THE TAUPON-UIATIA BLOCK (REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO CERTAIN MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THE HEARING OF).

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1889 Session I, G-07

G.—7

1889. NEW ZEALAND.

THE TAUPON-UIATIA BLOCK (REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO CERTAIN MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THE HEARING OF).

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

To His Excellency the Govbenob of New Zealand, &c. We, the undersigned, appointed by a Commission, dated the 9th day of July, 1889, under the hand of the Governor, and sealed with the Public Seal of the Colony, to inquire into certain matters connected with the hearing by the Native Land Court of the block of Native land called Tauponuiatia, respectfully submit for your Excellency's consideration the following report of our proceedings:— We held our sittings at Kihikihi, as being the most convenient place for all parties concerned, and the meeting was attended by a large number of the Ngatimaniapoto Tribe, and by several of the principal chiefs of the Ngatituwharetoa, from Taupo. We sat on seventeen days, and examined, in. all, twenty-six witnesses, whose evidence is recorded on two hundred and twenty-four pages of foolscap, which, with various exhibits, are transmitted with this report. Much of the Native evidence given on both sides has been very conflicting, and often at variance with what had been previously sworn before the Native Land Court; and we have found it very difficult to determine which is the most reliable. We had the records of the Native Land Court before us, to which access was also given to all interested parties, who freely made use of them, and we permitted the utmost latitude in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and refused no evidence that was tendered to us. We decided not to allow Europeans to conduct the cases, making an exception, however, in Karawhira Kapu's case, which was conducted by her husband, Mr. Moon, and defended by Mr. W. H. Grace, he being the person chiefly interested on the other side. We believe that this decision gave general satisfaction to the Natives. In summing up the evidence taken on the difierent issues remitted to us for consideration, we have referred to such points only as, in our opinion, are material to the issue, or to such as would lead to a clear apprehension of the case. Issue No. 1. The first question referred to us by the Commission is as follows : " Whether the boundary of the said block of land called Tauponuiatia, as delineated on the said plan, and thereon coloured red, is the correct boundary thereof, or whether the said boundary is correctly delineated by the line coloured yellow on the said plan, or whether the correct boundary would be properly defined by an intermediate line between the said lines coloured red and yellow." This is a question respecting the proper position of the boundary dividing the lands of the Ngatimaniapoto and Ngatituwharetoa (Taupo) Tribes. In 1882 and 1883 many meetings of representatives of these two, and of the Whanganui, Ngatihikairo, and Ngatiraukawa Tribes were held, at which it was ultimately resolved to fix the outside boundary, or Eohepotae, of the King-country to include all the lands of four of the tribes, and a large part of those of the fifth, Ngatituwharetoa ; and we were informed that Mr. Bryce, then Native Minister, after this had been settled, agreed that, if they wished it, the block should be surveyed and investigated as a whole. On the 31st October, 1885, the Ngatituwharetoa sent in a claim to the Native Land Court for the investigation of title to the land included within their Eohepotae, comprising a portion of the original block, and all their other lands, and setting forth their boundaries ; and it was duly notified that a Court w r ould sit for the hearing of this claim. The Court accordingly commenced its sittings on the 14th January, 1886, at Taupo, and, in consequence of objections made out of Court by some of the Ngatimaniapoto, Te Heuheu, on the part of Ngatituwharetoa, agreed to withdraw their western boundary further eastward; and on the 16th January he announced in Court the altered boundary, as claimed by the Ngatituwharetoa, and gave the names of places along the line, part of which ran along the western slopes of the Hurakia Range, and which names were marked and the line drawn on the map before the Court by one of the surveyors.

I— G. 7.

