No. 53.—Petition of Mrs. G. E. Read and Others.

The petitioners, who are Natives of Poverty Bay, state that they continued loyal throughout the rebellion in that district, and, when the land there was confiscated, joined in a deed ceding their interests therein. They allege that 4,000 acres of land was subsequently restored to a portion of the Natives who had thus ceded their claims, but that they, the petitioners, did not receive any portion of the land so restored. The petitioners urge that they have an equitable claim to a portion of the land which has been returned, and they pray for relief.

I am directed to report as follows:—

That the Committee have examined one of the petitioners, and several other witnesses, in respect to the questions raised by this petition, and find that, in reference to four of the petitioners, the principal allegations are incorrect, inasmuch as their names are actually included in the Proclamation which sets apart the reserve in question for the use of the persons named therein. It does appear however to the Committee that, in regard to the other petitioners, a question of some difficulty is page 5raised. In order to satisfy the claims of loyal Natives in the Poverty Bay District to confiscated territory, a block of land known as the Waimate Reserve, and containing 4,214 acres, was restored by Proclamation under the provisions of "The East Coast Act, 1868." In this Proclamation the names of twenty-three persons are recited, and the question which the petitioners seem desirous of raising is, whether those twenty-three persons have an exclusive right to the benefits derived from the reserve, or whether they are to be merely regarded as trustees for a larger number of Natives entitled to participate in the rents and profits derivable from it. From the evidence of Mr. Locke, it seems certain that the persons whose names are set forth in the Proclamation were selected as the representatives of a large number of people, and that they ought therefore to be regarded as trustees. But the Committee do not think it desirable, even if they were competent to do so, that they should express an opinion as to whether the legal position of these people is what the Committee believe it ought to be. The Committee commend the subject-matter of the petition to the consideration of the Government.