1.—6,

20

Report on Petition of John Douglas. The petitioner states that he, with other persons, became the purchaser of a block of 21,400 acres of land in the Rangitikei-Manawatu District, under an Order in Council, in September, 1874. That the purchase money, at the rate of 12s. 6d. an acre, has been paid, but that the conditions of settlement have been prevented, because they have not been put in peaceable possession of tho land by the Government; the Natives having prevented him carrying on his drainage operations by seizing the instruments of the surveyors, and moving him oft' the ground. That great pecuniary loss has been entailed on petitioner by these proceedings, which are rendered greater by the non-issue of the Crown grant by the Government. The petitioner prays that his case be considered, and relief afforded him. I am directed to report that the Committee recommend the Government to make inquiry into the case of the petitioner, and afford relief, if the equity of the case demands it. T. Kelly, 3rd October, 1876. Chairman.

Report on Petition of 452 Settlers of Sandon, Carnarvon, Palmerston, and Foxton. Petitioners state that a company known as the Douglas Company purchased 22,000 acres of land from the Government, at 12s. 6d. an acre, subject to the conditions that within two years from date, seventy families should be settled on 7,000 acres of land on deferred payment, and £10,000 spent by the Company on improvements. They have heard with alarm that the settlement conditions are likely to fall through, and they pray that the conditions be insisted on. I am directed to report that, as the Committee have recommended the Government to make inquiry into the case on the petition of John Douglas, the Committee have no further recommedation to make. T. Kelly,

3rd October, 1876. Chairman. Report on Petition of G. 11. De Thierry. The petitioner states that he has applied to Sir Donald McLean, on the recommendation of Judge Fenton, for the renewal of his interpreter's license, but that such renewal has not been granted. He prays that his case be taken into consideration. " The Committee have made inquiry into petitioner's case, and it appears that all interpreters* licenses lapsed when the Native Lands Act of 1873 came into operation, and under that Act interpreters are appointed by the Government. The petitioner's application to be appointed was not entertained, owing, it is stated, to the petitioner having involved a Native chief in laud transactions which met with the disapproval of the Government. It does not appear that the petitioner was informed of the reason of the refusal of his application, and no opportunity was afforded him of defending or cxplainiug the charges made against him. I am directed to report that the Committee are of opinion that the petitioner should have the opportunity of explaining or rebutting the charges made against him before a Judge of the Native Lauds Court, and that he be appointed an interpreter if the report of such Judge is in his favour. T. Kelly, 3rd October, 1876. Chairman.

Report on Petition of Eichaed P. Giffard. The petitioner states that his property has been damaged by the frontage ou the main road being taken away by the construction of the Napier and Pakipaki Railway, and that he has received no compensation. He prays that adequate compensation be given him. I am directed to report that, as the matter appears to be one for the consideration of the Government, the Committee have no recommendation to make. T. Kelly, 3rd October, 1876. Chairman.

Report on Petition of James Kerr and John Ahnott. Report on Petition of Joseph Petrie. The petitioners separately state that they contracted with W. 11. Revell, Returning Officer for Grey Valley, to print 125 copies of the electoral roll at certain specified rates; that the work was duly performed to the satisfaction of that officer, and vouchers signed by him for the payment, and sent to the Colonial Secretary; but that payment was refused on the ground that the work had been given to two printing offices, and only one could be paid. The petitioners pray for relief. The Committee, having made inquiry into^these cases, find that the Returning Officer misunderstood his instructions, and gave a separate contract of the whole roll to two parties, instead of half the roll to each. But as it appears that the contracts have been duly entered into, lam directed to report that the Committee recommend the prayer of the petitioners to the favourable consideration of the House. T. Kelly, 3rd October, 1876. Chairman.