5

a—2a

restored. But it was contended, on the other hand, that those who remained behind, being few in number and being absorbed into the Ngatihaua, had lost their tribal right, although they might have some personal interest, and that in fact the Ngatihaua, being the more powerful tribe, became the owners according to Maori custom. Mr. McDonald, finding he could not substantiate his contention, abandoned if, and admitted, on behalf of tho petitioners, that, supposing those who remained had a tribal right to any of the district as conquerors after the battle of Taumatawiwi, those who had gone to Kapiti could not have returned and settled on the land without their consent; but he urged that they did subsequently invite them to return, though that invitation was not accepted, and he contended that this invitation did restore any rights which the Kapiti Natives had before the battle. And stress was also laid upon the fact —which was not disputed —-that both Te Waharoa, tho principal chief of Ngatihaua, and also his successor in power, Wi Tamihana, had from time to time urged them to return, and that the latter had even gone in person to ask them to return, although all these applications were made in vain, and the Kapiti Natives have never occupied this district in any portion of it since their exodus in 1828. Matters appear to have remained in this state until 1840, in which year the Natives put themselves under British rule ; and whatever rights petitioners or their opponents had then, such and no more would they have in 1868, when the Native Land Court sat, subject, however, to any arrangements they might have come to amongst themselves; and it was with the view of ascertaining whether any arrangements had been so come to that we entered into the question of how far the invitations to return, unaccompanied by acceptation and occupation, would affect the rights of the petitioners. It is distinctly stated, and admitted to be true, that between the years 1860 and 1868 various invitations to return and occupy the land were given to the Kapiti Natives by Te Waharoa, and afterwards, and up to the date of his death, by Wi Tamihana, and that the latter, even on his death-bed, expressed a desire that they should return; but we learn that, according to Maori custom, the bare acceptance of such an invitation, unaccompanied by actual occupation and cultivation, would not confer any right or title, and that even if they had returned and occupied they would have been mere serfs, and have been obliged to go and do where and what they might have been required by those two powerful chief's. Moreover, Major Wilson states that Wi Tamihana, in 1866, stated to him when negotiating for this land that he had offered to let those living at Kapiti return and occupy Pukekura, provided they returned before Christmas of that year; that they did not so return, and therefore he entered into negotiations respecting it. We now come to the question whether or not the petitioners had an opportunity of attending the Court held in November, 1868 ; and here will be found the reason why they are so anxious to put themselves forward as a distinct and separate tribe, and not to be considered as a hapu of Ngatiraukawa. They allege that they never authorized any one to appear on their behalf at the Native Land Court held at Cambridge in November, 1868, and that the application to Mr. Richmond in 1868 was made by Ngatiraukawa, and not by them. It will be found on reference to the papers relating to this matter, and also in the petition presented to the House of Representatives, that everything has been done in the name of Ngatiraukawa, and a reference to the evidence taken by us will show that several of the parties who now repudiate all connection with Ngatiraukawa are those who signed that petition, and are therein described as being members of that tribe. It will also be seen that several of the witnesses who were claimants in the Court in 1868 now state that if Ngatikauwhata had then come forward and made a claim they would have admitted them as owners ; but if Ngatiraukawa had come they would have opposed their claims. We find also, in reference to the question whether petitioners were represented in the Court in 1868, that a chief named Paraltaia (since dead), with about forty men, appeared in that Court representing himself as agent and representative of Ngatiraukawa, and applied for an adjournment of that Court; that on two previous occasions—namely, in 1866 and 1867—he appeared in a similar character in reference to these blocks, and on each occasion obtained an adjournment; and that in 1868, finding he could not obtain what he applied for, he put forward claims on behalf of those Natives living at Kapiti, called evidence in support of them, and finally, finding them untenable, abandoned them. We find also that one of the petitioners, Watene te Punga, was present in that Court, was called by Parakaia as a witness, and was sworn, but refused to give evidence. The above remarks apply principally to the three blocks, Pukekura, Puahoe, and Ngamako No. 2, but all those with respect to the right acquired by conquest will apply equally to the claim set up by the seven petitioners named before. These seven were represented by a woman named Winia, but, although she made a statement asserting her own claims through an ancestor named Tuakere, she utterly failed to support her assertions, and most of the witnesses she called in support of her ease had never even heard of such an individual. Her parents and those whom she represented were amongst those who went to Kapiti in 1828, and lost their rights in the same way as the others. We have therefore the honor to report, —■ 1. That, in our opinion, prior to the year 1840 the petitioners, whether known as Ngatikauwhata or Ngatiraukawa, had lost all their right, title, and interest to the district known as Rangiaohia, which included Maungatautari Nos. 1 and 2, Pukekura, Puahoe, and Ngamako No. 2. 2. That up to the year 1868 those rights had not been in any manner restored. 3. That at the sitting of the Native Land Court in November, 1868, the petitioners had no interest whatever in the above-mentioned lands. 4 That they were properly represented by an authorized agent in that Court. 5, That they are not entitled to any compensation whatever. Before closing this report we cannot avoid expressing our regret that the statement as to what the effect of our report, if favourable to the petitioners, would probably have upon the Crown Grants should have been made to the Natives generally and impressed upon their minds, as we are informed it was, by Mr. McDonald at a meeting held at Maungatautari a few days before we commenced our investigation, because we have no doubt that it caused many of the Natives to give statements before us directly contrary to those which, on reference to the records of the Native Land Court, we find were made before that Court in 1868.