PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE PETITION OF MESSRS. LUNDON AND WHITAKER,

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1871 Session I, H-04

H.—No. 4.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE PETITION OF MESSRS. LUNDON AND WHITAKER,

together with

THE EVIDENCE TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE.

ORDERED BY THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES TO BE PRINTED, 6th OCTOBER, 1871.

WELLINGTON.

1871.

Extracts from the Journals of the House of Representatives, Thursday, the 31 st day of August, 1871. Ordered, That the petition of John Lundon and Frederick Alexander Whitaker be referred to a Select Committee, to inquire into and report on the allegations contained therein, in accordance w-ith recommendation from Private Petitions Committee. The Committee to consist of the Hon. Mr. Hall, Mr. Carrington, Mr. Haughton, Mr. J. Shephard, Mr. Eyes, Mr. Thomson, Mr. Karslake, Mr. Johnston, and the mover, with power to call for persons and papers. Three to form a quorum. To report in fourteen days. (A true Extract). F. E. Campbell, Motion of Mr. Bradshaw. Clerk to the House of Representatives.

Thursday, the IMh day of September, 1871. Ordered, That the Lundon and Whitaker Petition Committee have leave to postpone the bringing up their report till this day three weeks. F. E. Campbell, (A True Extract) Clerk to the House of Representatives. On motion of Mr. Thomson.

Friday, the 6th day of October, 1871. Ordered That the Lundon and Whitaker Petition Committee have leave to postpone the bringing up their report for fourteen days. P. E. Campbell, (A True Extract.) Clerk to the House of Representatives.

ORDERS OF REFERENCE.

H.—No. 4.

OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO CONSIDER THE PETITION OF LUNDON AND WHITAKER.

Your Committee, to whom was referred the petition of Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker, desire to report as follows:— That, having duly considered the whole circumstances of the case and taken evidence thereupon they have come to the following conclusion : — 1. That the petitioners had a legal title to the land when " The Native Lands Act, 1869," was passed. 2. That this legal title was obtained by fair and equitable means. 3. That, considering " The Native Lands Act, 1869," did interfere with petitioners title, they are entitled to compensation from the Colony. 4. That the amount of money proved to have been actually expended by the petitioners in the premises has amounted to _ 15-11 6s. Sd. 5. That the statement made by Mr. De Hirsch, that the petitioner, Frederick Alexander Whitaker, in his professional capacity, prepared a deed for him, and claimed the land included in it, is devoid of truth. Your Committee would refer the House to the report of their proceedings, and the minutes of evidence hereto appended, and they desire to recommend the claims of the petitioners to favorable consideration. > J. Shephahd, Chairman.

MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF THE LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE. Friday, Ist September, 1871. The Committee met pursuant to notice. Present: Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. Haughton, Mr Carrington, Mr. Eyes, Mr. Thomson, Mr. Karslake. The orders of reference were read. On the motion of Mr. Haughton, Mr. Thomson was appointed Chairman. Mr. F. A. Whitaker (one of the petitioners) being in attendance, was asked if he wished to give evidence and produce witnesses in favor of his petition. Having replied that ho did, he was requested to attend the Committee on Tuesday next at 11 o'clock, prepared with such documents and witnesses as he may desire to submit to the Committee. The Committee adjourned until Tuesday, the sth instant, at 11 o'clock. Tuesday, sth September, 1871. The Committee, met pursuant to adjournment. Present: Mr. Thomson (Chairman), Mr. Eyes, Mr. Rarslake, Mr. Carrington, and Mr. Bradshaw. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. F. A. Whitaker, being in attendance, was introduced and examined. Mr. Whitaker laid before the Committee certain documents connected with this case, which were said to give a report of the proceedings before the Native Lands Court, as taken down by Mr. Mitchell, a shorthand writer. Mr. W. Mitchell, Parliamentary Reporter, appeared before the Committee, and stated: —" I was engaged by the petitioner (Mr. F. A. Whitaker) to attend the sittings of the Native Lands Court in January, 1870. I attended before the Court from day to day and took shorthand notes of tho proceedings, which I transcribed, and I recognise the documents now on the table as the special report furnished by me. I state that the report is a correct account of the proceedings." Mr. Mitchell was thanked, and withdrew. The minutes of the proceedings of the Committees of 1869 on the Native Lands Bill, and evidence adduced before the said committees, and the petition of James De Hirsch; also, rough notes of a second Committee, appointed to take the evidence of Mr. F. A. Whitaker, and the minutes of the proceedings of the Thames Sea Beach Committee of 1869, were laid before the Committee. The Committee adjourned until to-morrow, at 11 o'clock.

