77

I.—B

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Thursday, sth July, 1888. (Hon. Mr. Stevens, Chairman.) Hon. Mr. Eolleston examined. 1. Hon. the Chairman.] Are you generally familiar with the cases mentioned in Mr. Mackay's report?—l am familiar, speaking generally, with the whole of what has passed for a series of years since 1865, especially with respect to the Ngaitahu purchase. I was Under-Secretary of the Native Department from 1865 to 1868, during which time this question of these claims was dealt with by successive Ministers; subsequent to that date the dealing with regard to the Ngaitahu purchase came under my cognisance personally as Superintendent of the Province of Canterbury for a number of years; and subsequent to that time, in my position as member of the House, and as member of the Native Affairs Committee, I am cognisant of what has passed in the Assembly on the subject. The Committee were good enough to send me Mr. Mackay's report. 1 have read it, and, so far as time has permitted, I have refreshed my memory on a number of points dealt with in that report. If the Committee desire it I would be prepared to make a statement of my view of the question dealt with in that report, and of a number of matters of detail in that connection. 2. I presume it is agreed that that will be the best course. Your evidence will be confined, Mr. Eolleston, to the Ngaitahu purchase ?—I would like to say, first of all, Mr. Mackay's report does not appear to me to deal with the matters at issue in terms of his commission. That commission was to deal with all cases of Natives alleged to be unprovided with land, and to inquire into cases where it is asserted that lands set apart are inadequate for the support of the aboriginal natives. It does not appear to me, on the face of the report, that such an inquiry was made as would seem to be intended from the terms of his commission. If it had been made in detail my own knowledge of the facts of the case would lead me to believe that such inquiry would have shown that, while there is useful work to be done in the adjustment of inequalities, and in some cases in doing fuller justice to particular sections of the Natives, the Natives are not fuliy or profitably occupying the reserves they already have. In respect of this, Mr. Mackay proposes an entirely new adjustment of the original agreement, on what appears to me an entirely untenable basis. I allude to his recommendations appearing on page 12 of his report. I should like to say, further, dealing with the general aspect of the case, he appears to have had authority, in terms of his amended commission, to deal with the Natives as though the Crown had already approved of proposals which had never been submitted to it or to Parliament. I mention that as it is, in my opinion, an unfortunate thing that the Natives should have been led, by being consulted in this way, to expectations which Ido not think they have any reasonable prospect of seeing realised. In 1882 a Committee of the House of Eepresentatives, of which I was a member, held what I think was a very exhaustive inquiry into the subject of these claims, upon the petition of Taiaroa. That Committee took the evidence of Mr. Mantell and Mr. Mackay ; it had before it the report of Judge Fenton upon these claims ; and, generally, I think they obtained the fullest evidence that could be got together upon the subject of these claims. I spent some time yesterday in going through that evidence again. I think it was unfortunate it was not printed at the time the evidence was taken. If I may be allowed, I would suggest to the Committee that they call for that evidence as dealing with the whole subject in detail. The report classifies these claims very fairly under three heads. It states, first of all —(1.) We claim that ample reserves should be made for the residence of the Natives. It separates, as I venture to assert it is right should be done, the question purely of residence from any other claims in respect of landed reserves, which were to obtain value from the progress of European civilisation and the settlement of the country. The second head was —(2.) The alleged arrangement setting aside one acre in every ten for the benefit of the Natives. This question seems to have been, in my opinion, somewhat mixed up, and, though I am not so clear on this matter of the tenths as on the other subjects of the case, I think it was shown very clearly that the idea of payment of these tenths has been an afterthought. The claim has been created out of documents of which, I think, the Natives had no knowledge at all, and the question has not been fairly raised. Thirdly, in the case of the Ngaitahu Block, promises were made of schools and hospitals as the principal inducement to the Natives to part with their lands. With regard to the first point, the Committee had in evidence that the reserves made by the Land Court in 1868 were given in final settlement of all claims over land ; and they mentioned, in relation to this, that this was confirmed by the Ngaitahu Deed Validation Act of 1868. With regard to the second point, the allegation of the tenths arrangement was not heard of till recently; and as to the third point, that the requirements of the Natives as to schools and medical attendance ever since 1868 had been fully, and since 1865 partially and sufficiently, attended to, the Committee pointed out this fact—a fact I have been perfectly cognisant of for a number of years : that the Natives have refused to accept help in respect of schools and hospitals, lest it should interfere with their claims for monetary compensation in respect of their lands. I can instance myself the Natives of Colac, Moeraki, and Waikouaiti as examples of this fact. There has been on the part of the Natives throughout a very strong feeling, which I regret to say has been very improperly fostered, to prefer claims for monetary recognition of that which I maintain could not be subject to monetary recognition at all—the duties of Government in respect of their civilisation and their progress contemporaneously with the progress of the colony as time went on. The fact is that since the sitting of the Court, which was reallv a final settlement of their land claims, thev have put forward 11—I. 8.