G.—s

22

years, while at times there have been suggestions to dispossess them of the whole or the greater part of it. This is a case in which we think the promise made on behalf of the Government should be fulfilled. If it should be decided to give the Natives title, it should be in such a way that the land would remain inalienable except with the consent of the Governor-General in Council. WAIPUKU-PATEA RESERVE. In this matter the Natives complain that they have been injured by the alleged arbitrary action of the authorities in altering the location of a reserve set aside for them. By deed made on the 22nd May, 1874, certain Natives purported to sell to the Crown their interests in the Waipuku-Patea Block. That deed contained the following clause : " Mr. Parris (the Civil Commissioner) has agreed to give us 700 acres of this land." From the records it appears that the location of this reserve on the ground was agreed to between Mr. Parris and the Natives, and that it was accordingly marked off on the sketch-plans of the Department. About two or three years later it was desired to lay out the Town of Stratford. It was found that the reserve would, if left intact, interfere with the proposed scheme. The authorities in Native affairs were therefore approached, and it was suggested that probably a reserve in another place could be found for the Natives. The then Civil Commissioner, believing that the Government had full power to do so, apprehended no difficulty, but first of all approached the Natives, offering them alternatively a 700-acre reserve m two separate portions, or a reserve of 2,000 acres in another block. The Natives strenuously objected to the proposed alteration. Eventually the reserve was what was called " turned over " —that is, it was shifted to one side adjoining the old reserve, a portion, say, 75 acres, of the original reserve still being retained. In the eyes of the Natives this would have the further objectionable phase that the greater portion of it would not be within the limits of the Waipuku-Patea Block. But whether they wished it or not the Natives had to be content with the substituted reserve, and herein arose the first grievance. That grievance was dealt with by two Royal Commissions. The first—the Bell-Fox Commission, in 1880—reported that the changing of the reserve was unlawful. The second —that of Sir William Fox—followed up the former Commission's report, adopted its finding, and held that the transaction was one very injurious to the interests of the Natives. The latter Commissioner made an attempt to rectify the injustice. He found some difficulty in doing this. Part of the land had been cut up and sold as a town. He spoke of returning the balance, but here again he found the Natives had dealt with the substituted reserve by way of lease. Sir William found that there was a great disparity in value between the two reserves, and he endeavoured to do justice by effecting a compromise in the matter. " A long negotiation," he says, " ably conducted by Major Parris, ended in the Natives agreeing to retain the substituted area and to have 300 acres more. The Natives concerned appear perfectly satisfied with the conclusion arrived at, which it must be acknowledged is extremely favourable to the Government." The Natives are not now seeking to repudiate the agreement so far as the changing of the reserve is concerned, but they contend that the settlement arrived at was not a fair one; that it was not agreed to by or with the authority of them all; and that the compensation offered, in the shape a 300-acre reserve in another place, was insufficient, when added to the substituted reserve, to make good the loss of the original reserve. We have nothing to guide us as to what information Sir William Fox acted upon when he assumed that all the Natives were perfectly satisfied, but it is apparent that they could not all have been so, otherwise there would have been no further grievance. Whether the Natives consented or not, the fairness and justness of that adjustment is now questioned. , The authorities having committed one injustice in the name of the Crown, its honour demanded that in

2 Turton, p. 77.

1880, G.-2, p. 61, para. 900, 901.

1882; G.-5, p. 15, App. HI (2),