sign it. 163. Is it the second application for a re-hearing you are referring to?— The other was from thirty persons or more, perhaps. 164. Did you, in accepting the £50, abandon your own right to a re-hearing, or forfeit the rights of yourself and your people to the land for the £50 ?—lt was for my own interest only. 165. Did you know at that time that there were other applications for a re-hearing in or being sent in ?—I knew that there was another application for a re-hearing sent in besides my own. There were a lot of our people who sent in, and you have got the application now. 166. Did Mr. Cooper, in asking you to withdraw this application, appeal to your ancient friendship ?—That was it. He said, " Will you stop making any further application for a re-hearing, and shew your love for me ?" . 167. You have told us about the judgment being given at Tologa Bay?— The Court heard the Waingaromia case at Poverty Bay. 168. You told us that the Court gave judgment iv these two cases at Poverty Bay without your knowledge?— Yes; I was not there. 169. How soon was it after that tbat Mr. Cooper came to you to ask you to withdraw the application ?—About a month afterwards, 1 think. 170. The Chairman?] Where were you at that time?—l was at Tokomaru, and Cooper was at Poverty Bay, and when he saw my application he sent me a letter. He said, " Friend, withdraw your application for a re-hearing, and I will pay you £50. That is all." 171. Did you meet him afterwards and receive the money?— The £50 was sent to me by post. I think I have made the thing pretty clear. 172. Hon. Mr. Nahe.] If the decision had been in your favor, would all your hapu have gone in a* well ?—The decision would have been in favor of myself and hapu, as the land bslonged to us. 173. Who is the chief of your hapu ?—-I am. 174. It is the duty of the chief to conduct the affairs of his hapu, isn't it ?—Yes. 175. When you signed the application for a re-hearing, was it for yourself alone or for the whole of your hapu?—lt was for the whole of the hapu. 176. And was the withdrawal on the same basis?— The £50 was for myself. 177. I only want to know about your application for a withdrawal ?—My application for withdrawal was not on behalf of the whole of the hapu. It was for my own interest. 178. Did you tell your hapu that you had applied for a re-hearing?— Yes. 179. Did you tell the hapu that you were going to withdraw the application ?—I didn't tell the bapu. 180. Mr. Tawhiti.] Were the two applications —one for your tribe and one for yourself —generally made known to the people?—l consider that I, as a chief, have the sole right to conduct the affair as regards our land. 181. You say there is an application for yourself and a withdrawal from yourself. Where does the second application emanate from ?—I withdrew in my own interest, and I was paid for it. I didn't take the money for the whole of the hapu. 182. The Chairman.] How came you to make the original application for a re-hearing? Was it of your own accord or at the suggestion of some other person?—lt was my own doing. 183. You didn't get paid £50 or anything for making that application for re-hearing?—No ; I was not paid for that. I was paid for withdrawing it. Mr. Gill, being in attendance, was examined. 184. The Cliairman.] I think it will be more convenient if you will make a statement in the first place on the subject matter of this petition ?—Perhaps if I give you the position of the blocks as they

I—3a.