G.—7

2

Eleven counter-claims were set up on that day—four of them by members of the Ngatimaniapoto, who said that they had been elected to represent the tribe, but who appear to have made their claims on personal grounds only. On explanations and concessions being made by Te Heuheu all these counter-claims were withdrawn. Taonui, who asserts that he alone was the chosen representative of the whole tribe, had been detained at Cambridge by subpfjena from the Eesident Magistrate's Court, and did not arrive at Taupo until the evening of the 18th January, when he was informed by the other members of his tribe that the boundary-line had been settled. He had a meeting with Te Heuheu before the opening of the Court on the 19th, and endeavoured to induce him to stop the hearing of the case, but Te Heuheu refused to consent to this, and Taonui, whose principal object was to prevent the sitting of the Court at all, appears to have taken but little interest at this time in the boundaryline. Imagining that the boundary question had been settled, he made no objection, as he might have done, to its adoption before the 22nd January, when, there being no opposition, the Court gave judgment for the red line, as delineated on the map referred to in the Commission and attached to this report, which line was subsequently surveyed by Mr. Cussen. A further objection was made by Taonui to the sitting of the Court a few days afterwards, and again on the 27th March, 1886, when the Court was proceeding to hear the Maraeroa Block, which is in the disputed territory; and he urged the Court's adjournment, stating that the hearing of Tauponuiatia was a violation of the promise made by Mr. B r y co - Major Scannell, one of the Judges at the hearing of Tauponuiatia, who was examined by the Commission, states that the presiding Judge, Mr. Brookfield, explained the altered line to Taonui on the 19th January ; and that the latter then only objected to Petania, which place proved to be on his own side of the boundary, and that he made no further opposition to the line, but protested against the sitting of the Court at all. Taonui and other witnesses on his side assert that they were told by the Court that the red line, or altered boundary, ran along the summit of the Hurakia Eange. Major Scannell said that the range was not mentioned till the hearing of Maraeroa; but he himself was mistaken as to the position of that range, which was very faintly delineated on the Court map, and imagined, that a part of it formed the northern portion of the western boundary of Maraeroa; and it was only when he saw Mr. Cussen's surveyed map, which was before the Commission, that he became aware of its true direction. Taonui asserted that the yellow line was laid down as the Ngatimaniapoto boundary by Eereahu and three others of his ancestors eleven generations ago, and gave the names of the hills and places along it. On the other hand, Papanui, on the part of Ngatiutwharetoa, swore that the red line was laid down by their ancestors, Tia and Tuwharetoa, fifteen generations ago, but could not specify any of their names. This last statement is the least worthy of credence for their boundary, as given in their first application was in a different position, further west. They endeavoured to show, by tracing No. 2, that Taonui had also varied his boundary since he applied for a rehearing ; but he was then including lands claimed through Eaukawa. And in the tracing the divergences are somewhat exaggerated. There was a great deal of evidence given on both sides to prove that Maoris living between the Pungapunga and Taringamotu Streams (the southern portion of the territory in dispute) belonged to their respective tribes. A great many genealogies were recited, but these mainly proved that those residing there belonged to both sections—in fact, were a mixed race, who could give no exclusive rights to either party. The red line, in the absence of any objection, was necessarily adopted by the Court; but if Taonui had at any time between the 19th and the 22nd January, 1886, when, judgment was given, brought forward his objections to it, as- he might have done, he would probably have obtained at least a partial adoption of his boundary, for there can be no doubt that a mountain-ridge is a proper and natural division between two tribes. He lost this opportunity, for he was stubborn, and chiefly anxious to stop the sitting of the Court; but, taking into consideration that he understood no partial hearing of the original Eohepotae Block would be allowed, and that the map on which the altered boundary was shown to him was indistinct as to the position of the range, also that this was his first appearance at a Native Land Court, and that he was ignorant of its rules and customs, — We find that the portion of the boundary-line between the Ngatimaniapoto and Ngatituwharetoa Tribes which is in dispute should be the red line from its junction with the Pungapunga Stream to Pakihi, which is the commencement of the range, and from thence along the Hurakia Eange or water-shed to Pureora, and from thence to Tapororoa, along the north-eastern boundary of the Maraeroa Block. This line would not include the settlement of Tahorakarewarewa,, which Taonui claims, but which is on the eastern slope, about two miles from the ridge and about ten miles from Lake Taupo. Issue No. 2. The second question remitted for the finding of the Commission was, " Whether the Native chief Hitiri te Paerata had suffered any injustice in consequence of his claim to a block of land known as Pouakani having, in consequence of some misapprehension, been unsatisfactorily dealt with, and whether he or his people have any just cause of complaint in relation thereto." Hitiri te Paerata's complaint may be stated under the following heads: — 2a. That he was prevented by his absence in Cambridge, at the opening of the Native Land Court at Taupo, from setting up Eaukawa as one of the ancestors through whom he claimed interests within Tauponuiatia, in addition to Tia and Tuwharetoa.

