G.—2

58

entirely from memory. When I was before the Commission there were many things I did not remember clearly, but reference to the minute-books has convinced me that I was right in what I said. Ido not know that I said before the Eoyal Commission that it was the Ohau section that was before the Court on the Ist December. I have no doubt I did if I was asked. [Horowhenua Commission, page 79, question 425, read out,] I must say that I could not have given that answer. I must have been misreported. The section that is now No. 12 was the only section I heard of in the Court of 1886 as No. 14. [Horowhenua Commission, page 75, "My recollection is that No. 14 was kept open till the last," &c] That is quite true. I said that I was referring then to what is now known as No. 14. I cannot now point to anything in my previous evidence that would indicate a trust in Section No. 14. I cannot refer you to anything in my evidence before the Commission relating to my having intervened in the Court on the Ist December. The section which is now 14 was the last dealt with in the Court. I may have had that in my mind when I replied to question 424. If I had not, then I am incorrectly reported. I could not have said that the section at Eaumatangi came before the Court of 1886 before the Ohau section. I did not mean that. My intervention on the Ist December has proved very important. My recollection has never been called to it, I recollect it perfectly now since seeing the minutes, notwithstanding that there is nothing in the minutes directly mentioning it. It comes back to me as clear as daylight. [Vol. 14, pages 315, 316, "There was a very great deal of discussion about . . . and. Kemp kept the first 1,200 acres," &c] I don't think it is possible that I could have used those identical words, but it appears to be how the minute is taken. The division shown on tracing No. 1 would, in the natural course of things, be identical with the one applied for in Court if there was no objection to it. [Horowhenua Commission, page 79, questions 426 to 428, read.] That does not imply that No. 9 was given definitely to the descendants of Whatanui. It appears that I did not mention in the Supreme Court that alternative sections were set apart. -The Muaupoko knew nothing about the disputes among the Ngatiraukawa, or, rather, I should say that I knew nothing about them. I cannot for the moment recollect or point to any documentary evidence before 1896 that would indicate alternative sections. There was no question raised, so far as I know, before 1896 about No. 14. I was never questioned about No. 14 on any occasion on which I gave evidence before 1896. I have told what I believe to be true in this Court; my being here as representative of a person who raises the question of trust has not influenced my evidence. I have never before been questioned specially as to the alternative allotments. I have given a general narrative. No such communication was made to Ngatiraukawa, so far as I know, about the alternative sections. The Muaupoko understood clearly that the two sections were to be awarded to Kemp, and he was to convey to Ngatiraukawa whichever they chose. [Horowhenua Commission, page 79, questions 428 and 429, read.] lam reported there as having contradicted my former evidence given before the Supreme Court. I cannot understand it. My answer to No. 429 did not mean the same thing as the question. The question of making an alternative section was finally decided during the dinner-hour of the Ist December, it having been largely discussed during the previous five days. I was not cognisant of any negotiations going on between Kemp and the descendants of Whatanui about the 1,200 acres, excepting that Lewis was there, and there was a great deal of talk about it. The Ngatiraukawa who were present at Palmerston refused to accept either section. The only man I actually heard making an objection was Nicholson. I don't know whether Ngatiraukawa collectively had any objection to the one section or preferred the other. I think the Ngatiraukawa ought to have been well satisfied to get their land anywhere. lam speaking now of the time up to the 25th November. [Horowhenua Commission, page 75 : " Therefore I recommended," &c] I still deny that in 1886 I was aware that Ngatiraukawa had a bond fide right to object to the Ohau section. I don't think I knew the terms of Kemp's agreement when I used the words, "This is not a fulfilment of the agreement," &c, but I may have. I merely had a suspicion in my mind that the Ngatiraukawa might go to Parliament. That is why I suggested to Kemp that another section should be set apart. No. 14 had been awarded before I made this suggestion. I never applied for it as an alternative allotment. When I applied for a confirmation of No. 14 on the 3rd December I was not aware that Ngatiraukawa had any objection to it. I knew that some of the persons who said they were descendants of Whatanui had made an objection. I did not know that the descendants of Whatanui collectively had objected. The Court adjourned until the 22nd instant.

Monday, 22nd March, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. No. 1, Horowhenua No. 14, resumed. Sir W. Buller said he would complete the cross-examination of Mr. McDonald, as his junior was absent. A. McDonald cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : The only person of Ngatiraukawa I distinctly remember at the Court of 1886 was Nicholson. There were others there. I heard Nicholson objecting to the Ohau section in Court. Ido not know Hare Pomare. I cannot say whether he was at Palmerston in 1886. I do not think I know Hitau by sight. I have not the least doubt that Hare Pomare and Hitau were at Palmerston. The people say they were. Mr. Lewis, Kemp, and the Muaupoko were the only persons I communicated with about No. 14, and occasionally Nicholson, when I met him in town. I cannot say at what time Mr. Lewis arrived. He was there on the 25th November. I remember distinctly Mr. Lewis being at Palmerston. I cannot say what date the agreement arrived after Lewis had wired for it. I can only say that it had not arrived on the 25th. lam prepared to say that it had not arrived when Lewis gave his evidence. lam not prepared to say that it had not