I,—4d.

1882. NEW ZEALAND.

WASTE LANDS COMMITTEE. (REPORTS ON PETITION OF SAMUEL RILEY AND OTHERS, TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE AND APPENDIX.)

Reports brought up on the Qth and Bth September, 1882, and ordered to be printed.

REPORTS.

No. 351.—Petition of Samuel Eiley and Others. The petitioners state that they are Crown tenants of the Colliery Eeserve, Westport, and that in 1874 the Provincial Government of Nelson awarded them the lands they now hold as compensation for their former holdings having been swept away. In 1877 the General Government imposed conditions of tenure of a harsh character, but which they were compelled to accept, as they had already built upon their sections. They pray that they may be relieved from the covenants they have entered into, and be allowed to purchase their holdings, or that they may be granted a permanent tenure at reduced rents, equal to the value of the lands when they settled upon them. I am directed to report i That there are no sufficient grounds for reversing the decision in this case which was arrived at by the Waste Lands Committee of last session. 6th September, 1882. No. 351.—Petition of Samuel Eiley and Others (referred back to the Committee). The petitioners state that they are Crown tenants of the Colliery Eeserve, Westport, and that in 1874 the Provincial Government of Nelson awarded them the lands they now hold as compensation for their former holdings having been swept away. In 1877 the General Government imposed conditions of tenure of a harsh character, but which they were compelled to accept, as they had already built upon their sections. They pray that they may be relieved from the covenants they have entered into, and be allowed to purchase their holdings, or that they may be granted a permanent tenure at reduced rents, equal to the value of their sections when they settled upon them. I am directed to report: That the Committee, having taken additional evidence, is further strengthened in its opinion that the petitioners have been liberally and fairly dealt with in the past, and have no claim whatever against the Government. The Committee are also of opinion that, in view of the future requirements of the Government in respect of the use of the reserve in question for public purposes, it would be highly impolitic to allow the petitioners to acquire the freehold now sought by them. Bth September, 1882.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Thursday, 17th August, 1882. —(Mr. J. Green, Chairman.) Mr. J. Munro, M.H.E., examined. 1. The Chairman.] You presented this petition, and wish to give evidence upon it?—Yes; this question was before the Waste Lands Committee on the 26th July, 1881. It came before the Committee by a petition presented by Mr. J. B. Fisher, the late member for the district. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to travel over the evidence given on that occasion, which is in print. 2. Not if you generally approve of the evidence, but if you do not it is well that you should state where you disagree with it ?—I desire to state that the report of the statement of the case made by Mr. E. J. O'Conor and by Mr. J. B. Fisher is substantially correct; but I desire to correct the report of the evidence of Mr. Mackay. Mr. Mackay, in his evidence, says that Mr. Munro, as Mayor of Westport, signed an agreement on behalf of the section-holders on the following terms: For the first seven years respectively, £5, £2 10s., and £1; for the second period of seven years, one-third more; and for the third period of seven years, double the amount paid during the first period. The following was written on the document: " I agree to the above terms. —John Munro, Mayor of Westport. 31st July, 1877." The original draft of the lease presented by Mr. Mackay for approval contained three I—l. to.