I.—4c.

152. And there was evidence before the Commission to show that that person had been paid for doing that?—Yes ; but there was no evidence as to what those persons were paid. 153. The Chairman.] We have applications here—take No. 8, for instance —Valentine Henry : he states that he was a sergeant in the 2nd battalion 18th Boyal Irish; that he claims eighty acres of land; that, after nineteeen years and two hundred and twelve days' service, ho was discharged, for the express purpose of settling in New Zealand, with a pension of Is. 9d. per day for life ; triat he has made no previous claim?—The application bears rejection on the face of it. I know that man ; he was discharged in 1878, eleven years after the Act was repealed. 154. He has no claim, trien: his petition would be rejected at once, and no evidence would be taken ?—He has no claim ; his application shows it. 155. And in all such cases no evidence would bo taken ? —No; it would not be necessary. 156. Mr. Macandrew.] There is a petition presented by Sir George Grey from some widowwoman in Auckland : the name is Maria Doble ?—I have no knowledge of that case. 157. Mr. Lake.] Were the original applications preserved? —Yes; in the Defence Office, or in the Waste Lands Office. 158. The Chairman.] This is the petition of Maria Doble : It sets forth triat her husband, Eobert Doble, was in the Auckland Coastguard, and that he, being at sea, lost his life, and did not get his grants. With it is a certificate from William Daldy : " I hereby certify that your husband was in the Auckland Coastguard, and afterwards in the Auckland Volunteers, when I was in command. I believe he joined when I did, in 1860, but Ido not know the time of his discharge, as I resigned the command." Trien, there is another from Emilius Le Eoy, captain, Auckland Naval Brigade: " This is to certify that on an old roll of the Auckland Naval Volunteers the name of Eobert Doble is entered, the date of his joining being 29th June, 1860, and the date of his discharge 30th November, 1867." That is a Volunteer claim, and we heard nothing of it. If he was an efficient Volunteer for seven years he ought to have got his land. 159. Mr. Fulton.] Did several Volunteers make application and prove that they had served the number of years, and then it was found that they were not efficient Volunteers ?—Yes. 160. The Chairman.] Desertion, in any case, I suppose, would exclude a man ?—From what ? 161. From his grants?—As a Volunteer. 162. As a Volunteer or as in the regular army?—A deserter from the Imperial army could not, of course, claim anything. But I do not know there was one case of what would be be called desertion.

Tuesday, Bth September, 1885. Colonel Haultain examined. 162a. The Chairman.] We understand, Colonel Haultain, that you have examined the petitions before you—those of this year, last year, and trie year before—for the three years ?—Yes; I have examined the whole of them. 163. That is, since 1882 ?—Yes. 164. And you have given a specific report on eacri of them ? —I have. 165. Have you any general statement to make as to the nature of the petitions beyond what is specifically set out in your reports ? —A great many of these claims came before the Commission, and were not recommended, for different reasons, which I have stated upon the documents themselves. A large number of claims, and especially this is the case with applicants from the Wanganui District, are from men who were discharged subsequent to the repeal of the Acts which granted the land to discharged soldiers. 166. In that particular locality where they settled?—Yes. The Acts were repealed at different periods ; in Auckland, for instance, it was finally repealed in 1867 ; and in the Wellington Province in 1863. A large number of these men took their discharges in 1865, two years after the Act had ceased to be in force. Therefore, of course, they never had any claim to land. Those men, wo know, were only informed of trie rules and regulations under which land was to be granted, because we have it in evidence that the rules and regulations were read out on parade ; and, if other proof were necessary, it is a fact that these men, at the time they were located in Wanganui, never made any application for land. The fact of the matter is, they knew they were not entitled to it. 167. That is in Wanganui ?—Yes. Some men in otrier districts were discharged subsequent to the repeal of the Acts. At the time the land was offered, it was of very little value, and I know of my own knowledge that some of these grants were sold for £s—that5 —that is, where triey actually got the title; whereas these men would not get their title for four or rather five years. They were not given a title for five years after the land-order was granted, four out of which they had to reside in the province in which the land was granted. Some of them would have been entitled to a grant of land if they had applied for it and completed the conditions of residence. But they did not take the trouble to apply for it. In more than one case it is stated so. When asked, " Why did you not apply for land? " they replied, " Oh, I did not care to trouble about it." There are other cases in connection with members of the Defence Force—Colonel Nixon's men —in which the only remark I have made is referring the Committee to the report of the Commission. There are two or three cases which did not come before the Commission, and upon which I'can give no opinion without further information. But I doubt very much whetrier there is a single case in which there is a valid claim to land. 168. No case at all ?—There are no cases at all in which if they had come before the Commission, as far as I can judge, the Commission would have recommended a grant. 169. The particulars contained in. the petitions enabled you to judge whether or not the claims were good ? —Precisely so. Triey included many Wanganui men who did not give their regiments or other information, such as the dates when they were discharged; and therefore it is impossible

7