I.—B.

8

to the justice or injustice of the case, when I say that the Government consider they have nothing to do with the matter, because at the time the Act was passed there were no lands in the province to give. 58. Is that not a statement which would be disputed by some members of the Assembly at that time ? I was a member of the House then, and therefore cognizant of the passing of that Act, and I am unable to charge my memory with the knowledge that at the time there were no lands for disposal in the province ?—lt was your duty to have known, on the assumption that everybody should know, what the law is; but, I suppose, we could not give a man anything without possessing something to give him. 59. I must say that I have no recollection of having heard before, that at the time that Act was passed, there was no land with which to satisfy it ?—I can only assume that members of the Assembly knew what was going on. A sum of £2,200 was granted as a land fund. 60. Ido not understand that interpretation of the vote. I know that a sum of £2,200 was granted, but it does not follow that because people did not come forward to buy land, that therefore no land existed. You will not say, for instance, that there was no land in Taranaki, because people were not buying ?—lt does not follow absolutely or logically, but it follows as a matter of fact. 61. Then, were not the Government of 1872 descending to what had very much the appearance of fraud, or deceit at all events, in allowing an Act to pass to satisfy claims by a means which did not really exist ?—I think it was exceedingly unjust altogether as against the public. 62. But there was an Act passed in the previous year, in which certain claims of an analogous character were to be satisfied out of lands in the province ?—Out of confiscated land, and was a charge upon the general land of the province. That is a still more unfair Act, in my opinion, as against the public. 63. Since the Act of 1872 was passed, there have been lands acquired under the Public Works and Immigration Act ?—Yes. 64. Is there any provision in the Act barring these lands to be acquired from all claims ? —Yes, of that description. 65. What is the title of the Act ?—lt is the Immigration and Public Works Act of 1872 or 1873. If you have the Act here, I can show you the clause. 66. Then you say there never has been land to satisfy claims under the Act of 1872 ?—Never. I believe there was a certain amount of land that could have been selected—there is now —but it has never been surveyed. The land is just round the mountain, and was never quite cleared, whether valuable or not; and the Commissioner, on the advice of the Superintendent, declared it not open. 67. Had the Commissioner no instruction from the Secretary for Crown Lands ?—No. 68. Had he never, in anticipation of the presentation of any of these land orders, received instructions how to deal with them ? —No; speaking from memory, I should say not. I issued the land orders myself. 69. Perhaps you will be good enough to cause inquiry to be made, and inform the Committee of the facts ?—I will do so. 70. It appears that certain claimants have been led to believe that by getting land orders and presenting them, they would get certain pieces of land ? —-That is the position. 71. And this you regard as unsatisfactory ? —Yes; I think the House did a great injustice to claimants who would be forced to go in under the Acts passed by the Assembly. Those men who held on, and refused every fair offer, now come in and reap the benefit of thus holding on. The House took upon itself to do that which was a great injustice to the original claimants who were forced to come in, and at the same time the House had got into great difficulty because it recognized their claims. 72. What do you mean by the benefits obtained by those who held on ; do you admit that they have got anything ?—I mean if the awards are carried out. 73. The same position was given to the original land purchasers ?—Oh, yes; and those, too, who have come in. All the original holders had a right to choose, but they refused to do so. 74. But negligence in that respect was condoned by the Act of 1872 ?—That is the difficulty. 75. By the Act of 1872 authority was given to issue these land orders, and the Acts of 1873-74 excluded certain lands from its operation ; but the award having been made before the passing of these Acts, tbey ought not to have taken away from the claimants the right to select the land. Between the period of the award and the time the land order was granted, two Acts were passed which excluded applicants from acquiring land under the award in Taranaki ? —Those were Native lands at the time. The Assembly provided us with so much money to get an estate. 76. Was not that in direct contradiction of the Act of 1858, which declares that the right of selection shall entitle such holder to select out of any land over which the Native title has been extinguished. There is an express exception made in the Acts of 1856 and 1858 with regard to New Plymouth; and I fancy, from my own knowledge of the circumstances connected with the -land there, that this exception was made from the known fact of the reluctance of Natives to sell their land, which had limited the land available in New Plymouth to a very small strip, and enabled these land orders to be satisfied with lands hereafter purchased. It seems to me that these conditions were put in as a breach of faith with reference to "the positive conditions expressed in the Acts of 1856 and 1858. I do not know how it presents itself to the minds of the Committee, but it seems to me that we are not justified in going behind the Act of 1872. That Act was passed, but whether properly or not, has not been referred to this Committee. It has been referred to us to determine why action should be stopped which was authorized to be taken under that Act. I should like to ascertain from you, as a member of the Government, and as far as you consider yourself authorized to express an opinion, if the matter were brought favourably before the Government, whether there is any mode in which these land claims can be satisfied ?—That is my great difficulty. I always opposed the passing of the Act. I knew that a great injustice was going to be done to the bond fide settlers who had been forced into accepting what compensation they could get. 77. Captain Russell.] I do not see why any injustice should be done by satisfying these people subsequently ? —These men said they would have the original land, and no other. Then all the original