17

G.—s

The Natives claim that an error was made in noting the areas, and that they should have read "Muhunga, 5,000 acres; Patutahi (or Kaimoe), 5,000 acres; and Te Arai, 5,000 acres." It is quite evident that there was some confusion in the minds of the Commission, as well as other people, about the matter, and as to the respective areas. In a letter of the 6th July, 1869, the Commission says : "We beg further to inform you that an arrangement has been entered into between the Native claimants and the Crown agent by which the parties have mutually agreed that the claims of the members of the tribes who have been in rebellion shall be represented by three blocks, upon which we propose to report hereafter in a separate letter at such time as these lands shall have been regularly brought before the Court." From this it would almost appear as if the areas and position had not then been finally settled, but were to be subject to some further action by or before the Commission. Mr. Atkinson, the Crown agent, writes (7th July, 1869), stating that he had reserved about 50,000 acres. A writer in the Press deplored the fact that only 40,000 acres had been secured, instead of the million voluntarily offered to McLean. The Commissioners themselves, who had noted in their minutebook 62,735 acres as the quantity reserved, in their report of the 23rd August, 1869, state it at 67,400 acres. Again, the Gisborne correspondent of the Hawke's Bay Herald, writing under date the 24th August, 1869, says : " The Land Court which has been sitting here for six weeks ended satisfactorily to all parties, the Natives having given up what land the Government asked (about 15,000 acres), the old claimants' claims being passed, and the Natives generally settling their own. boundaries amicably." In. the minute-book we find two instances which bear out our impression ..that in some way the Commissioners had not, at the time, fully grasped the situation. Patutahi Block is stated to be of very good quality That would be a very fair description of Patutahi proper, not exceeding 5,000 acres, but could in no way apply to the greater proportion of the 57,000 acres (or 50,746 as found on survey). A memorandum of Mr. G. S. Cooper, of the 26th January, 1872, recommending the surveying of Patutahi Block, says : : ' The original dimensions might well be restricted in the back or south-western part of it, as the land in that part is of inferior value, and is so broken as to be difficult of survey." Then, Te Arai is said to adjoin. Patutahi Block on the western side. If the restricted area, 735 acres, refers to Tapatohotoho, as assumed, then it nowhere adjoins Patutahi proper, and only adjoins the remaining 50,000 acres on the east. When we remember the terms of the deed, and the strict instructions to the Crown agent to secure only sufficient for the military and Native settlers, with no indication that the Government was requiring a war indemnity, it is difficult to understand why the Natives should offer, or the Commission award, between 50,000 and 70,000 acres of land. The Government, under somewhat similar circumstances, had accepted from the Wairoa Natives aoout 30,000 acres of land, of value incomparable to that of the land of the Poverty Bay Natives. The only explanation we can offer is that the Poverty Bay Commission, in error, adopted at some later date the outside tribal boundaries of the Rongowhakaata Tribe as showing the boundary of the land arranged to be given by that section of the people. This is the only way we can account for them taking nearly 51,000 acres from one tribe, and only 5,395 from another tribe which, according to the records, contained an equal if not greater number of rebels, and owned a great deal more land than the first-named tribe. According to the Poverty Bay Titles Act, 1874, there was returned to Rongowhakaata 4,000 acres, and to Aitanga-a-Mahaki 185,000 acres, out of the lands ceded to the Governor on the 18th December, 1868. Such a proceeding would be in direct conflict to Mr. Richmond's assurance to His Excellency the Governor and his explicit instructions to Mr. Atkinson. That there was some mistake made is evident from the evidence of Mr. Locke given before a Commission in 1882, Mr. Locke was present at the opening of

i Hawke's Bay Herald, 13th July, 1869.

Hawke's Bay Herald, 27th August, 1809.

Poverty Bay Commission, p. 3.

1884, G,-4, p. 8,

3—G. 5.