SUMMARY OF MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume I, Issue 45, 16 August 1845, Page 4

SUMMARY OF MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NEW ZEALAND.

(Continued from No. 43J Mr. J. W. Child— Proceeded to New Zealand in the Aurora, having purchased from the Company one town and one country section, sufficient to give him a free passage, and remained there from January 1840 to April 1843. States that the natives have never admitted the title of the Company to the pa Te aro, — a portion of Kumutoto, a great part of Pipitea, and a little of Te-akewai ; that the pa Te-aro belonged to the Ngatematungas and Ngatetamas. The portion of Kumutoto pa was given up upon compensation ; is of opinion that the natives will not give up the actual possession of pas, except upon compensation or force. Believes there may be a few slaves in the pa Te-aro, but the Ngatematungas, the principal inhabitants of that pa, were the first arrivals, after its being conquered by Te Rauparaha ; their occupation is previous to that of the Ngateawa. Disputes Mr. Earp's statement, that the opposition to the occupation of the Porirua district was occasioned by Mr. Clarke. Our laying open the district by making a road, was the commencement of Te Rauparaha's opposition ; it was only through a representation to him of the then resident police magistrate at "Wellington that the road was allowed to be completed, on condition that the land should not be occupied. The witness, after referring to Mr. Clarke's letter to the Te-aro natives, about which Mr. Earp had been examined, states that the treaty of Waitangi was perfectly well known among the natives in these districts : that Mr. H. Williams so interpreted the treaty to them, that they considered the shadow only of the land has gone away to the Queen, but that they were to retain the substance, and that the natives considered it a very foolish treaty, because they did not see any advantage that the English people gained by it. Does not concur in Mr. Molesworth's opinion, that the reserves for the natives were chosen as judiHonslv as nossible. The natives had early

choices from the lottery, and many both of the pas and cultivated grounds, in consequence of I those early choices, might have been selected for them. Does not find fault with the choices of the natives being on hilly ground, but that their cultivated grounds should be passed over, . and waste land chosen instead in several cases. After some further evidence, the witness states that £1,500 would be a very moderate sum for a settlement of the whole of the claims within the "Wellington district, if the pas and cultivated lands were included ; if not, if it applied only to the wild land, it would be exorbitant. Considers the advantages of New Zealand are overstated for the present ; New Zealand has great capabilities, but they have not yet been brought out. Thinks there are some very excellent suggestions contained in Mr. Earp's proposals as to the mode of settling the native and other claims. Agrees with him as to doing away entirely with the native rights to the wild lands, but not as to the cultivated land. Considers it ought to be an absolute rule to lay a land-tax upon all land hereafter to be sold that remains in an uncultivated state, as a great preventive of land-sharking or land speculation. In answer to a question from Mr. Aglionby, as to how he came into communication with the Colonial Office so as to be called as a witness, he explains that he sent a statement of his opinion to a friend, not knowing whether it would come direct to the Committee, or through the hands of the Colonial Office ; because he thought he had information from his long residence in the colony, which might not otherwise be brought before the Committee. In finding fault with the mode of selecting the native reserves, without imputing to Capt. Smith any wish to shew any partiality to the Company, or prejudice to the natives, he thinks that in some places a better selection could have been made — that a portion of the pa Te-aro might have been chosen from the earlier orders of choice for the native reserves. " Mr. Roebuck'] — To what do you attribute that ? — Perhaps in some measure for the convenience of the settlers having the water frontage. You think that the choice made by Capt. Smith, in prejudice of the natives, was made actually with a view to favour certain of the settlors ? — I think that was the case in some instances. Mr. Aglionby."] — Then what becomes of your answer before, that he did not do it out of partiality to the settlers ? — I made a reservation, and also hesitation. That which you speak of is the pa here marked ? — Yes, and Kurautoto ; there was one reserve made there, and there ought to have been another at Kumutoto ; this was occupied by natives. Mr. Patten.] — Which is the most valuable part of all that? — Te-aiowas the most valuable ; at least it was thought so at the time of selection ; but Lambton-quay is now thought the most valuable. Mr. Hope.] — Will you state how much of pa Te-aro was reserved ; what were the purposes to which the remainder was applied ? — A portion of the pa was reserved for a public wharf and custom-house that we never got possession of; there was one acre reserved for public purposes. What was the destination of the remainder ? — It was for private settlers. Mr. Patten.] — With regard to Lambtonquay, which you say is the most valuable part now, are there native reserves upon the port and harbour? — One at Kumutoto. Mr. Aglionby. — Captain Smith had only the power of choosing for the natives according to his order of choice ? — Certainly. Then unless he had an earlier number of order of choice than those who selected this particular place, he would have no right to select that place for the natives ? — No. You have stated, as I understood you, to the Committee, that first of all, not charging Captain Smith with partiality for the settlers, there were exceptions, and that pa Te-aro was one exception, in which he favoured the settlers to the exclusion of the interest of the natives, by giving the settlers the frontage to the water ; did you not so state ? — I think my terms were not so decided as that. What do you mean to state ? — I mean to state that the interests of the natives were in some measure made to give way to the interests of the settlers. Have you not instanced that as one instance in which the interests of the natives were made to give way to those of the settlers, by Capt. Smith giving the preference to the settlers of the water-frontage ? — I do not know that I said the water frontage ; I said with respect to pa Te-aro. Have not you stated the water frontage as being most valuable ? — Yes. Did you not state that as a reason why he gave the preference of selection to the settlers, and neglected the interest of the natives ? — I do not recollect stating it in that way. Did you represent in substance, and mean to represent in substance, that he had so done ?

