I—l 2

96

2910. You were satisfied that it was a just and reasonable thing to recommend the confirmation of these leases ?—Yes. 2911. Did you know that the regulations of 1883 and 1888 have been assailed ?—I know it now. 2912. Had you anything to do with the preparation of those regulations?—l had, to a great extent, with those of 1883 : the Law Officers of the Crown saw them properly drawn up. 2913. Mr. Tripp.] Do you know whether the first lessees were not pushed forward at the request of Sir Donald McLean ?—I have understood so. 2914. Before the management was taken over by the Public Trustee, do you know whether arrangements were made for renewals ?—I have often heard them spoken of. There were some actual renewals when some of the leases had run out. There were some—five, I think—renewals between 1879 and 1881. 2915. Under arrangements with the Natives ?—Yes. 2916. Mr. Levi.] You were Reserves Trustee up to the 31st December, 1884 ? —Yes. 2917. Then you were Reserves Trustee on the 9th December, the date of your meeting with the lessees ?—Yes. 2918. Do I understand that you attended that meeting in your capacity of Reserves Trustee, and in no other capacity?—No other capacity. 2919. Did you have any instructions from anybody to attend that meeting, or did you attend it of your own motion ?—On my own responsibility. 2920. Were the statements and answers you made to questions intended to be explanations of the existing law on the subject, or anything more ?—So far as I understood, they were explanations of the existing law. 2921. You referred to some regulations which it was proposed to issue?— Yes. 2922. Had any one informed you that such regulations would be issued ?—No ; but if I had continued to be Reserves Trustee I would have had regulations issued. 2923. Then it was purely your own action ?—Yes. 2924. You had at that time heard of the Act of 1884 ? —Yes. 2925. You referred particularly at that meeting to sections 13 and 14?— Yes. 2926. You knew the provisions of these sections ?—Yes ; I thought I did. 2927. I would like to ask if you can give any explanation of your detailed statement as to how the valuations were to be made by the arbitrators —that is to say, on the value of the land, less improvements—notwithstanding section 13, which you purported to be explaining, provided that new rents should be determined on the improved value ?—I made that statement advisedly with regard to the section. 2928. How advisedly ?—I considered that regulations could be made to carry out what I had shadowed forth at that meeting. 2929. That rents could be made upon the unimproved value ? —I did not say anything of the kind. 2930. On the value less improvements ?—I did not say anything of the kind. 2931. Is it not in your statement that the rent would be calculated on the unimproved value, or value less improvements?—l do not know what is meant by "improved value of land." If you can give me an exact interpretation of what is "improved" value of land, I will answer your question according to my lights. It is a term I have never heard exactly defined. 2932. Do you think it possible to make it consistent with your explanation?— The property is taken as it stands ; the valuation of unexhausted improvements is then taken aud deducted from the capital value. 2933. You think that is consistent with taking it on the improved value?— Yes, so far as I can understand. Give me some interpretation of what you mean by "improved value," and I will tell you whether it is consistent or not. There is no definition of it in any of our statutes ; it is a misnomer, it is a vague term, and should never have been put in any Act. 2934. Do you not see that the improved value must be the value of land as it is improved ?—I have given you my answer. 2935. Then you consider your explanation quite consistent with the section as you understood it?— Yes, quite. 2936. You did not consider that you were making any promise of legislation ?—I merely said what I considered would be the action taken under the circumstances. 2937. You did not consider you were making a promise as to future legislation ? —I could not make any promise as regards future legislation. 2938. Do you know why you fixed 5 per cent. ? Had you anything to influence you ?—No. That was the rule laid down in the Land Act of 1882 in dealing with Government land. 2939. Did you know of any leases having been recently confirmed under the Acts of 1881 and 1884 ?—I think there has been only one or two in the course of a few years. 2940. Has there been any one in the last year? —Yes—one. 2941. During this year? —I am not sure whether it was this year or the last. 2942. Which one was that ?—I cannot tell the name of the land. If you tell me the namo of the lessee I can tell you. 2943. Mr. Sinclair.] As regards this lease confirmed this last year it does not appear to be in the list of leases which Sir William Fox did not recommend (21J acres) ?—I do not know whether it is in Sir William Fox's list or not. 2944. It is not unless it is a different area, 23|- acres ?—I do not know yvhether it is in his list or not. If it is a matter connected with my position as West Coast Commissioner I must decline to answer any question. 2945. Had you anything to do with leasing the Waihi Reserve ?—No. I visited it, and went over it with the Chief Surveyor of Taranaki, but I issued no lease.