Conclusion.

I cannot avoid the general observation that the methods of the Commissioners in conducting the enquiry would appear to have been less those of an English judge, whose object is to follow certain well recognized rules of evidence, and to see that no one is surprised or entrapped, than of the French examining magistrate, whose object is rather the contrary. The following is an illustration of my meaning:—

I have already mentioned to the Committee the Deed of Release from the Muaupoko tribe to Major Kemp, executed in October, 1892, by sixty persons (see p. 287.) That deed was prepared by me, and I, of course, accept the responsibility of its being fair to the natives. Its importance as, if valid, an absolute bar to all claims against Kemp by those who had signed it is obvious. Mr. McDonald, who, as I have Explained, was retained by the Crown for the tribe, said that, subject to formal proof of execution, he admitted the deed as binding on all who had signed it; and all the witnesses called by me to speak to it admitted on oath that they perfectly well understood its purport. But, not content with this, in view of the importance of the deed, the chairman adjourned the proceedings to the door of the Court, in order that the tribesmen who were lounging and smoking outside, as well as those who were inside, should hear it read. We all stood there while Colonel McDonnell, the Interpreter to the Commission, read over the deed in Maori and called out separately the name of each person who had signed it; and although—as stated in the Report (p. 2)—all persons had been warned at the opening of the enquiry that if they had any grievances in relation to the Horowhenua Block they must present their complaints before the Commission, as this might be their last chance, no one came forward to repudiate his signature. About six weeks later John Broughton, who had been daily in attendance from the beginning, tendered himself as a witness. He stated that when he, in common with the rest, signed the deed, after it had been read over to him by a licensed interpreter, in the presence of a magistrate—whose duty is to certify that the person signing appears perfectly to understand its purport—he did not know what he was signing, although the Report describes him (p. 17) as " an educated and intelligent half-caste." I invite the Committee to read his examination on page 258. The Commissioners express their opinion that no Court would recognize the deed as a protection to Kemp, and, out of the sixty signatories, fifty-nine of whom did not repudiate, cite Broughton as sufficient. But they rely on something even more extraordinary. The Commissioners say (p. 17): "After we adjourned a number of natives came to us to repudiate their alleged signatures to the deed." Colonel McDonnell is willing to give evidence that he was present when these natives (a party of women) interviewed the Commissioners out of Court, and that the most clamorous of them was a page 24 woman named Irihapeti Nireaha, whose name does not appear in the deed at all. Who the others were I cannot say; and the Commissioners, by their phrase "alleged signatures," confess that they did not consider it necessary to ascertain whether the persons who were repudiating the deed had signed it. But, beyond all this, it seed almost incredible that the Commissioners should have listened to these persons out of Court, and actually ventured to quote them in their Report, without insisting on their coming forward and giving their evidence before the Commission and submitting to be cross-examined.

In conclusion, therefore, I ask the Committee to express their opinion that the charges in the Report personal to myself are not borne out by the evidence. And, although I cannot ask it of the Committee under my petition, I may be allowed to express the hope that before Kemp's title to Subdivision XIV is confiscated by Parliament, he may be heard in the Supreme Court, a tribunal about whose fairness there can be no manner of doubt.