G.—l

178

each person among the Maoris to live upon —that is to say, for the personal occupation of my people. This has not been done. Ido not know any of us who has 50 acres to use. Because we could not get any attention paid to our application for redress we commenced a suit in the Supreme Court, and I am at present in Wellington attending the Court as a witness. [Mr. Mackay having arrived, the foregoing evidence was read over to him.] 2283. Mr. Mackay.] What leases are these you refer to ? Who are the lessees ? —P. Gower is the lessee. 2284. What is the name of the reserve or block that he is tenanting ?—Patere. Pukorakora is another name for it. 2285. How many acres has he got ? —Three hundred and three. 2286. What is the gross acreage of that block ? —Three hundred and three acres is the area included in the grant. 2287. Then, the whole block is leased to the one person?—Yes. 2288. That was leased in 1877 by the then owners? —Yes. 2289. They seem, then, to have, in fact, leased the whole of that land : had they interests in other lands on which they resided ? —The land they were occupying at the time they leased this block was subsequently leased also. 2290. Why did they lease the land on which they were living?—The chiefs who were the principal owners of the other lands on which they were living leased them. The reason why these lands were so leased was because they understood that the terms of the leases were short and would soon come to an end. Expecting, therefore, these lands to revert to them at the expiration of the term of the leases, they leased the other lands as well. 2291. How did they subsist, the whole of these two blocks being leased ? —They were occupying some other land. 2292. Did that land belong to them ?—When that land became Crown-granted it was found that they were not the owners of it, and that therefore they had no right to it. 2293. Where are they living now? —Some are in European employ, and others are occupying land owned by my wife. Marino is living at Otaki- —working for some European there. He is married, and has two children, and he has no means of making provision for them. 2294. Why did they not represent to Sir William Fox at the time that the whole of these blocks were leased, and that it would be necessary to reserve land for their occupation and use ?—We explained the matter to Sir William Fox, and Sir William Fox said, " The best thing to do would be to have your lands Crown-granted, so that no person can come and interfere with your title." We then consented to this, and no sooner was the Crown grant issued than the law was passed that robbed us of our lands. Sir William Fox told us that when the Crown grant was issued no one would be able to come and disturb our ownership. He did not say anything about the leases. Some ■of the Natives pointed out to Sir William Fox that great hardship would be inflicted upon a portion of their number ; but he said they Avould soon get over that, as the leases would shortly expire. After the Commission went to Wellington the news came back to the Natives that the Commissioners had decided to reserve 50 acres for each individual; but that has not been carried out. 2295. That is what I wanted to get at. On what reserve are you living yourself, Broughton ? —I am living on land belonging to my wife. 2296. What is the particular reserve ? —Pukorakora, containing 509 acres. 2297. What is your post-town?—Patea. The land we are speaking about is situated between. Patea and Whenuakura. 2298. Is it near Mr. Percy Wilson's? —That, perhaps, is at the Wairoa? 2299. No; Okututu. Did you give evidence before the parliamentary Committee that sat on the West Coast Settlement Reserves petitions from Natives and others in August last ?—Yes ; but I spoke there on another subject. It Avas in reference to some of the land that was wrongly taken. I spoke on the general question, and did not particularise any case. 2300. Mr. Carroll.] Did you tell that Committee that certain Natives were landless ?—Yes; I said that the reason why arbitration Avould not be agreed to was that some of the Natives were altogether without land. You will be able to see from the printed record of my evidence what I stated. 2301. Mr. Mackay.] I have looked over your evidence, and I do not see that you made any remark as to any of the Natives you have now mentioned being landless ?—I did not mention any Natives, but I said that that proposed arbitration would not be agreed to because some of the Natives were suffering great hardship through not having any land at all. I did not mention any particular names, because I expected that the examining lawyer would put the question to me, and ask me if I was able to mention any names. Had he asked me that I could then have furnished the names. 2302. You are aware that after the West Coast Commission sat I was appointed West Coast Reserves Commissioner; and I have never received any intimation of that promise by Sir William Fox. If I had I should have attended to it ?—When the Europeans said that Mr. Mackay controlled their leases the Natives said among themselves, " Why does not Mr. Mackay come and see us?" 2303. There was no injunction on me to do so in any way?—That is what I mean when I say we are robbed of our lands. We were dealt with unjustly in that manner. We were not consulted -on the subject, and the terms of the leases were not discussed with us. 2304. The terms of the Act under which the Commissioners acted were simply that they were to investigate and ascertain whether at the time the original leases were granted they were granted bond fide. Section 18 of " The West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881," says,—" And whereas •certain Natives entitled, or who may become entitled, to reserves granted or to be granted under the said Act have already leased the same or portions thereof for specified terms of years to various settlers, who have entered into possession, occupied, and improved the same, and the validity of such leases is doubtful: Be it therefore further enacted The Governor-in Council, on being satisfied