4

40. There is no appeal against your decision ?—No, none. 41. Then, if a mistake was made by the Commissioner, could we get it reversed in anyway ?—The only way in which it could be done is to apply for a rehearing, and have another Commissioner, as was done in the Otawa case: Mr. Brabant was Commissioner, the Natives felt aggrieved, I was sent down by Mr. Sheehan, and gave a judgment cancelling the first one. 42. Mr. Carrington.] Upon fresh evidence ? —The same evidence, but given before another Commissioner. In deciding claims of this kind, you have to run a give-and-take line, and weigh the claims of different hapus. The claims were not as between individuals, but between hapus. 43. Hon. Sir George Grey.] Then did you take evidence when you heard this case about the Maori's land ? —I took notes of evidence ; the whole inquiry lasted over six weeks. 44. Is the evidence in existence ? —I cannot say. 45. Is your judgment in existence? —Tes. 46. AVhat form was followed of issuing advertisements ? —A circular letter was printed and filled in, and sent to each tribe for circulation amongst their people. 47. There was no public advertisement ?—No. 48. Then a person at a distance might have missed it altogether ?—Tes ; that is quite possible. 49. And there were no formal records ofthe Court kept?— No. 50. Not as they are kept in the Native Land Court ? —No ; not in the same way. 51. Although it concerned property of great value, really?—Tes; no records were kept; only rough notes. 52. Still, I mean no formal records such as are kept in the Native Land Court?—No ; all matters relating to this land and the evidence taken have been referred to Mr. AVilsou, who is acting as Commissioner and Judge of the Native Land Court. 53. Could this case have been heard by the Native Land Court by law ?—No ;it could not. That question was brought up. No confiscated land can be brought before the Native Land Court. 54. But land which has been returned is not in the same position ?—lt has to undergo a certain process, and be gazetted as returned. 55. That land could have been brought before the Native Land Court ?—lt could have been ; but I think it would have been a misfortune if it had. 56. But it could have been put in such a position as to come before the ordinary Courts of the colony ? —Tes ;it could have. I should also say that I think the object of the Government has been not to return to the Natives these lands in their original state, but with Crown grants. That has been the position taken up by past Governments. 57. That position was not taken up when I gave this land back ?—lt has been decided to go back under a clear title, to prevent all disputes. Unfortunately, it was not done in the case of Tamapahore. 58. But this particular piece of land was never regularly confiscated ?—The 200,000 acres were confiscated technically. 59. But immediately given back —never taken possession of by the Government ?—Never. 60. It was not in the position of the AVaikato confiscated land in that way ?—ln taking possession of the land we carried out as nearly as possible the arrangement made by yourself about this 50,000 acres. This Katikati purchase is out of this confiscated land of 200,000 acres. 61. Mr. Carrington.] Was it notified at any time that the 200,000 acres had been confiscated ?— Tes; the whole district was confiscated by Order in Couucil. 62. And officially notified ?—Tes ; in the Gazette. 63. Hon. Sir George Grey.] AVhat is the date of the Order in Council?— The 18th May, 1865. That Order in Council is quoted in the Tauranga Lands Acts of 1567 and 1868. 64. Mr. Carrington.] That land actually became Queen's land? —Tes. 65. Hon. Sir George Grey.] What was the date of my first visit to Tauranga? —August, 1864. 66. Do you say that at my first visit I returned the 150,000 acres at once ? —No ; that it should be returned to them. That promise you made in 1864, and it was renewed iv 1866. They all understood that if they went into rebellion they would lose their land. 67. Then, on the Ist of August, 1864, they surrendered 200,000 acres of land, which was a voluntary surrender ?—They did. It was afterwards agreed to by the loyal Natives. 68. Tho Order in Council confiscating it was in 1865 ?—Tes ; it confiscated the whole block, and alluded to the promise you then made. 69. What was the date of the second meeting with them ?—The second meeting was on the 26th of March, 1866. 70. What was the date of the first meeting?—l have not got the date, but I could very soon find it. I have got two reports that I have written on the same subject. 71. Did Mr. Douglas and his wife present themselves in your Court ? —Neither of them; but I have a very indistinct remembrance of a woman who had married a European coming to see me, and I suggested to her the proper time for her to appear was when the case was opened. She was then living with her people. 72. There were no actual notices issued in the newspapers, or the same formalities as would be observed by the Native Land Court ? —No. 73. The Chairman.] Do you suggest that the woman was actually the petitioner?—l have not tho least idea; I could not recognize her ; Ido not know her at all. In the evidence I took there were a great many absentees put on the certificates, at the request of the Natives themselves —notably Te Tauaroa, who was then a prisoner at Otago. 74. Hon. Sir George Grey.] At tho time you recommended the restriction should not be placed on the land had Captain Morris a lease of it ? —He had. 75. For what length of time was the lease ?—I do not know ; I did not see it. I had nothing to do with Europeans. I had to deal with the Natives and the Government. 76. Had Captain Morris a great advantage, when the restriction was taken off the land, oyer any other European ? —He was occupying, and had cattle on it.