L—B.

as positive on the part of the other members of the Board, that, unless there had been the assurance from the Government that this lease was to extend to the time when Government would be able to pay the money themselves, the Harbour Board would not have entered into it at all. I believe at the time we could have got just as good a rental for the land for the time we were legally entitled to lease it. 319. Mr. Wilson.] That is for three years ? —For thirty years, I think. You will find the term of lease set forth in the Act. 320. Dr. Newman.] What amount per year is Mr. Cunningham paying for the lease of that piece?—l cannot tell you. 321. Perhaps Mr. Williams will be able to tell us?— Mr. Williams further examined. Mr. Williams : £374 a year ground-rent—that is, for No. 2 store. # 322. What did the Board buy it for, Mr. Williams?—They bought it to store grain in. 323. Yes; but how much did they pay for it ?—£4,750. The lease had then, in December, 1885, about fourteen years to run. It.was originally a twenty-one years' lease, I think. 324. Sir J. Hall.] Is it the same size as No. 5 shed ?—No ; it is smaller. 325. The Chairman.] It is a brick store ? —Yes; a big brick store. 326. Dr. Newman."] Is Mr. Cunningham the buyer and seller as well ?—He originally bought the lease of the site from the Government in the year 1878 at auction and sold it to the Grain Agency Company. 327. Was he a member of the Board when the lease was transferred by the Grain Agency Company to the Board? —Yes. 328. As a member of the Board he agreed to the private purchase of the lease from himself?— Not from himself, from the Grain Agency Company. 329. But he has not got a release —he is still a tenant of the Government ?—He sold it to the Grain Agency Company some eight or nine years before. 330. But he has not got a release from it ? Hon. Mr. Peacock : There was an agreement to get a release. 331. Dr. Newman.] While interested in the lease, he agreed to the private purchase of the lease by the Board?—He was not interested as far as he knew. He understood it was transferred to the Grain Agency Company. 332. Put it in another way : Mr. Cunningham, as a member of the Board, agreed to the private sale of the lease from the Grain Agency Company?—Yes. 333. At the same time, he was interested in the Grain Agency Company, and had not got really an assignment of the lease ? —I do not know what his interest in the Grain Agency Company was It did not appear that he was interested in the Grain Agency Company at all. The Board bought the lease from the liquidator sent out from Home to wind up that company. 334. He was one of the largest shareholders in it, was he not ? Hon. Mr. Peacock :He had nothing to do with it. It was in the hands of a liquidator—a gentleman from England. 335. Mr. Turnbull. | Can you state, Mr. Williams, the difference in the storage capacities of No. 5 shed and this brick store?—No. 5 shed will hold, the Engineer estimated at the time, about 7,000 tons—7o,ooo sacks—and No. 2 shed holds about 40,000 sacks. 336. What does Mr. Cunningham pay for the lease?—£374 a year ground-rent only. Mr. Cunningham built the store himself after he had leased the site from the Government in 1878. 337. Did the Board buy the lease after intimation from the Government that they intended to give up the store ? —I do not quite follow you. 338. Did the Harbour Board purchase this No. 2 store ?—Yes; they purchased it from the Grain Agency Company, then in liquidation. 339. Had any correspondence taken place between the Government and the Board with reference to No. 5 store before you purchased it?—No. The Government first wrote to the Board about reducing the rent of No. 5 shed in August, 1885. The Board bought No. 2 store on the 31st December, 1885. Hon. Mr. Peacock's examination continued. 340. Mr. Perceval.] I would like to ask Mr. Peacock whether he thinks the Board would be willing to take over the Gladstone Shed and abandon their claim to the £3,000 odd ? I understand the Board is willing to give up all claim to the shed on payment of the amount they expended on it—some £3,000. Would they accept the other position ?—Government wish to have the Gladstone Shed, and wish to have the money too. I dare say we would be glad to take over the shed if we had all control over it; but Government want to have control and use it for Customs purposes, and pay nothing for it. 341. If Government gave you absolute control of that shed, would you be satisfied with the settlement I have mentioned ?—Well, I can hardly say that now. It would hardly be a fair position to put the Board in. The Board would have been glad to have done so some time ago, but since then they have built sheds to provide adequate storage-accommodation. Of course, I cannot commit the Board to what it should do. 342. Hon. Sir J. Hall.] Do you think the Board would rather have the money or the sheds?— I think, as the sheds are in the hands of the Railway and the Customs, and the Board get no rent whatever, the Board would rather have the money; I should imagine so. 343. If you had the sheds, they would not continue under the control of the Railway and the Customs ?—I think, then, we would rather have the sheds. That is my own opinion, of course. 344. Assuming the Customs and Railway could not be cleared out of the sheds ?—Then, they would not be of any use to us. This question was raised while I was Chairman of the Board. These sheds were not in continuous use by the Customs and Railway, and we required them; and we asked for the use of one of the sheds, and that raised the whole question.

24