G.—7

3

2b. That the Native Land Court had declared that the Ngatiwairangi, named as one of the eighteen hapus owning the Tauponuiatia West Block, was Ngatiwairangi-Parewhete, and that the Ngatiwairangi, to whom the Pouakani Block —a part of the said Tauponuiatia West Block —was awarded by the Court, did not belong to that section of the hapu. 2c. That the hapus Ngati te Kohera and Ngatiparekawa, whom he had set up in his counterclaim as having an interest in Pouakani, as well as the Ngatiwairangi, Ngatimoe, and Ngatikorotuohu, set up by the claimants, were wrongfully rejected by the Native Land Court from the main portions:of that block. 2d. That his personal claim to be included as an owner in Pouakani was also wrongfully rejected by the Court. 2b. That Mr. W. H. Grace, the Government Land Purchase Agent, improperly interfered in the Court, and actively and openly supported the parties opposing him and his people in the abovementioned claims. 2a. With regard to No. 2a, Hitiri showed that, owing to his absence at Cambridge attending the Eesident Magistrate's Court, he had not been in time to bring forward the Eaukawa claim before the Native Land Court had decided that Tia and Tuwharetoa only could be ancestors giving title to the Tauponuiatia Block ; but it was proved that during his absence he and his hapu were represented by their leading chief Te Takiwa, and that he had had the opportunity afterwards of bringing forward his claim through Eaukawa when the question of " hapus " was before the Court, and that he and Tini Waata did set up that ancestor ; further, that Tini Waata withdrew his case, admitting that Eaukawa gave no title, and that he (Hitiri) also abandoned his claim, saying that Eaukawa had never set foot on the land, and the Court gave judgment for Tia and Tuwharetoa only, not having been called upon to decide for or against Eaukawa. 2b. To explain No. 2b it should be premised that at the fixing of hapus in the Pouakani Block by the Native Land Court the claimant, Te Eangikaripiripia, set up three hapus—viz., Ngati Wairangi, Ngati Moe, and Ngati Korotuohu, and Hitiri in setting up a counter claim named the same three hapus, adding Ngati Te Kohera and Ngati Parokawa, without specifying any separate Ngati Wairangi, and afterwards admitted that the first three hapus had a claim. He himself never referred to the distinction, either in his evidence sworn before the Court or in that given before the Commission, nor did he mention it in his application for rehearing, nor in his petition to Parliament. But the point was taken up by another witness, and was forcibly pressed by Pepene, the very clever conductor of Hitiri's case, who had seen it recorded in the books of the Native Laud Court that the Judge had declared that Ngati Wairangi-Parewhote was the "Ngati Wairangi to be included amongst the owners of Tauponuiatia West. It was stated in evidence, and not contradicted, that the affix " Parewhete " was used for the first time at the Taupo Court; and, even assuming that Ngati Wairangi-Parewhote only could claim, we 'are of opinion that Te Eangikaripiripia-, after a variety of complex statements concerning ancestry, conquest, &c, including numerous genealogies, proved descent from Parewhete by the intermarriage of one of his ancestors with a descendant of hers, and we find that his claims were not invalidated by this objection of Hitiri's. 2c With regard to No. 2c, judgment was given by the Native Land Court in favour of Ngati Wairarigi, Ngati Moe, and Ngati Korotuohu, and the claim set up by Hitiri and others for Ngati Te Kohera and Ngati Parekawa was dismissed, as they could not prove occupation, and the Court had decided that occupation as well as descent was necessary, as all the hapus were descended from the same ancestor, Wairangi. Hitiri's evidence before the Commission was shifty and, in some parts, contradictory, and when challenged in cross-examination with having given contrary evidence, and with having set up two different sets of hapus for the same Pouakani Block before the Native Land Court, ho admitted that what he had there stated was false, that he had deliberately made such wrong statements because he was suffering wrong and because his opponents also had been swearing falsely, and he only followed suit. On the other' side contradictions were also proved, but these were of a comparatively minor character, and we consider their statements to be the more reliable ; ■and we are of opinion that the Ngati To Kohera and Ngati Parekawa hapus were rightly excluded by the Native Land Court from any interest in Pouakani except by intermarriage. 2d. Hitiri's personal claim, to be inserted in the list of owners for Pouakani rests, in our opinion, upon his having resided at Waipapa, within the block, at different times since the year 1874. He claimed to have resided in several other places within Pouakani, but this was sufficiently and distinctly contradicted by the other side, who also showed that he had been but a visitor at Waipapa, living there for a time with his sister and brother-in-law, his own settlement, Te Papa, in the Tihoi Block, having been destroyed by Te Kooti. Judgment was given against his personal claim by the Native Land Court; but the Judge, Major Scannell, in his evidence before the Commission, stated that had he heard in time all the evidence given in a subsequent and similar claim by Te Takiwa, who was admitted as an owner in Hapotea, a subdivision of Pouakani, he would have decided in his (Hitiri's) favour also, as his claim was as good as that of the other. The Judge told Hitiri that he would support his application for a rehearing of this particular claim if he chose to make one, but he failed to do so ; and we are of opinion that, though he has lost a chance of proving a right, it is not from any unjust treatment by the Court. 2e. There is no doubt that Mr. W. fl. Grace,, the Government Land Purchase Officer employed to negotiate with the Natives for the purchase of portions of the Tauponuiatia Block, did assist in Court the party opposed to Hitiri by suggesting questions and giving them advice; and, being himself interested in the Pouakani Block, through his wife (a Native or half-caste), and by reason of his having made large advances to the claimants, amounting to over £600, on his own responsibility, and, further, by his desire to facilitate the sale to Government, it is more than probable that when out of Court he also aided and guided them in the course they should pursue : but the charges made against him by Hitiri and other witnesses of improper conduct were not corroborated by evidence, and we consider that they were mere