— I mean to represent to the Committee that the ns|iye reserves were not chosen as they might Have heen ; perhaps it was more from a want of knowledge of what the natives required. Mr. Roebuck.'} — I asked you the question, whether you meant to charge Captain Smith with an intention to favour the colonists ? and you said, in the case of pa Te- aro, you did ; do you mean to say that now ? — I should ra~ ' ther point out to the Committee, if I had the register, where the cases might he better chosen. But is that answer to stand as you gave it to me before, or do you withdraw that answer respecting the imputation against Captain Smith ? — I do not mean to say that Captain Smith would have done any positive injustice to the natives if he had thought he was doing it. Then the statement you made, that he favoured the interests of the colonists, was an incorrect statement, and made in haste ? — I cannot withdraw it. Then you re-assert it ? — Yes. Mr. Roebuck. — The statement you made to me in answer to a question of mine was this, that Mr. Smith, in order to favour the interests of the colonists, had chosen a certain portion of land for the natives in a position that was not favourable to the natives' interests, and the case you pointed out was pa Te-aro f—lf — I have endeavoured to show that. Some doubt having arisen upon that, I ask you whether you withdrew the answer, and you said, " No, I will not withdraw it ;" and I asked whether you re-asserted it, and you said, " Yes ;" do you re-assert that Captain Smith made that selection in favour of the colonists, intending to favour the colonists ? — I think he is open to that charge in some degree." The witness undergoes a long examination on this point ; he objects to Captain Smith's selection of the section on which Barrett's Hotel stands, for the order of choice No. 7, the first native reserve, admitting at the same time that it is a part of Lambton-quay which is the most valuable part of the water frontage, and thinks he would have chosen instead the section at Te-aro selected for No. 9 order of choice. Objects to some other selections made by Capt. Smith. Thinks they were an error of judgment; but in the No. 9, says it was direct partiality. " Mr. Roebuck.'] — Where did your property lie?— ln No. 81. Is that the only lot you have ? — The only lot ; I chose for many other parties. Where was your country lot ? — I sold the ground before the country land was ready for selection ; I sold my lind-order. So you never had any country lot ? — No, I never had ; at least, I purchased from the Company, but never got possession of it. What time did you sell it ? — I think in the latter part of 1840. What time did you leave New Zealand ?—? — In April 1843. You found it not favourable to your views of colonization ? — No. In what was the failure to satisfy your views ? — The country appeared so difficult to clear. That difficulty of clearing was the cause of your leaving it as a colony ? — Yes, in a great degree. Mr. Aglionby.~] — Had you any country land when you left? — No, I sold town and country together. Mr. Aglionby. — What sum did you get for the country section ? — I sold them not separately but both together ; I got £300 for what I paid £101. Town and country ? — Yes. ' Then you had no country land of your own remaining ?—? — I only purchased one section, town and country, and that I sold, and I never purchased again." Thinks that without reflecting on Mr. Spain, his Court was not a satisfactory mode of settling the question for anybody. Thinks there might be 100 acres in cultivation by the natives in the Port Nicholson district. After some further general evidence, the witness states that the proceedings of Mr. Spain J s Court altogether were too complicated — that a better method might have been taken for settling the claims. If Mr. Spain had called a general meeting of the tribes, and havingdiscussed whether the land was sold or not, it might have been arranged, perhaps in two or three days ; does not think the natives understood the inquiry that was going forward ; from the tiresome, or rather from the great length, to which the proceedings of Mr. Spain's Court extended, the natives gave over coming to it, and thought it extremely wearisome. In the Port Nicholson case, if the public meetings had been held as stated by the witness, the whole thing might have been despatched in a few days.