10

stand at present it will be of use to the Committee. Each of these blocks has its own particular bearings. 185. I may say that the petitioner has accidentally omitted to include No. 3. He wished to amend bis petition, but as that could not be done, the Committee allowed the correction to be taken down by the reporter?—l am not aware that the Government have any interest in Waingaromia No. 1, but they have in No. 2 and No. 3. With regard to No- 2, a great deal of matter in reference to this petition of Mr. Cooper's will be found embodied in a return ordered by the House of Representatives last year. The matter was the subject of an inquiry, and was printed. There was also a petition before the Legislative Council last session, which was printed. They give a large amount of information about this dispute. 186. Just indicate in your evidence where they are to be found?—ln G. No. 5, Parliamentary Papers, 1877, Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives; and Paper No. 2, 1877, Journals of the Legislative Council. Mr Wilson, in 1875, entered into negotiations for the purchase of blocks of lands known as Tauwhareparae and Parariki, and in October, 1875, made an application for the hearing of the block before the Native Land Court. Included in these blocks land under negotiation for purchase by Cooper, called by him Waingaromia No. 2. The land came before the Court on Cooper's application, was heard, and ownership decided by the Court. The larger blocks of land, known as Tauwhareparae and Parariki, have not yet been heard. 187. Was heard before the Court when ?—ln December, 1876. There is an order of Waingaromia No. _ signed by the Judge, 19th February, 1877. 188. Will you please proceed to state the result of the hearing?— Monies had been paid upon the larger blocks, including Waingaromia No. 2. 189. Paid by whom?—By Mr. Wilson, on behalf of the Government. The blocks known as Tauwhareparae and Parariki were gazetted on May 4, 1876, under the 42nd section of "The Immigration and Public Works Act, 1871," as land required for public purposes. The boundaries of these blocks include the land that passed the Court as Waingaromia No. 2. After the land (Waingaromia No. 2) passed through the Court, applications were made for a re-hearing. It first came in in 1876, an application from Henare Potai and others. The second application came in in March, 1877, and a third came in in August, 1877. 190. All from tbe same parties?—No ; the one in August, 1877, came in from Henare Ruru. The applications were referred to the Chief Judge of the Court, and the decision as to the re-hearing is still pending. 191. These applications were all made within the time prescribed by the Act?— Yes; Henare Potai wrote subsequently withdrawing his application. He also wrote to Mr. Judge Rogan, withdrawing the application. I see Mr. Rogan minuted the application to the Chief Judge as follows: — " Mr. Fenton. "I have been asked by Te Potai to retain this reference for a time and not to advise a re-hearing which I was prepared to do. As it is, he has himself withdrawn his application. "(Signed) J. Rooan." 12th July, 1877. Mr. Locke, being in attendance, was examined. 192. The Chairman.] Can you explain to the Committee how this matter stands. lam told you know a great deal about this subject?—-The only evidence I can give is the same evidence I gave before the Poverty Bay Commission two years ago, which will be in the Parliamentary Papers, " Land Purchases in Poverty Bay, G. 5, 1877," Appendix to the Journals House of Representatives. The whole of my evidence and of my memos on the question of how this dispute arose is in the Parliamentary Papers of 1877. I fancy that Mr. Gill has got them with his papers. 193. Could you explain generally to the Committee how it stands. It is desirable we should get some general statement down upon our evidence?—l think in 1873 or 1874 Mr. Cooper asked me if I would allow certain surveys to be made in the Poverty Bay district of lands he was about purchasing; and I remember iv the first instance 1 had not been appointed District Officer under " New Zealand Act, 1873," but was informed by Sir Donald M'Lean that I should receive tbe appointment of District Officer for the district. I informed Mr. Cooper that I would not object to the surveys being made; after I received the appointment I consented that these surveys should be gone on with. Shortly after this Mr. Wilson was appointed as Land Purchase Officer in the Poverty Bay district, and he also sent surveyors on the same laud to have it surveyed. Mr. Cooper was dealing with the land under the name of Waingaromia ; Mr. Wilson purchasing or dealing with the natives for the same land under the name of Parariki. This makes some little difference in the matter. Cooper was dealing with a party of natives headed by an old man, now dead, called Pita Huhu, and Wilson was dealing with another party of natives residing at Tologa Bay. The two surveys were going on about the same time. I think Cooper's was ahead of Wilson's, as far as I remember. A dispute arose in reference to the overlapping of these boundaries—one block overlapping the other—-Cooper dealing with one party of natives and Wilson with another. There was a dispute between the two hapus about the exact boundaries. 194. They were not exactly the same blocks, but they overlapped each other?— One did not include all the other. It was a tribal dispute about boundaries, and therefore they did not agree. The question was then referred to me, and I suggested that both surveys should be allowed to go on, that both parties should survey their boundaries, and that the whole matter should be brought before the Native Land Court, on a plan showing distinctly the disputed boundaries, and that the whole matter should be decided in a quiet way before the Native Land Court Judge. That is as far as I had to do with the commencement of this dispute. When the Court sat Cooper had his surveys ready, and applications for hearing gazetted, which was a great point. Wilson had not got his ready, nor his applications in the Gazette. Therefore it could not be gone on with ; Cooper by that means getting the lead. Wilson's block could not be called on, because it was not in the Gazette. That was how Cooper, to some extent, got the lead. I considered that the Government Land Purchase Officer ought to have got his application in the Gazette, so that both could be heard at the same time; but there was neglect somewhere on bis part, and Cooper's only was called on for hearing as described in my evidence. 195. Could he not have stayed the judgment of the Court by explaining it?—lt was explained, and

