I.—l

4

and subsequent to the Proclamation of the field. I assume Sir G. Grey wishes the Government to believe that I recommended the granting of a prospector's claim on consideration of getting an interest ■ in it. If Sir George Grey would kindly make inquiry, he would find that I had frequently refused similar offers of shares in claims."—That is correct. I wrote it. 60. Was Mr. Crippen your clerk? —He has been my clerk on and off at various times. 61. Do you know if he has sold shares subsequently ? —I do not know anything of what he has done subsequently, and do not care. 62. Mr. BoUeston.] "What was the effect of this lease of timber at Tairua ?—The timber was leased with the necessary easements for taking it out, such as right of road and the use of the water. 63. Was the land presumed to be valuable for anything but mining ? Did not Messrs. Eussell, Wilson, and Stone get all that was deemed of value in this block ?—These lands are valuable, as gold has been found through the whole of them. The leases do not interfere wth the right to mine. 64. At the time when you made the arrangement with Mr. Ormond to act as Land Purchase Agent for the General Government, had the Government the power to proclaim the land, cutting off the rights of Mr. Russell and the other parties ? —The Proclamation was not issued till October, 1872, subsequent to my agreement. I believe these Proclamations have no force over lands which have passed through the Native Land Court, but only over lands over which the Native title has not been extinguished. 65. These lands had not gone through at the time you were negotiating ?—In the Tairua case, I think the rights of Seccombe under the last lease would be acquired after the proclamation of the district uuder the Public Works Act. I found that several Europeans were trying to negotiate for the land I was instructed to purchase, and I asked whether the Government would proclaim a certain portion under the Act; they agreed to do so. There was great discontent because the flat lands at the Thames had been included, and the Government were requested to withdraw it from these lands ; they did so, and the line was taken along the base of the hills. These blocks would come within that Proclamation. Some of them had passed through the Native Land Court before the Proclamation, and others had not. The piece over which Mr. Eussell and others have the lease was passed through previous to the Proclamation, if I recollect rightly. 66. Does the Proclamation affect the timber. Can people get from the Natives leases of the timber, with the easements, in spite of that Proclamation ?—I should say not, provided there had been no previous arrangement. This agreement of Seccombe's was made on the 18th March, 1S64 (copy of agreement handed to Committee), so that they had the timber long before the Government proposed to deal with the land. I declined to purchase any land for the Government, unless the interests of the millowners, which I consider very great, were conserved. I should have been guilty of a breach of faith to men who had employed me as their agent if I had not done that. (Mr. Mackay read to the Committee a report of his, dated the 17th July, 1875, C. 3a, in which he shows the value of the interests of the millowners.) 67. Who was in negotiation for the flat lands, and what has become of them ? —They have since been included. Private persons wished to acquire them, and public meetings were held at the Thames to get them withdrawn from proclamation. Since then a Proclamation has been issued, including not only these but a larger area. 68. Is Mr. Guilding a paid officer of the General Government ? —No, he never has been. I pay my officers and clerks out of my commission. I am paid by commission. I am not a salaried officer. 69. What is Mr. Crippen's office ? —He is a private clerk. It costs me more than £1,000 a year for clerks, interpreters, and agents. 70. Mr. O Neill.] Have you a miner's right for the Thames Gold Field or Ohinemuri?—I am not the holder of a miner's right. 71. Mr. Thomson.] It appears the lease to Preece and Graham was dated only a day before the land was bought ? —Yes; to Seccombe and Son. 72. Was the Government acquainted with this ? —The Government was acquainted generally with the fact that these people had rights over the timber before I went to purchase at all. I stated distinctly the position of each block, and whether the timber was alienated or not. (Mr. Mackay read extracts from letter sent by him to Mr. Ormond, 24th January, 1872, and Mr. Ormond's reply.) 73. It would appear that these interests to which you refer were interests connected with the sawmills ? —Yes. 74. Do you consider that these interests could not have been easily acquired by the Crown, as they appear to interfere with the value of the block. Could the Government not have bought out these saw-mill owners?—(Mr. Mackay read figures from a return made up by him to show the extent of the saw-mill industry.) He proceeded: This lease was only in confirmation of an agreement made before, and to make the title of the Crown clear. The previous right was to cut for ever. (Witness referred to copy of original agreement.) I do not think the Government would have been able to get the land so cheap had not the timber been sold. 75. The Chairman.] How much did Preece and Graham give for this lease ?—I forget. £5,000 or £6,000. Seccombe had wanted to sell it for a long time. 76. Mr. Bolleston.] Do you consider that the lease to Seccombe was legal ? —I think it would have been an unjust act for the Government to have attempted to take a conveyance without acknowledging Seccombe's right. Mr. Munro, who is now a Judge of the Native Land Court, was the person who witnessed the agreement, and the money was paid in the Native Office in Auckland in the presence of Dr. Shortland, before the colony had accepted responsibility in Native affairs. 77. Ihe Chairman.] Is the lease lawful ? —That lease was not lawful at the time. There were several others in the same position, and, indeed, all the saw-mills. These agreements have been in a manner legalized by the 108th section of " The Native Lands Act, 1873," which states that whereas agreements have been made by private persons for the purchase of timber, flax, and other natural productions growing on Native lands, and that although such agreements were not strictly legal they shall be confirmed by the Court for a period not exceeding twenty-five years. 78. Mr. Thomson.] Did you take any part in the negotiations between Preece and Graham and Seccombe and Son ? Did Preece and Graham purchase these forest rights from Seccombe and Son through

Mr. Mackay.

12th Aug., 1875,