57

I.—2b

to bring about that end? As it stands Ido not think it will. I think it will retard the settlement that is going on at present. Of course I am speaking of the Bill as it is, because I firmly believe that it could be amended in such a way as to serve the purpose very well. 870. Mr. Locke.] You are in favour of the 17th clause of the Act of 1867 : you know you can only lease for twenty-one years under that?— Yes. 871. Do you not know that a very large extent of good fat country is at this moment covered with briars, because there is no power to sell ?—I do not admire the Act, but what I say is, that if power had been given under that Act to the registered owners, so that they could have some control over the ten, and the ten could sell as well as lease, it would be a very fair Act. I meant to say that before. 872. Hon. Mr. Bryce.] You said you believed in the principle of Committees as representing the owners ?—Yes ; as representing the owners. 873. I am putting these questions for the purpose of clearing up an apparent contradiction in your evidence, or what appears to me a contradiction. I now ask you whether representation does not preserve community of title as opposed to individualization ?—lt will, as long as all the owners are of one mind—if they can work together as one under a Committee. Ido not suggest individualization, because there is no necessity. 874. I understood you to say that you approved of the ascertainment of title in this way : first, division of the boundaries of tribes, then subdivision of hapus, then individual title. I understood you to say chat every step in that direction was a step gained ?—Yes ; because, as a rule, more than one hapu gets into the same block of land, or, perhaps, more than one tribe. They do not, as a rule, act well together, so that if you separate one from the other, or one hapu from the other, and give each a distinct certificate for their respective shares, there is much more chance of each distinct party being on an agreeable footing than where all the members of a tribe are placed together mixedly in one ownership. If they have differences, these differences will be hapu differences. If you will allow me to continue a little further I might make it clear to you. We will assume that the Court has acted in the second stage, that is to say, besides tribal, has made hapu, divisions. We come to the first division. The members of that hapu are of one mind, and desire to dispose of that land to a European, they form a Committee, and that Committee transfers the property. If they do not agree, then you come to individualization; or, without disagreement, if each member of the hapu should wish to cultivate and utilize his own share as an owner in severalty, he can apply to the Court to grant him an individual title. 875. I would like to ask you whether you do not think that the individualization in nearly all cases will be necessary : I mean, supposing the land is dealt with by a Committee, payment for it, either by way of rent or purchase, will have to be disbursed among the owners, not merely to the \ Committee, but among the owners. How will the individual share be ascertained : are they sure to agree? —No, except in rare cases. Under the existing law all owners are held to be equal until proved otherwise, and they are paid in that way, except in very palpable cases where there is no possibility of disputing one man's superior claim to all others. 876. Well, then, does it not come to this: there will have to be individualization in some way, whether under the Act, through the Committee, or otherwise ?—Yes. 877. Mr. Locke.] Are you aware that any obstacle to the settlement of the country arises from lessees being unable to go to the Court and get their property —whatever they may have acquiredsubdivided ?—Yes; that has been a great difficulty. 878. A European cannot get a title to any portion of the property he has acquired by lease; he must trust entirely to the persons from whom he acquired the lease ?—Yes. 879. Mr. Hobos.] Do you think that a great deal of the trouble which has arisen in reference to Native land has been brought about by persons dealing with Natives for their land before passing through the Court, that is, before any title has been ascertained ?—I think that was the root of all the evil. 880. Eon. Mr. Bryce.] Does that prevail to any extent at the present time ?—No.

Tuesday, Bth September, 1885. Mr. J. E. FitzGbeald examined. 881. The Chairman.'] Will you be good enough to state your name in full?— James Edward EitzGerald. 882. Will you be good enough to state your official position ?—Controller and AuditorGeneral. 883. You were formerly Native Minister ?—I was for a short time. 884. This Committee has now before it the Native Land Disposition Bill: have you seen or read that Bill?—I have read it, but not with sufficient care to give any opinion upon it. 885. You know the Native Land Act of 1865 ?—Yes ; the Native Land Act of 1865 was drawn up by Mr. Penton and myself. 886. The Committee would like to hear your opinions about the principles of the Native Land Disposition Bill. 887. Sir G. Grey.] I would ask Mr. EitzGerald what it was, in his belief, which principally led to the failure of the Act of 1865 ? —I think it was a misconception on the part of the Native Land Court of the meaning of clause 23 —I think it was. That clause empowered the Native Land Court to give a certificate of title either to the tribe or to the individual owner of land; but it went on to say that not more, .than ten owners of land should be comprised in any certificate of title. The intention of the clause was, although it was not, perhaps, so clearly expressed as it should have been, that, unless ten Maoris cotild show their ownership to a particular piece of land, no title should issue at all except to the tribe. I remember very distinctly that in conversation with Mr. B—l. 2b. '