C—3.

4

the location of small settlers, as it would require a large expenditure of capital in draining it before it would be fit for occupation. Mr. Mackay informs the Government that he has explained this to your Honor. Chas. C. Bowen, His Honor the Superintendent, Auckland. (in the absence of the Colonial Secretary).

The Superintendent of Auckland to the Colonial Seceetaet. Auckland, 15th May, 1875. You have not yet supplied me, or said whether or not you would supply me, with copies of the papers for which I asked in my telegram of the 30th April. Would you be so good as to direct me to be furnished with such copies ? It is important that I should get them at once. Might I also have copies of all papers relating to similar agreements, permitting private persons to take or exchange lands in the Hauraki, Thames, or Piako districts ? It is right, when the whole future of this province depends upon lands in those districts being open to all, that I should have the fullest knowledge regarding the questions I have alluded to. The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, Wellington. G. Geet.

The Colonial Seceetaet to the Superintendent of Auckland. Government Buildings, Wellington, 17th May, 1875. Toue telegrams asking for papers will be submitted to Colonial Secretary and Native Minister on their return to Wellington in a few days. His Honor the Superintendent, Auckland. Chas. C. Bowen, (in the absence of the Colonial Secretary).

The Superintendent of Auckland to the Colonial Seceetaet. Sib, — Superintendent's Office, Auckland, 19th May, 1875. I have the honor to submit, for your consideration, a proposal for modifying certain arrangements authorized by the Minister for Public Works on the 4th March, 1872. Mr. Mackay, who had apparently been acting as a private agent, was at that time about to be employed by the Government in the purchase of Native lands, and he, in his letter to the Minister for Public Works of the 24th January, 1872, suggested, in reference to the large blocks of land which he was to purchase from the Natives, that in some cases Europeans had claims to the timber on such blocks, and in other cases had made agreements with the Natives regarding lands contained in the blocks, some of which leases or agreements might be valid, having been made subsequent to the issue of certificates of title by the Native Land Court, whilst others were invalid and unlawful, the agreements regarding them having been made previous to the issue of certificates of title for the lands comprised in such agreements. Mr. Mackay admitted that a majority of the leases and agreements he alluded to were neither legal nor valid, yet many of these, he said, had been made by and with the assistance of officers of the Native Department. The Minister for Public Works, in his letter of the 4th of March, 1872, apparently undertook that the Government would respect all such claims, whether they were legal or equitable, or the contrary, because he was fully aware of the influence which the holders of such claims might exercise in opposition to the sale of the lands by the Natives to the Government. What I would propose is this : That whenever the Provincial Government takes over from the General Government a block of land purchased from the Natives, it should take it over subject to all agreements and leases with which it may be encumbered. In this case, it of course would only be bound to respect those agreements and leases which were really legal and valid, and which had not been similarly made to appear to be so, whilst those leases and agreements which were not legal or valid could in no way bind the Provincial Government; but I would suggest that every such case should be referred to the Legislature, or to the Committee which represents that body, or to some Court, that it should be fairly and openly heard, and the amount of compensation to which the holder of it might be entitled, if any, should be ascertained, and be liquidated by a money compensation, voted by the General Legislature. I propose this, because I think all the reasons that have been alleged for requiring the Province to respect the leases and agreements I allude to would be of no force if they were illegal or invalid in themselves. For instance, in your telegram of the Gth instant, you make it appear that a reason for recognizing such agreements might be that the land included in them is, as the Government believes, swamp, unfit for the location of small settlers, and which would require a large expenditure of capital in draining it before it would be fit for occupation. But the Government can have no knowledge whether one or more of Her Majesty's subjects really possess capital or not, and lauds in which the population of this province have a direct or contingent interest cannot be lawfully dealt with on any suppositions of this kind. The united capital of a number of small settlers may far exceed that of any one settler, and privileges of this sort ought not to be recognized, and cannot be maintained against the general rights of the public. Again, if the agreement or lease was originally illegal, the approval of the Agent of the Government, or of the Minister for Public Works, cannot stamp such lease or agreement with legality. They are mere executive officers to carry out the law, not to make new laws to suit their own views. Any attempts to make such invalid leases or agreements legal can only produce a bad impression upon the public mind, as these attempts would possibly constitute a manifest evasion of that law which it was the duty of those authorities who allowed the evasion to have supported. To make such unlawful leases legal would also be to reward wrong-doers and law-breakers, by recognizing their illegal acts, and this would be done at the expense of the rest of Her Majesty's