I.—6a,

5

large amount of work to be done, which would have compelled counsel to visit the West Coast, and to make inquiries on the spot; that he would not have paid so high a fee had it not been for the distinct instructions of Mr. Hoani Nahe to do so. " Mr. Hoani Nahe states this payment originated with him ; that he thought the Natives should be represented before the Commission by lawyers 'to look into the promises which had been made by the Government.' This, however, as he expresses it, ' was not altogether my own thought,' but Mr. Eees spoke to him first, telling him that Mr. James Mackay would like to see him upon the subject, and that he saw Mr. Eees and Mr. James Mackay together, who advised him to apply to the Government for money, and that Mr. Eees advised that he, Mr. Eees, should be employed. Mr. Mackay also advised him to employ Mr. Eees; and that he took no steps in the matter till he was advised by Mr. Eees to do so. Mr. Eees also informed Mr. Hoani Nahe that the money was wanted in a great hurry. He understood that for the money' Mr. Eees was to attend on the Commission and inquire into the promises made by the Government to the Natives.' He, Mr. Nahe, however, thought that it would be quite time enough to pay the money after the Commission was appointed, instead of before, but he 'could not keep the money, because Mr. Eees and Mr. Mackay insisted on its being paid • they were continually asking me for it. Mr. Eees asked me for the money, and Mr. Mackay said it ought to be paid.' A,<>-ain, Mr. Nahe states, 'If I had been left free I should have left the money in the Treasury. If I had been better up in the ways of lawyers I think I should have kept the money.' He also says, ' Another reason urged by Mr. Eees was that the money was standing in my name, and if the Government went out of office it was probable that the money would not be available afterwards.' " Sir George Grey was not aware what work had been done for the money. Mr. Hoani Nahe states that he has only just found out that nothing was done for the money. ' I mean to say that I suppose no work has been done by him, Mr. Eees.' Mr. Eees, in his evidence, admitted that he had not been on the West Coast in connection with this inquiry, and that he had not examined any Natives, but that he had prepared a brief, the basis of which was a quantity of documentary evidence consisting of Orders in Council, debates, despatches, reports of interviews with Ministers, proclamations, &c, &c, which he admits has been of no practical use. When the West Coast Commission was appointed, Mr. Eees wrote to tell the Commissioners he was prepared at once to go before them; but they did not require his services, nor those of any other barrister. "A point has been raised whether the money received by Mr. Bees was public money or Mr. Nahe's money; whether Mr. Eees was not practically retained by Mr. Nahe in the same way as a solicitor is retained in private transactions ; Mr. Bees contending that this was so. Mr. Nahe, however, says that he employed lawyers only on the suggestion of Mr. Mackay and Mr. Bees; that when first the suggestion was made by them he replied, ' I could not do much in that way, as I had no money wherewith to. pay a lawyer. They then said I had better apply to the Government for the money, and on that I made' the application.' And further, ' I did not think it was my own private money, because when Mr. Bees first applied to me I told him distinctly that I had no money, and he advised me to apply for public money for the purpose.' Mr. Eees was from first to last so intimately connected with the transaction that he wrote out the vouchers himself, making Mr. Sievwright the imprestee * yet when he was asked, having written out the voucher, whether he was aware that the money was Government money for public purposes, he answered, ' I may say that I never thought of it at all.' The Controller and Auditor-General had no doubt that the money was public money issued for public purposes. " The following facts are therefore clear :,— "I. That a payment of £300 was made from the Treasury on the authority of the Executive Government to Mr. Sievwright to retain counsel to enquire into promises, &c, to Natives in regard to land on the West Coast, in view of the appointment of a Eoyal Commission at a future time. "11. That Mr. Eees was the barrister so retained, being a member of the House of Bejrresentatives at the time. " 111. That the money was paid without a vote, though Parliament was sitting at the time of payment. " IV. That pressure was brought on Mr. Hoani Nahe to pay the money in great haste and against his own judgment. "V. That nothing of any practical value.'has been done for the money so paid, and that no public purpose has been served by its payment. "The Committee are forced to the conclusion that the money has been paid in a most irregular manner ; that for the House to vote it would be establishing a dangerous precedent; and that the 70th clause of the Public Eevenues Act gives full power to the Executive to deal with the circumstances of the case, should they agree with the conclusion at which the Committee has arrived." Question proposed, That the report be now adopted, whereupon motion made (Mr. Moss), That the consideration of the report be adjourned. Motion by permission withdrawn. Original question again proposed, whereupon motion made (Hon. Major Atkinson), and it was Resolved, That before further considering the report, the Chairman ask permission of the House to have the evidence in the case and such other papers as may be thought necessary printed. Motion made (Hon. Major Atkinson), and it was Resolved, That all the evidence be printed. Motion made (Mr. Ballance), and it was Resolved, That the Chairman select for printing such papers as he may deem necessary, Motion made (Mr. McLean), and it was Resolved, That the consideration of the subject be postponed to Wednesday, 25th instant, at 11 a.m. Mr. Moss handed in the following notice of motion for consideration on the 25th :— Mr. Moss to move as an amendment to Mr. Wood's motion, That Mr. Wood's resolutions, whilst only stating a part of the facts, impugn the policy of the late Government, upon which the Public Accounts Committee are expressly prohibited from expressing an opinion. That it appears from the evidence that the £300 was paid in pursuance of that policy, and that the whole question raised by the Auditor-General