11

L—3a,

the case was adjourned for many months afterwards. Then, if I remember right, the question was brought into Court in Poverty Bay and adjourned to be heard in Tologa Bay, so as to give Wilson time to get up his case and to favor his natives. It was afterwards heard there, and finally settled by Judge Rogan. I was not present at the Tologa Bay Court, and don't know what happened there, except from heresay. 196. Mr. Ormond.] Had Wilson his case in the Gazette at Tologa Bay?—No; not even at Tologa Bay. 197. Were his surreys completed then?—l don't know ; I was not at the Tologa Bay Court, that is, to give any evidence. Captain Porter acted for me; I could not be present through sickness in my house. I had a great deal of sickness in my house at that time; one child died, and I could not get up there. 198. The Chairman.] There seems to be a tacit consent on the part of the Government to Cooper acquiring this land, except so far as the Government survey overlapped. Is that so? There was at least no objection?—Mr. Cooper's land overlaps all the Government land, but there is a portion of the Government land which Mr. Cooper does not lay claim to. No, just the contrary. 199. Then the Government claim the whole of Cooper's block, although Cooper does not claim the whole of the Government block ?—Exactly. 200. How far had these Government negotiations gone ? What amount of money had been paid ?— That 1 should like you to ask Mr. Gill to state. It will appear in the proceedings of the Commission. 201. Did it appear from the inquiry at the Court that the Government had been purchasing from the right people?—No; Mr. Cooper had been dealing almost entirely with the right people; the Government principally with the wrong people. Some of the Natives whom Wilson dealt with were the right people, but the leading people were the people with whom Cooper was dealing. 202. That, in fact, was the result of the inquiry before the Court ?—Yes ; that will be shewn in the printed Parliamentary Papers I refer to. Pita te Huhu was the principal man, and the man Cooper was dealing with. 203. Mr. Carrington.] Who was the first to negotiate ?—Cooper was the first in the field. He was in the field some time in the end of 1873 or beginning of 1874. 204. Mr. Rolleston. j Was that before the Government had the power of putting iv this prevention of sale ?—No ; I think that power was given under " The Public Works Act of 1871," 42nd clause. 205. Why didn't the Government then prevent the thing going on, except as a purchase by themselves?— They did not put in the proclamation, I think, until 1875 or 1876. 206. They were aware, through their officers, that this transaction was going on with another person ?—Yes. 207. Was not the ordinary course to interfere then ?—That might have been the better plan, and to give the Judge official notice, but there were objections at the time to that course. 208. Is it a fair thing to abstain from interference then, and come down afterwards and oppose ?—I don't think it was a fair thing; the case stood on its merits. 209. Mr. Carrington.] When Mr. Cooper commenced, was it before the Government or after?—He was in the field before. 210. And had arranged to make the purchase of a certain block of land?— Yes, to deal; whether leasing or purchasing 1 don't know. He had arranged to make the survey before the Government interfered. 211. Mr. Rolleston.] The Government did consent, as 1 understand, to leave it to the decision of the Court as to who had the right men ?—That was the understanding. 212. That the land should go to those who had got the right men ?—That was the sort of tacit understanding—that whoever had the right men would get the land. My own feeling was this—that the Government could have got the land, but there was a sort of notion that they could get it by Act of Parliament, instead of going to the Natives and dealing with them as they would with any other person. I don't say that all Cooper's dealings are right by a long way, but 1 am merely making a statement of how the matter stands in this case, and he certainly dealt with the right people iv this matter. 213. Hon. Mr. Nalie.] Who was it that put in a claim for this land before the Court?— Pita te Huhu. 214. Who were the opponents? —The Tologa Bay people. 215. And which party got the land?— Pita te Huhu. 216. If the other party had got it, who would have been the parties to whom they would have sold?— The Government. 217. Who got the land ?—Pita te Huhu, who was selling to Cooper. 218. How is it that Cooper's operations were interfered with ?—Until the case was tried before the Court we could not tell who were the real owners. 219. Mr Rolleston. | When was the proclamation issued which is referred to in this caveat?—l think some time in 1876. lam speaking now entirely from memory. 220. The proclamation was before the completion of the purchase ?—Yes. 221. The Chairman.] You stated that evidence in connection with this matter had been published in a Parliamentary Paper. In what connection did you give that evidence ?—There was a commission appointed to investigate the charges made by Mr. Wilson against Judge Rogan and myself. Dr. Giles and Major Brown were the commission, which sat in foverty Bay in 1876. There was also a committee ofthe Upper House last year on Wilson's petition to the Upper House (Petition of J. A. Wilson, J. 2, 1877, Journals Legislative Council). That I have never read, but it is in print. 222. It was not upon any matter raised by Cooper ?—No; it was entirely on Wilson's letter to the Government, laying charges on Mr. Rogan and myself. 223. Mr. Hobbs.] Is Wilson's evidence in the Parliamentary Papers?— Yes. Judge Rogan's also, and two or three other persons evidence, and my own.