I.—4c

selves that the claimants so recommended completed the requisite period of service in their respective provincial districts ; and, as a rule, we have excluded all those in provincial districts where the Acts were never in force, and also those discharged in the colony subsequent to 1861, after which time no plea of ignorance could reasonably be admitted, as the conditions were then well known in trie regiments serving in New Zealand. We considered it was impossible that any soldiers discharged subsequent to 1861 could have been in ignorance of the terms under which land was to be granted. 11. And did you admit any claims of soldiers discharged subsequent to 1861 ?—Wfiere exceptions have been made to this rule, special circumstances have been shown to influence the decision. In some few such cases we did recommend grants of land. 12. On what ground, then, did you admit these claims? —I cannot recollect exactly, nor can I tell you exactly the names of the men who were discharged, nor how many there were. 13. I suppose you admitted these claims on the ground of some equitable right ? —I cannot exactly remember the ground on which they were admitted. 14. But I suppose that would have been the ground—that they had some equitable right?—l do not think any claimants had a legal right. 15. Not, perhaps, a legal or a technical right, but a good equitable claim. That would be trie ground, I suppose? —We were anxious to be as liberal as possible. 16. And you made exceptions to that principle you laid down yourselves?—Yes. 17. And I presume the grounds showed by some had no right or equitable claim ?—Precisely so. 18. You say you did not admit those who left one district and went to another as entitled to land: did you take into consideration the circumstances under which these men went from one district to another ? —Not at all. The object of granting the land was that the men should go and reside in that particular district or province. They are required by the Act to reside four out of five years in the province in which trie land is granted. The object of giving the land within the provincial district was to retain in the district men who might be of service in that province as military men, in case there should be occasion to make use of their services. If the men left that province they broke their contract. 19. Legally, no doubt?—More than legally. The man is no longer of any use in that district. Why should the land be given to men who did not fulfil their contract ? 20. Did you inquire into the circumstances under which they left one district and went into another ? —No. 21. Might there not have been circumstances which, to a large extent, excused persons going from one province into another?—l do not know of any. 22. Might it not have been desirable to inquire into those circumstances ?—We did not think so. 23. Did you admit any cases where men went from one district to another?—l do not think so. 24. Mr. Fulton.] Was it not the understanding of the Commissioners that the contract between the Government and the soldiers, in promising the land, that the men should continue to reside on it, and that only upon those grounds were they to obtain the land ?—Only with that object—to retain men in the province which gave them, out of its provincial estate, land. The province said, "If you will stop riere for four years out of five you shall have sixty acres of land. If you go away you will forfeit the land—you are no longer of any use to us." 25. Hon. Mr. Ballance.] I am asking you whether you inquired into all the circumstances as to equitable rights. I take it that is the direction to you in the Commission. 26. Mr. J. McKenzie.] That would not apply to soldiers taken for military purposes?—ln what way ? 27. A Volunteer may be called from one district to another?—No; I think not. How could he ? No man can be called out of his district. These men were no longer soldiers—they were settlers. Supposing, for instance, a man left Wellington before his time was up and went to Napier. He did. it of his own free will and option, and is no longer entitled to his land in Wellington. 29. Was the evidence given before the Commission taken down ? —Generally. 30. Is there any record of it ?—Yes. 31. Showing the evidence in each case ? —Triere was not evidence taken in each case. There were many applications rejected on the face of them at once. In many cases it was seen that the claimants had no claim, and had never had any. 32. So that it was not taken down ? —No. 33. The evidence was taken down on the successful cases which you admitted ? I suppose you have some record of them ? —Yes. 34. Mr. Fulton.] Hundreds of triese men who were rejected never appeared before the Commission ?—Yes. 35. Hon. Mr. Ballance.] Did they receive notice ?—Notice was published in every newspaper in the colony. 36. Did you take down the evidence on all the claims which you admitted ?—Yes. 37. And is it on record ?—I think so. 38. So that it could be referred to in case of a petition being presented to the House ?—Yes. 39. I see you rejected some claims which you think ought to be restored by legislation—claims of Volunteers ?—Yes. 40. Nearly ail between 1873 and 1876?—Yes. 41. Did you take evidence in these cases? —Yes; I think we did; but these cases were very simple and clear. After a certain length of time a Volunteer was entitled to claim a grant of land; but in 1876 that Act was repealed. There were then a number of Volunteers who had served for one, two, or three years, but had not completed the full term of five years. These men, having

2