7

L—6a,

Saturday, 28th August, 1880. The Committee met at 11 a.m. Present .*■ Mr. Stevens (Chairman), Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Dick, Hon. Mr. Hall, Mr. McLean, Mr. Saunders, and Mr. Wood. Consideration resumed. Question proposed, That the proposed report be now adopted as follows: —- That the Public Accounts Committee to whom has been referred the Memorandum of the Controller and Auditor-General upon the subject of the payment of the sum of £300 to Mr. Sievwright, report as follows :— That the payment was made to Mr. Sievwright, and by him to Mr. Eees, as a retaining fee, in two sums of £150 each, on the 2nd and 4th August, 1879. These dates fall in the interval between the defeat of Sir George Grey's Ministry on July 29th, and the prorogation of Parliament on August 11th, prior to the dissolution. In granting the dissolution, the Governor stated the circumstances under which he did so to be, " Ministers have lost the confidence of the representatives of the people, and are about to appeal from them to the country. A majority of the House of Bepresentatives have declared that Ministers have so neglected and mismanaged the administrative business of the country that they no longer possess the confidence of Parliament. It is indispensable in such circumstances, if Ministers do not at once resign, that Parliament should be dissolved with the least possible delay, and that meanwhile no measure should be proposed that may not be imperatively required, nor any contested motion whatever brought forward." The Committee understand from the evidence of Sir George Grey that the reason why it was considered advisable by the then Ministry to retain counsel was, that Ministers intended to appoint a Commission to enquire fully into the whole question of Native rights to land on the West Coast of the North Island, and that they thought counsel should be engaged to get up evidence and represent the interests of Natives before such Commission. Counsel was engaged accordingly, through the instrumentality of Mr. Hoani Nahe, a member of the Administration, but no Commission was appointed. The reason no Commission was appointed, from the evidence of Sir George Grey, is understood to be because of the Governor's general prohibition just quoted. It is, however, difficult to understand how it was that the appointment of the Commission should be held to come within the prohibitory language of the Governor, whilst the payment of a retaining fee to counsel to appear before a Commission that could not be appointed till after the election of a new Parliament was held to be not included in that language. At the time the payment was made Parliament was in session, Supply was not disposed of, and a vote might easily have been proposed in Committee of Supply had the Government thought fit. Mr. Sievwright considers the retainer to have been an unusually high one, to be justified only by a 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 of 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 until 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. Bees and Mr. Mackay insisted on its being paid. They were continually asking me for it. Mr. Bees asked me for the money, and Mr. Mackay said it ought to be paid." Again Mr. Nahe states : —" If I had been left free I should have left the money in the Treasury. Tf I had been better up in the ways of lawyers I thinkl 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 tha 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 this 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 enquiry, 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. Eees 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. Eees; 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 again, " I did not think it was my own private money, because when Mr. Eees 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 voucher himself, making Mr. Sievwright the Imprestee ; yet when he