Report on Petition of Meihana Taipu and 10 Others.

This petition refers to certain land situated at Porirua, which has been Crown-granted to one Ellison in consideration of an old land purchase made in 1837.

The petitioners state that they claim the land because they are not aware that their father, the owner thereof, ever consented to its sale, and they ask that the deed be laid on the table of the House.

I am directed to report as follows:—That the subject-matter of this petition has been investigated on several occasions by Commissioners, European and Maori, appointed for the purpose, and on two previous occasions before Committees of the House of Representatives, which made very full inquiry into the matter, and in 1869 reported as follows:—

"A Crown grant for 388 acres (part of 2,000 acres which Rangihaeata sold to Ellison by deed dated 6th December, 1837) was signed by the Governor on the 20th June, 1863. An inquiry into the circumstances and validity of this and other purchases made by Ellison was begun by Mr. Commissioner Spain in 1843. That inquiry was continued by Mr. McLean in 1852, and a third and final inquiry was undertaken in 1862, by Major Edwards and Mr. George Swainson, Commissioner of Native Reserves in the Province of Wellington, with whom was associated Tamihana te Rauparaha; and it was in pursuance of the report of these three Commissioners that the Crown grant for 388 acres was issued by the Governor. The Committee examined Mr. Swainson and Tamihana te Rauparaha, and also Matene te Whiwhi (Rangihaeata's nephew) upon the various points connected with the sale and award to Ellison; they have found no reason whatever to question the propriety and fairness of the recommendation of the Commissioners in his favour, and which the Crown grant confirmed. The Committee direct me to report that, concurring with the tenor of the report above quoted, they cannot recommend the House to interfere in any way with the decision arrived at in the year 1862."

page 21

It is now impossible to obtain as full evidence as has been obtained on former inquiries, and this Committee see no reason to differ from the report as quoted above.