(Enclosure in No. 4.)

Section 13.—I think it well that it should be left to the discretion of the Judge whether or not to employ an Assessor. There are many cases where the presence of a Native Assessor is not really required, and consequently the expense not necessary; but as the practice of in all cases employing Assessors has continued so long, In abrupt change to the contrary practice would not, perhaps, be advisable. It is sufficient to leave [gap — reason: damage] to the Judge whether to employ an Assessor or not.

Sections 15, 16, 17.—I do not think that any formal division of districts need be made, but there would be no harm in doing so, provided that the Judges are liable to be called on to act in any other part of the country on special occasions. The present law and practice seem sufficient.

Section 20.—Difficulties have arisen from time to time, but seldom entirely of the nature named in the explanatory remark on this section. The difficulties have chiefly been from delays and misconduct of the surveyors. I would suggest—not, however, without hesitation, and subject to fuller consideration —that it might be an improvement on the present system to appoint district surveyors; each surveyor to have the monopoly of all work required to be done in his district by Natives, with power to employ any sufficient or necessary number of assistants, and no survey to be valid or recognizable by the Court except done by him, or under his supervision; but giving him no redress at law as against his employers, except in the way of enforcing any securities his Native employers might give him for payment previously to the work being entered into which they all can do in one way or another. Some such arrangement would place the parties in t position: The surveyor would be enabled to refuse to survey until he was secered for his payment which should be at a fixed rate, determined by the Government); the Native claimant could not bring his claim into Court until he had either paid the surveyor beforehand, or given him security, and would be deterred from bringing before the Court, in most cases, any doubtful or vexatious claim; in fact, the expense of survey, which under such circumstances would be clearly unavoidable, would be a very strong guarantee that the claim was bonâ fide, or that the claimant himself believed he was right. The Court, however, should have it in its discretion to order, in case of a claimant who had been nonsuited, and the title given to a successful opponent, that the expense the first claimant had been to in making the survey should be reimbursed to him by the person who had made good his title. Surveyors, I think, would be willing to accept appointments on these terms; but I only make these remarks as a rude groundwork out of which something better may be made, as I am at present pressed for time, and cannot give the subject the full consideration it deserves, or that I could wish. I wish to "be understood that in any remarks I make here I refer more particularly to all the country north of Auckland, from the Waitemata River and Kaipara to the North Cape, except where my remarks have an obviously general application.

Sections 21 and 22.—The present law and practice seem quite satisfactory and sufficient.

Section 23.—Absolutely impracticable and unnecessary. Under this section a Judge would have the whole of his time taken up in travelling about the country making extra judicial and impertinent inquiries, and collecting one-sided and, for the most part, false evidence, but which would be only calculated to warp his judgment when the case actually came into Court—a Court in which the titles to estates and interests of the greatest value are decided by the Judges under a deep feeling of responsibility, and of-the necessity of doing strict justice, and which is indeed the only foundation for the surprising authority which the Court has acquired, without any support but a moral influence, amongst the Natives, who, though they may in a very few cases appeal against a judgment, have notwithstanding full confidence in the rectitude of the Court, and its intention to do in all cases strict justice. To take action under this section would at once destroy the confidence the Natives have in the Court, and page 62would render the office of Judge contemptible. My practice [gap — reason: illegible] always been directly to the contrary. I never allow any Native to say one word to me on the merits [unclear: any] claim until it comes before me in Court, and the result has been excellent. I am no longer troubled as at the beginning with attempts to prejudice my mind beforehand, and all parties have [unclear: confident in] the impartiality of the Court, and very few claims are made which are not bonâ fide.

Section 24.—Many claims must be heard at the same time and place, or the business could not be got through at all; and, as to making it a rule to hear [gap — reason: damage] or close to the land claimed, this would be to go as far as possible to insure a one-sided investigation, and often a wrong decision. The reason for this opinion I have fully stated formerly in a letter to the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court.

Section 25 and explanatory note.—Natives are always perfec[gap — reason: damage] able to manage their own cases in Court. In many cases I find them extraordinarily clever as [unclear: pleers], and they always suffer on both sides, where, in any opposed case, they have been prevailed on the employ European agents, especially lawyers. The present law and practice are sufficient; there is no need to endeavour to make the Court popular: it is highly so.

Sections 26, 27.—See explanatory remark, section 25.

Sections 28, 29.—The present law and practice quite sufficient.

Section 30.—I think that in the cases referred to in this section the Court should have full power to decide as to what restrictions should be imposed on alienability of land, and whether any should be imposed. I think it very necessary and important that the Court should have such discretionary power.

Sections 31, 34, 35, 36, 37.—Such interference between the [unclear: buyer] and seller would be politically unwise, and constitutionally wrong, and highly dangerous. The danger intended to be guarded against by section 31 does not exist, or only to a small degree, in the northern districts, where the Natives do place even, if anything, too much value on land. I think that were the danger alluded to in the explanatory note on section 31 does exist it might be averted in [gap — reason: damage] more simple manner. The procedure laid down for adoption in sections 34, 35, 36, and 37, I am bound to say, I think, generally impracticable, quite unnecessary, and highly dangerous. The Native in all the northern districts, and particularly in the Bay of Islands District, understand well what their own rights are; they are extremely anxious to hold their lands by tenure from the Crown, in the same way as lands are held by Her Majesty's European subjects; they are very determined to do as they choose with their own, and are not at all likely to ruin themselves by excessive or improvident land sales, and would, I feel sure, resist such interference and such a state of tutelage as the sections above mentioned would impose upon them, but will submit willingly to such restrictions on alienability of lands or other conditions as the Court can show are prudent, desirable, or necessary for their own [unclear: interests or] the interests of their children. I am bound by my duty to the public to speak plainly what I think [gap — reason: damage] this subject, for I can anticipate nothing but danger and difficulty should this proposed Act become [unclear: law].

Sections 38, 39, 40.—I think the present law and practice sufficient, and well understood by the Natives.

Section 41.—This section appears to me unnecessary, the present law being sufficient. The only remark I would make is that every decision by the Court should be founded on a full investigation, and that, in respect to the "peace of the country," the Court should ende[gap — reason: illegible] our to come to a just decision in every claim on Maori usage and custom as its first object, and that this will insure the peace of the country in as far as any action of the Court can secure it.

Section 42, of fees.—The fee of 10s. for application for inquiry [unclear: into] title I do not think advisable. The present scale of fees fixed by law appears to me sufficient, the Court having discretion in applying it.

Sections 43, 44, 45, 46.—No remark necessary, present law being sufficient.

Section 47.—There can be no objection made to this section, and it might be useful to decide any doubt as to the reading of an Act, but I do not see at present any [unclear: liklihood] of a question in English law arising in the investigation of a title founded on Maori usage and custom.

Section 48.—Present law sufficient, and I think better.

Section.49.—I think that in all cases of land claims contested between Natives and the Government the Court should not have jurisdiction, except only when the matter has been referred to the Court by the Governor, and in such cases I think the proceeding should be of the, nature of an arbitration: but I believe it would be better for many reasons that no such cases should be referred to the Court at all; and I think the Government would, in most instences, settle such disputes more advantageously by arrangements which might be made between its agents and the Natives. I, however, do not wish to be understood as speaking positively, on this point.

Section 50.—Very proper.