G.— 2.

his rights stopped for a couple of years, up till October, 1895, and during those two years he had no means of knowing or no reason to suggest that the rights would be revived later on. He only had the right for four years altogether, which was not continuous. Those rights of conversion are of importance to the lessee. What I want to say is that admittedly some of the lessees under the Act in 1892 knew their right—they knew they had the right to convert, and some availed themselves of it, but others did not. Times were bad, although they were better than in 1880, and the lessee had then had from nine to ten years of pretty hard work on his land. It was all going into the land in those days, and any small increase left meant a great deal to him. More than that, there was a pretty considerable expense for the lessee in converting. Some of the lessees knew of their right to convert, and availed themselves of it, while others did not. Now, as to the second branch of the inquiry, we come to the lessees who in 1892 did not avail themselves of the right, and who did not know subsequently that their right had been revived. I am speaking of the lessees who had known in 1892 and 1893 of the right to convert, but who did not avail themselves of it because they could not financially, and who did not subsequently know that these rights had been revived when they were in a financial position, and would gladly have availed themselves of the rights. The fact will speak for itself that after 1892, the man then whose improvements were under £5 an acre —considerably under —went on for years afterwards heaping improvements on to the land up to £5, £6, £8, and £10 an acre, and did not convert. I think the conclusion must be almost irresistible that they did not know they had the right. The right of conversion meant everything to them —it meant that they were to be paid in full for all their improvements. In 1892 and 1893 and about that time their improvements were about £5 per acre, so that if they came to the Public Trustee to convert, all they would pay him would be the difference in rental they were paying on the 5-per-cent. basis. The only difference they would be paying would be the difference between the small rental based on the 5-per-cent. valuation of 1881 and the valuation of 1893, but in exchange for that they would be getting a lease with full valuation for the whole of their improvements. Mr. Kerr: In excess of £5. Mr. Welsh: No, sir, that is not quite correct. When they converted and got their new lease they would get a new lease with full compensation for all improvements. What you are referring to is that if a lessee converted in 1892 or 1893 or any other time he would have to pay the Public I'rustee for any improvements on the land in excess of £5 an acre; but my point is this, and there will be abundant evidence called by the lessees to demonstrate that when they knew of their first right to convert their improvements had not reached £5, so that all that the lessees would have to pay the Public Trustee would be slightly increased rental. In fact, when the lessees converted, I think in several cases they actually paid a lesser rental than they were paying under the Act of 1881. Mr. Bell: That is so. Mr. Welsh: The point I desire to make is this: In face of all that, these men went on and spent a lot more money on their improvements in addition to bringing the improvements up to far in excess of the £5 an acre. Does not that appeal to one as almost irresistible in the conclusion that they honestly believed at that time that their leases made provision for them to be paid for the whole of their improvements? They could not see the difference between the Acts of 1881 and 1892; they thought under both Acts they were being paid for all improvements. If that is not so, what answer can we give to the question, why did they contiuue to spend a lot of money on their improvements, enhancing the value considerably over £5 per acre, if they did not believe that they had the right at the time of surrendering their leases on payment of quite a small sum and coming in under the Act of 1892? In some cases the rental was not larger, and, I think, in the majority of cases the rental was not very greatly enhanced. I think the valuations, comparing 1881 and 1892, were not so very different as they would be between 1892 and 1900. If the lessees' contention is correct, there is only one conclusion left—namely, that they were misled, not by the Public Trustee and his officials, but by the lease, into the belief that they were entitled to be paid for the whole of their improvements that they were putting on the land. Mr. Kerr: You say they were misled by the terms of the lease, and not by the Public Trustee or his officials? Mr. Welsh: Yes, sir. Mr. Kerr: How many of your clients do you say have made improvements in excess of £5 an acre? Mr. Welsh: I am afraid a great number have. I think at this end of .the province the majority have, but at Opunake not so many, and at New Plymouth and Waitara fewer still probably. At this end you will find probably that the men can substantiate what they have said, that they have gone up to £12, and on quite large holdings too. Of course, on the smaller holdings it would not be so much. Well, after Tinkler's case Parliament was petitioned for relief. I will ask leave to put in the petition. The petitioners gave evidence before the Lands Committee of the House, and the result was that the Chairman of the Lands Committee invited the then Public Trustee to confer with the Chairman, the petitioners, and myself in the hope that we would arrange some terms that the Lands Committee might recommend to Parliament as the basis of legislation. Well, a memorandum was brought down by the Public Trustee at that time. Of course, I have only a copy of that memorandum, and I would suggest that the Commission call for the production of that memorandum. [Public Trust Office file put in by consent.] The case for the petitioners subsequently went before the Native Affairs Committee of the House, and I think you will see a record of the reports brought down by each of those Committees. I think, in the case of the Lands Committee, the case was referred to the Government for favourable consideration, and in the case of the Native Affairs Committee it was referred to the Government for considera-

18