G.—7

4

suspicions, which have not been in any way substantiated. They accuse him of having interfered with the Interpreter in Court, of having tampered with witnesses, and of having made Te Heuheu drunk to prevent his giving evidence.; and Hitiri even suggested, and that very plainly, that it was through Grace's influence that Judge Brookfield was removed from the Bench, because he was not sufficiently subservient to his wishes. Mr. Grace positively denied these charges, and showed that Hitiri and his party had been assisted throughout by Mr. P. A. Whitaker as counsel, and by Mr. Moon and Captain Blake as their advisers, the latter said to be the ablest conductor of Native Land Court cases in the colony. Whether Mr. Grace, a Government officer, should have mixed himself up in any way with matters in dispute between the Natives themselves may be a question for the Government to determine. Issue No. 3. The following is the third matter referred to us by the Commission: " Whether Karawhira Kapu was induced by a Land Purchase Commissioner in the employ of the Government to forego large claims to land of her own and of her relations in consequence of promises made to her by the said Commissioner, which have not been fulfilled or carried out? " We find that Karawhira Kapu was induced to withdraw certain large claims in the Pouakani Block, which had been made by Waraki Kapu on behalf of himself and other members of his hapu, the Ngati Ha, including Karawhira Kapu, by promises made to her by Mr. W. H. Grace, a Government Land Purchase officer, in an agreement (copy attached) drawn up and signed by the said W. H. Grace and Karawhira Kapu on the 24th March, 1887, whereby it was arranged by her, on behalf of herself and her section of the hapu, that all their claims in the said block should be withdrawn on condition that 7,200 acres should be awarded to the said Karawhira Kapu and eight others of her immediate relatives, she undertaking that the claimants Waraki Kapu (her brother) and Kapu te Kohika (her father), with their section of Natives, should cease and withdraw from all opposition to the settlement of the balance of the block. In accordance with this agreement, to which there was no opposition when it was announced in Court, the Court awarded the 7,200 acres at Kaiwha to nine persons—namely, Karawhira Kapu, her brother, her two sisters, her half-brother, her sister-in-law, her two children, and her niece, and the)' were at liberty to add the names of other members of the hapu if they thought proper, but the award was made to these nine only. It was further provided by the said agreement that when a portion of the Pouakani Block, containing 65,000 acres, which was then under negotiation, had been sold to the Crown, Karawhira Kapu should receive a seventh part of whatever sum might be available for bonuses to chiefs for services rendered in connection with the sale thereof, and when the amount of individual shares, deducting the cost of survey, had been fixed and known, she was to receive a further sum of money equal to nine such shares. We find that these further promises have not been, and, indeed, could not have been, fulfilled, under the circumstances explained in the following summary of the case : — On the 3rd January, 1887, Hitiri te Paerata claimed to be included among the list of owners, and Karawhira Kapu would have come in with him had his claim been successful; but it was dismissed. On the 11th March Waraki Kapu, brother of Karawhira, and Areta te Miri, her sister, and others of the hapu, applied to be admitted as individuals to the list of owners. On the 15th March Waraki Kapu handed in a list of six names, saying that if he were admitted the other five would come in also. These and other similar claims were causing much delay and obstruction in respect of the purchase, for Mr. Grace had already commenced his negotiations, and, to expedite matters, he proposed a compromise with Karawhira, and on the 23rd March announced in Court that an agreement had been come to and that Waraki Kapu and the others withdrew their claims, and an interlocutory order was made in favour of Karawhira Kapu and eight others for the 7,200 acres at Kaiwha, which was confirmed and made final on the following day. Notwithstanding the conditions of the agreement, Kapu te Kohika, father of Karawhira, stated in Court on or about the 12th April that they intended to set up a case, and that Tini Waata, his brother, was going to give evidence, and on the 7th June Tini Waata and Te Eehina, the grandmother of Karawhira, neither of whom was among the nine owners of Kaiwha, brought forward a claim for admission to the main part of Pouakani, and on hearing of this Mr. Grace at once notified to Mr. Moon, the husband of Karawhira, that the agreement was being broken. Mr. Moon came into Court and tried to prevent the claim from being proceeded with, but the Judge, would not permit him to interfere, ruling that the Court could not suppress any evidence that was offered to it. The claim was therefore heard on its merits and was dismissed, the Court deciding that Kapu te Kohika, Tini Waata, and Te Eehina had no interest in the land. This decision, Karawhira says, would not have applied to herself, whose claims were derived through her mother. When Mr. Grace found, on the 7th June, that the Court was going into the case, he wrote a letter to Mr. Moon (Exhibit D, attached), stating that, as the conditions of the agreement had been violated, it now became null and void. Karawhira Kapu admits that she knew she was then at liberty to have brought her claims in Pouakani before the Court, or to apply for a rehearing; but she thought it better not to follow either of these courses, but to appeal to the Government for the fulfilment of the latter part of the agreement; and now she wishes the Court could hear her case over again, so that the Kaiwha award may be set aside, and that she may be able to renew her claims and those of her section of the Ngati Ha in the whole block. None of the promised payments have been made to Karawhira Kapu, nor are they likely to be, for the negotiations for the purchase of the 65,000 acres have been suspended by the Government in consequence of these disputes, and, if the block is purchased, the violation of the agreement by

