16

PETITIONS.

Tour memorialists trust that your Honorable House will see that this very rapidly rising and important district must have a commonage, and that your sense of justice and right will cause you to insist on the Provincial Council laying off the area asked for from Mr. Loughnan's run, and pay him compensation at once, so that this most serious and vital question may be settled, and the intense excitement which exists may be allayed. And your memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. [Here follow 5 signatures.]

No. 4. PETITION OF NGATIRAUKAWA TRIBE. To the Honourable the House of Representatives for the Colony of New Zealand, The Humble Petition of the undersigned Aboriginal Natives, members of the Ngatiraukawa Tribe or of Hapus connected therewith. Sheweth, — That your petitioners and other members of the said tribe or hapus connected therewith are interested in lands situated between the Rivers Manawatu and Rangitikei, in the Province of Wellington. That the claim of your petitioners to the said land was by an order of the Governor of New Zealand, made under the provisions of" The Native Lands Act, 1867," referred to the consideration of the Native Lands Court, and appointed to sit in the City of Wellington, in the month of July, 1869; but such order was made without any application on the part of your petitioners. That your petitioners nevertheless appeared by counsel before the said Court, and thereupon certain issues touching the right to the lands in question were submitted to the said Court. That the following is a copy of the issues so submitted : — 1. Did Raukawa, prior to the year 1840, by virtue of the conquest of Ngatiapa by themselves or others through whom they claim, acquire the dominion over the land in question, or any and what part or parts thereof? 2. Did that tribe or any and what hapu acquire, subsequently to conquest thereof, by occupation, such a possession over the said land, or any and what part or parts thereof, as would constitute them owners according to Maori custom ; and did they, or any and what hapus, retain such possession in January, 1840, over the said land or any or what part or parts thereof ? 3. Wero the rights of Ngatiapa or any of them completely extinguished over the said land so acquired by conquest and occupation, or over any and what parts thereof; or did they in January, 1840, have any ownership according to Maori custom over the said land, or any and what part or parts thereof? 4. Was such ownership of the Ngatiapa hostile to, independent of, or along with that of Ngatiraukawa, or any and what hapu or hapus thereof ? 5. Have the Ngatiapa or any of them, since January, IS4O, acquired by occupation or otherwise any and what ownership according to Native custom of the said land so acquired by Raukawa, or of any and what part or parts thereof? 6. What persons, if any, of the said Raukawa Tribe (if the said tribe acquired ownership), or what persons of any hapu or hapus thereof which acquired ownership, if any, over the said land or any part thereof in January, 1840, have not signed or assented to the cession to the Crown of the land owned by them ? That, after hearing the evidence and counsel on both sides, the Court gave decisions upon the said issues as follows :— As to the first issue—No. As the second issue—The words "subsequently to conquest thereof" must be erased; Ngatiraukawa as a tribe has not acquired by occupation any rights over this estate. The three hapus of Ngatiraukawa, Ngatikahow, Ngatipawahawaha and Ngatikawhawha, have by occupation and with consent of Ngatiapa acquired rights which will constitute them owners according to Maori custom. Three hapus retained such rights in January, 1840. There is not evidence before the Court which should cause it to limit these rights to any specified piece or pieces of land. The Court is not quite clear whether the hapu Ngatihihi should be also included, and will, if the parties desire, hear further evidence with regard to that hapu. As to the third issue—The rights of Ngatiapa were not extinguished, but they were affected in so far as the three above hapus have acquired rights. As to the fourth issue—The ownership of the above three hapus was along with that of Ngatiapa. As to the fifth issue—lt does not require answering. As to the sixth issue—lt cannot be answered yet. By Ngatiapa is meant all Ngatiapa, including those persons called half-castes. Rangitane (properly so called) and Ngatiupukiwi are excluded. That afterwards inquiry was instituted by the said Court as to the persons, being members of the three admitted hapus of Ngatiraukawas, who should be recognized as the persons entitled to the land to be thereafter allotted to the said three admitted hapus, and on the 28th day of August, 1869, your petitioners and certain other persons were admitted as persons so entitled, as belonging to the said admitted hapus. That on or about the 3rd day of September, 1869, the said Court made a further order in relation to the said matter, which is in the words and figures following:—