I.—2b

38

635. Will you describe shortly how it was used in a more extended sense ?—Shall I ell you a case ? 636. If you please ?—There was a block of land called Eotomahana Parekarangi. It comprised between eighty and ninety thousand acres. It belonged generally to different sections of the big tribe of Natives known as the Arawas. The Government agents made arrangements with some of the people : I do not know their names. 637. "Were they owners?— Some of them turned out not to be owners. But the Government officers made an arrangement for either a twenty-one years' or a thirty-one years' lease, at £130 a year. I speak from memory as to the sum, but I think that was the sum. One year's rent was paid. From that day until now no rent has been paid. The owners, altogether objected to proceed with the agreement; in fact, they asked me to try and ascertain who it was that the Government made the arrangement with; but they never succeeded in finding out. It subsequently passed through the Native Land Court and was cut up into eight or ten pieces. The chief of that tribe, I may say, is one of the few men that I know who is a thorough gentleman : he is as true a representative and type of the old Maori chief as'you will find in New Zealand—Te Keepa Eangipuawhe, a man whom I have the highest respect for. 638. Does he live at the Wairoa ?—Yes. He came to me. In fact, I had several conversations with him about the matter. He considered that he was suffering a great hardship that his land should have been proclaimed. 639. Under this very clause ? —I think it was proclaimed under my clause, though I never saw the Proclamation. I know it was proclaimed under the Act of 1878. The matter was brought to a head in this way : he or his wife, or some relative of his—is there a man named Michael Kemp, Captain Mair? [Interpreter : There is. That is his son.] At all events, some relative of his got a lot of goods from an Auckland tradesman—clothing, and necessary things of that sort. He was threatened with proceedings, and he gave a promissory note. Te Keepa became very anxious about it. The amount was £70 odd, or something about that. He felt that the only means he had of paying this debt and some other small debts were by the sale of some portion of his large estates, but these were unavailable. I had advised him that I knew of no remedy. A petition to Parliament might do him some good; but I very much doubted it. But I told him. that if we were in England there was a remedy there made for such a case as his, and that he might try it in New Zealand. This was the petition of right. He presented to the Governor a " petition of right " — the old English remedy—stating the circumstances, and complaining that right had not been done to him, inasmuch as the proclaiming powers of the Crown, given by Parliament to the Governor for one purpose, had been improperly used to his disadvantage. An answer came from the Governor, stating that he was advised " the petition was irregular." I think these were the words. If a petition of right were presented to the Queen it would be returned with the answer " Let. right be done," and it would go to the Queen's Bench or other Court~where the complaint would be tried as an ordinary action. The proper course, whether the petition was right r wrong, was to refer it to the Supreme Court, where the Attorney-General would demur; and, if it was wrong, get it dismissed. There the matter dropped. 640. Then practically the effect of these Proclamations was to restore the pre-emptive right of the Crown over the blocks to which they were applied : is that so ? —No doubt. 641. Do you think that this power of proclamation has been used to a greater extent than was contemplated by law? —I think so. 642. That, in short, it was abused?— That is the word that I would use if I were out of doors. 643. I would like to put a question or two to you touching some answers of yours yesterday in reference to the pre-emptive right of the Crown; that is to say, to the absence of power to restore that pre-emptive right when it has been waived by the Crown. You are aware, I suppose, that the General Assembly of New Zealand—that is to say, the Eepresentative of the Queen, the Legislative Council, and the House of Representatives—have very large powers to the preservation of good order and good government in the country ? —Yes. 644. Now, in order to make the questions and answers clearer, I would, if you please, refer to that portion of the country that was included in the Alienation Act of last session, that is to say you are aware that that Act absolutely prohibited—so far as tin Act can prohibit anything—private individuals from purchasing any portion of the land described in the Schedule to that Act: did that Act debar the Crown from purchasing ?—The Crown is bound by no statute unless specially named therein ; if the Crown is not specially named there is no bar. 645. The Crown is specially named, but with the right to purchase ? —That was wholly unnecessary ; it is supererogation. 646. I pointed out that at the time, but what I want to ask you is this: Does not this Act of last session restore the pre-emptive right of the Crown in a more absolute way than what the present Bill proposes to do generally ?—No doubt. 647. Are you aware whether the power of the Assembly to pass this Act has ever been officially questioned ? —I am not. 648. Would you be good enough to refer to clause 250f the present Bill: "Owners may sell or lease to the Crown without and notwithstanding the appointment of a local Committee: a local Committee may sell or lease to the Crown: a conveyance or lease of land made to the Crown executed by the members of a local Committee shall be good and effectual, and be entitled to registration." Is that the clause which you regarded yesterday as being ultra vires of the powers given by the Constitution Act of New Zealand ?—lf you remember I said Parliament was omnipotent and had power to do what it thouglit"%t. We have no Court here which questions the constitutional character of a law as they have in America. Parliament, doubtless, has the fullest power to make any alteration in the law it thinks fit. Similarly the Imperial Parliament would have power to make any alteration in, say, the Act of Union with Scotland. No doubt it could do it, for that is now part