Mr. James Benn Bradshaw in attendance, and further examined. I desire to supplement the evidence I gave yesterday, by stating that a petition has been sent in to the General Government some time ago, by Messrs. Beetham, Walker, and Co., praying that a large portion of the sea beach might be leased. I believe that Mr. Mackay recommended the prayer of the petition. Mr. Bradshaw was thanked, and withdrew. The Committee adjourned to Thursday, the 12th instant, at 11 o'clock.

13

p.—No. r.

. Mr. Bradshaa. , \ 11th August, 1869.

Thursday, 12th August, 1869. Mr. Daniel Joseph O'Keefe in attendance, and examined. 105. The Chairman.'] You are prepared to give evidence on the Thames Sea Beach Bill? —I am. 106. Are you aware of any rights which were in existence previous to the introduction of this Bill, and which may be affected by it ? —Yes, I know of four claims ; the Wakatip, Barry's No. 2 or the Sea Lion, the Nations, and the Magenta claims. 107. Can you state the position of those claims ? —Portions of those claims are above high water-mark, and the remainder below high water-mark. 108. Will you explain to the Committee what rights these parties are supposed to have under their miners' rights ?—The owners of those claims took out miners' rights in the usual way at Shortland, for which they paid one pound each. They then pegged out ground adjoining claims situated above high water-mark, taking one or two men's ground above high water-mark and the remainder below high water-mark, in order to make them six or eight men's ground in size. The ground above high water-mark was for their shafts, and for putting in drives under the beach. 109. "Were those claims registered in the Eegistration Office at Shortland? —They were. 110. Were the parties taking out the miners' rights aware of the provisions of the Act of 1868 ? —I cannot state whether they were or were not. 111. You are aware that there is a clause in the Act of 1868 which states that land below high water-mark shall be considered as land over which the Native title has not been extinguished ? —I am aware of it. I paid several hundreds of pounds to the claimholders of the Nations Claim, which now forms portion of the Imperial Crown Company's ground with a capital of £100,000. I expected to have got a title from the Natives to that portion of the Company's property, and endeavoured to do so, when I saw a Proclamation of the Waste Lands Commissioner stating that all lands above and below high water-mark had been reserved for Crown purposes. 112. You are aware that the area of the gold field did not cover the land below high water-mark? —I am. 113. Did the parties who pegged out the claims do so knowing that they were outside the limits of the gold field? —I have reason to believe that they pegged them out believing that they would get a title from the Natives or some other persons. They pegged them out under miners' rights, and some persons made agreements with the lessees to enter upon the ground for mining purposes. 114. Has the beach ever been held under lease ? —The owners of the claims getting a piece of ground from the lessees would sink a shaft above high water-mark, and drive under the beach. 115. Has it been within your knowledge at any time that rights have been and are recognized outside the limits of gold fields under miners' rights ? —I am not aware of any such practice, but I think that the position of the beach claims was very different, inasmuch as there is a piece of land above high water-mark to the extent of two or three men's ground, and believing the land to be Native territory under the Native Lands Act of 1868, they pegged off' the whole claim. They hold the portion above high water-mark from the Crown, and expect to get the title for the other portion through the Native Lands Court. The difference between these claims and those which are outside the limits of the gold field consists in this, that parts of the claims are above high water-mark and granted by the Crown. 116. Mr. Dillon Sell.] Is the Committee to understand that there are any rights held by miners independent of the authority of the Government ? —I believe that the Natives have entered into arrangements with certain parties to grant them rights. Rapana has publicly declared it in the newspapers; and I think a Mr. Creagh has endeavoured to acquire rights from the Natives. 117. Do you mean that you believe it is done under any authority of the law?—lt is not done under the authority of the law ; but the Natives, when they get the land through the Court, will confirm their action, and so make it valid. 118. But if other persons have not entered into any so-called arrangement by reason of its not being legal to do so, do you consider that there is any right appertaining to those who, contrary to the authority of the law, entered into any agreement of that kind ? —I think there is a certain right notwithstanding it is illegal, because the Natives have generally carried out honourably the agreements they made before their lands passed through the Court. 119. The Committee understand your opinion to be that those who have acted without the authority of the law should have the advantage of doing so, and that those who have acted within the authority of the law should be placed at a disadvantage ? —That is not my answer; because those persons who have acted with the authority of the law and have acquired rights, require no redress ; but those who have entered into contracts with the Natives during the last few years should have them ratified, because the Government has recognized transactions entered into with the Natives illegally. 120. Mr. Richmond.] Would you be kind enough to state cases in which the Government has recognized and confirmed illegal transactions on the Thames Gold Field ?—I instance the land at Shortland, where agreements had been entered into by the inhabitants with Mr. Mackay, prior to the land passing through the Court, which were void in law; I understand that the Government now intend to confirm those agreements, and I have reason to believe that they will do so. Mr. Fenton withholds the certificate to the Shortland Town Lands, having expressly stated that the Government

Mr. D. J. OKeefc. 12th August, 1869.

4

THE THAMES SEA BEACH BILL.