G.—2.

C. ANDREWS.]

25

202. I suppose when you took up the land you thought you could make it pay at the rent? —I thought so. 203. You used your judgment? —Times were fairly good then for a year or two. 204. Now, about 1887, I think, your rent was reduced? —Yes. 205. In consequence of a petition it was reduced, roughly, by half?—l could not say exactly now; it was something like that. 206. You got the benefit of that, the Native owner did not? —I do not know what the Native owner got. 207. Well, he got exactly half the rent he was getting up to then?—l suppose he did. 208. You got that concession so long as times were bad? —Oh, no, only for two or three years; three years, I think. 209. It was for five years?—l do not think it was five years. 210. That was a concession to you ? —lt meant if we did not get that we would have had to give up the land. 211. If you had been leasing from a private owner you would have thought he was fairly generous to reduce your rent by half over a period of five years? —Yes. If he thought it was not possible to pay the rent, if he was a just man he would reduce it. 212. If he was trying to squeeze the last ounce out of you he would not? —No. 213. So that you had not been badly treated up to 1892? —No. 214. You were treated with every consideration? —Yes. 215. The Public Trustee treated you with every consideration, and did not press you for your rent? —No. 216. I suppose you realize that when the Public Trustee does not press you for your rent the Native has to stand out of it?—Oh, no. The Native is paid six months in advance, and my rent has always been paid six months before the next was due. The Natives did not stand out of my money. 217. Yes, they did, because the Public Trustee distributes the money immediately it is paid to him ?—But we always paid in advance. 218. If you got that concession from a private landlord you would not think you were being harshly treated? —No, but considering we would have had to leave the land. 219. The Native may have something to say about taking the land. He was receiving a rental reduced by half?— Yes, certainly. 220. So that the boot is not all on one foot? —No. 221. Mr. KerrJ\ What was your reason for not converting when you had the opportunity of doing so? You knew you had the right to convert in 1892-93, did you not? —Yes. Weil, the first reason was that I had to put a certain amount of money down—l forget what it was, but somewhere near £8. I had not got the money, and could not get it. Then I had to surrender my lease, and I stood the risk of having to pay the Maori a certain amount of money, and having the rent raised. 222. How do you make that difference? You said that you did not consider your improvements were over £s?—Yes, but you will understand there had to be a valuation, and I did not know what the Valuer was going to value me at. I did not like to take the risk. 223. But supposing lie had valued, could not you have got an estimate of the value before surrendering your lease?— Yes, I could have got an estimate, but not from the Public Trust Office people. 224. Not without first surrendering your lease?—l do not think so. I think the first thing we had to do was to surrender our lease. 225. As you thought your valuation was under £5 you would not expect, under those circumstances, you would have to pay any excess to the Public Trustee? —I did not like to risk it. I did not know what the Valuer was going to value it at. I might have had money to pay to the Maori, and I was not in a position to pay it at the time. 226. Do you assert that you never received any letter from the Public Trustee intimating to you that you had a right to convert?— Yes. 227. You say that positively?— Yes; not after the first notification in 1893. I think I received nothing after that. 228. When you were asked to sign the lease you then read it?— Mr. Rennell read the lease to me, but I did not understand it until my wife explained it to me. 229. And then you say you discovered that it was not exactly in the same terms as Mr. Rennell had represented to you : is that so? —Yes. 230. You were dissatisfied with that in consequence?— After studying the thing out. 231. Did you not think it worth while to mention the matter to Mr. Rennell, and ask him why he had got you to sign a lease which was in terms different to those represented to you ? —I might have done so, but I did not. I thought that, as I had spent so much money on the land, if I was not satisfied with the lease I could simply go out, and get nothing for it. The very day I instructed Mr. Rennell 1 would take the land I went to the sash and door factory and ordered my timber, as I had my cows coming in, and I wanted to get started. 232. What do you say it really was that Mr. Rennell told you?—He told me that the conditions of the lease were 5 per cent, based on the unimproved value of the land, and at the end of thirty-one years our improvements would be valued by arbitration, and I would get paid for improvements. 233. Did he not state any limit to the value you would be paid?—No; to be paid for all improvements. 231. Mr. Rennell is still living in Wanganui I —Yes. 1 took a friend with me, a Mr. Dingle. I was a tradesman myself, and did not know anything about land-dealing, and Mr. Dingle and Mr. Rennell did all the talking. I did not have anything to say.

4—G. 2.