G.—7

5

some of her hapu will probably be held by the owners as sufficient reason for refusing to give her the nine shares, and the payment of bonuses for services rendered by chiefs has been repudiated by the Government. With regard to the promise made by Mr. Grace of the payment of a bonus for services to Karawhira, he explains that, in the exercise of his discretionary powers as a Land Purchase officer, he has always considered himself empowered to make such payments under the head of " Contingencies," provided he does not exceed the price per acre authorised by the Government to be paid for the land; that he has on several occasions exercised this power; and that these payments, appearing in his accounts under the head of "Contingencies," have never been questioned by the department. All which we respectfully submit for your Excellency's consideration. Given tinder our hands and seals at Auckland, this 17th day of August, 1889. (1.5.) T. M. Haultain. (1.5.) Hanita Te Aweawe. Copt op Agreement befebbed to in the Eepoet. Tapuaeharuru, 24th March, 1887. Horaaruhe Pouakani Block. —In the matter of the arrangement made this day in Court by all the parties concerned, whereby the case of Waraki Kapu was withdrawn from Court on condition of seven thousand two hundred acres being given to nine persons whose names are recorded in Court, and whose names also being excluded from the remainder of the block, the following further conditions are agreed to by the Government Land Purchase Officer in the matter of a sale to the Crown, now under negotiation by Ngatiwairangi, of a portion of the Horaaruhe Pouakani Block, amounting to an area of sixty-flve thousand acres, namely : that one of the nine persons above referred to, namely, Karawhira Kapu, be paid a bonus on completion of said sale, being one-seventh part of whatever sum may be available for bonuses to chiefs for services; also, that when the amount of money for each individual share of the consideration-money (after defraying survey costs) for such, sale is fixed and known, then an additional sum of money equal to nine such shares is to be paid to the said Karawhira Kapu. On the part of Waraki Kapu and Kapu te Kohika, with their section of Natives, undertake to cease and withdraw all opposition to the settlement of the balance of the block as amongst the Ngatiwairangi, Ngatimoe, and Ngatikorotuohu Hapus, and also to the best of their ability to have the names of seven persons of the Ngatiwairangi, to be named by Hapeta te Paku, to be inserted in the list of names for the Tihoi Block. W. H. Geace, Native Land Purchase Officer, Taupo. Kaeawhiea Kapu. Witnessed by E. A. Whitakee, Solicitor. True copy.—H. F. Edgee. Exhibit D. My dear. Me. Moon, — Taupo, Tuesday, 1.30 p.m., 7th June, 1887. I write you this letter to notify that Te Eehina and Tini Waata, who have this day set up cases claiming to be admitted into the Pouakani Block, is in direct violation of the agreement between Mrs. Moon, Kapu te Kohika, and Waraki Kapu and myself. If you will look at the agreement you will see that it distinctly states that the above parties, on their own behalf and that of their section of Natives, undertake to withdraw all claims they may have to Pouakani Block. Tini Waata, who is Kapu's brother, and Te Eehina, who is his mother, cannot be called anything else than belonging to Kapu's section of Natives. Of course this sort of proceeding simply makes the agreement void. Yours, &c, True copy.—H. P. Edgee. W. H. Geace.

COMMISSION. Onslow, Governor. To all to whom these presents shall come, and to the Honourable Theodoee Minuet Hatjltain, of Auckland, and Hanita te Aweawe, of Palmerston North, Greeting: Wheeeas, at a sitting at Taupo, the Native Land Court, on the 24th day of September, 1887, gave its decision on an investigation into the ownership of the Tauponuiatia block of land, situate in the Taupo District, in the Provincial District of Auckland : And whereas a question has arisen as to the western boundary of the said block; and it is desirable that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into and ascertain whether or not such western boundary, as delineated on the plan hereunto annexed, and thereon coloured red, is correctly defined, or whether such boundary requires to be readjusted: And whereas a Native chief named Hitiri Paerata alleges that he and his people suffered an injustice in relation to a portion of the same block known as Pouakani, and have just grounds of grievance in relation thereto : And whereas it is alleged that under an agreement made with William Henry Grace, a Government Land Purchase Officer, Karawhira Kapu was induced to withdraw large claims of her own and her relations to a certain portion of the Pouakani Block, in consequence of the promises made to her in the said agreement: And whereas it is desirable that the said several matters be inquired into and reported on :

2—G. 7.

G.—7

6

Now, therefore, I, the Eight Honourable William Hillier, Earl of Onslow, Governor of the Colony of New Zealand, by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council of the said colony, having full confidence in your knowledge, ability, and integrity, do hereby appoint you the said Honourable Thbodoee Minuet Haultain, of Auckland, and Hanita te Aweawe, of Palmerston North, to be a Commission to inquire into and ascertain the several matters aforesaid, and to report upon the same, that is to say, — 1. Whether the boundary of the said block of land called Tauponuiatia, as delineated on the said plan and thereon coloured red, is the correct boundary thereof, or whether the said boundary is correctly delineated by the line coloured yellow on the said plan, or whether the correct boundary would be properly defined by an intermediate line between the said lines coloured red and yellow. 2. Whether the Native chief Hitiri Paerata has suffered any injustice in consequence of his claim, to a block of land known as Pouakani having, in consequence of some misapprehension, been unsatisfactorily dealt with; and whether he or his people have any just cause of complaint in relation thereto. 3. Whether Karawhira Kapu was induced by a Land Purchase Commisssioner in the employ of the Government to forego large claims to land, of her own and of her relations in consequence of promises made, to her by the said Commissioner, which have not been fulfilled or carried out. Provided that the title of the Crown to the lands awarded to Her Majesty for the cost of the survey of the said block of land called Tauponuiatia, or any part thereof, shall not be brought into question. And I do hereby, with the advice and consent aforesaid, require you to report your decision separately upon each matter referred as aforesaid, within forty days after the date of this Commission, or as much sooner as can be done, using all diligence, and to certify to me under you hands and seals concerning the premises; and with the like advice and consent I do declare that this Commission shall continue in full force and virtue, and that you, the said Commissioners, shall and may from time to time proceed in the execution thereof to such place and places and at such time as you shall judge meet and convenient, although the same shall not continue from time to time by adjournment. Given under the hand of His Excellency the Eight Honourable William Hillier, Earl of Onslow, of Onslow in the County of Salop ; Viscount Cranley, of Cranley in the County of Surrey; Baron Onslow, of Onslow in the County of Salop, and of West Clandon in the County of Surrey; Baron Cranley, of Imbercourt; Baronet; a member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council; Knight Grand Cross of (1.5.) 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 ; and issued under the seal of the said Colony at the Government House, at Wellington, this ninth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine. Edwin Mitchelson. Approved in Council.—Alexander Willis, Clerk of Executive Council.

[Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, nil; printing (1,800 copies), £3 10 a.]

Authority: Geoboe Didsbuby, Government Printer, Wellington. —1989.