REPORT

H.-No.. 4,

4

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE.

Wednesday, 6th September, 1871. The Committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: Mr. Thomson (Chairman), Mr. Eyes, Mr. Carrington, Mr. Haughton. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. On the motion of Mr. Haughton, it was Resolved —That it is desirable that there should be a full meeting of the Committee, in order to take into consideration the course to be pursued, and the inquiry sought for by the petitioners, and that notices be issued requesting all members to attend for the purpose. The Committee adjourned until Friday, the Bth instant, at 12.30 o'clock. Friday, Bth Seeptembeb, 1871. The Committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: Mr. Thomson (Chairman), Mr. Eyes, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Karslake, Mr. Haughton, Hon. John Hall, Mr. Carrington, Mr. Bradshaw. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Ollivier attended on behalf of the petitioners. On the motion of Mr. Haughton, Resolved — 1. That it is desirable that the petitioners be heard by Counsel in order that the points of the case may be placed clearly before the Committee. 2. That the Counsel for the petitioners be requested to give immediate notice to Messrs. De. Hirsch and Robert Graham, or to their solicitors, that the case will be gone into on Tuesday fortnight, the 26th instant, and that they may, if they desire it, appear before the Committee either personally or by Counsel, and to enclose a copy of the previous resolution. The Committee adjourned until Tuesday, the 26th September, 1871. Tuesday, 26th September. The Committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: Mr. Thomson (Chairman), Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. Eyes, Hon. John Hall, Mr. Carrington, Mr. Haughton, Mr. Karslake, Mr. J. Shephard. The minutes of last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Buckley appeared on behalf of Mr. De Hirsch, and read a letter from him explaining the cause of his non-attendance before the Committee, and laid on the table a pamphlet containing Mr. De Hirsch's views on the matter of the petition. Mr. Travers attended on behalf of Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker, and addressed the Committee in support of the petition. Mr. Travers stated he would produce, at the next sitting of the Committee, affidavits of service of notice upon Messrs. Graham and De Hirsch. Mr. Travers having closed his address, handed in for the use of the Committee the evidence taken at the Native Lands Court in January, 1870, in connection with this matter. Moved by Mr. Haughton—That the evidence taken before the Native Lands Court in January, 1870, and certified as correct by Mr. Mitchell, the shorthand reporter, be accepted as evidence before the Committee. Agreed to. The Committee then adjourned till 11 o'clock to-morrow. Wednesday, 27th September, 1871. The Committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: Mr. Thomson (Chairman), Mr. Haughton, Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. Carrington, Mr. J. Shephard, Mr. Karslake. The minutes of last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Travers, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners, read and handed in to the Committee affidavit of service of notices on Messrs. Graham and De Hirsch. The room was then cleared, and after deliberation the Committee decided to limit the inquiry to the following issues:— 1. Had the petitioners a legal title to the land in question when the Act of 1869 was passed ? 2. If so, was this legal title obtained by fair and equitable means ? 3. Admitting that the Act of 1869 interfered with petitioners' title, are they entitled to compensation from the Colony ? 4. What amount of money has been actually expended by the petitioners, and in what way ? The parties being called in were informed of the decision of the Committee. Mr. Travers having expressed a wish to confer with the petitioners upon the issues submitted, the Committee agreed to adjourn until Friday next at 11 o'clock. The Committee then adjourned. Frlday, 29th September, 1871. The Committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: Mr. Thomson (Chairman), Mr. Eyes, Mr. Haughton, Mr. Shephard, Mr. Bradshaw. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. The Committee agreed that Mr. Quick should be summoned to produce the draft of declaration made by Mr. De Hirsch, Mr. Travers having expressed a wish to that effect.

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE

5

H.—No. 4.

Mr. Travers attended the Committee, and handed in statement upon issue 4, and several other documents. See Appendix, and Tables Nos. Ito 4. The Committee then adjourned until Tuesday next, at 11 o'clock. Tuesday, 3rd October, 1871. The Committee met pursuant to notice. Present: Mr. Thomson (Chairman), Mr. Haughton, Mr. J. Shephard, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Karslake, Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. Eyes, Mr. Carrington. The minutes of the preceeding meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Quick, who had been summoned to appear before the Committee, handed in the original draft of declaration by Mr. De Hirsch, marked C, and the corrected copy of same, as signed by Mr. de Hirsch. Mr. Thomson handed in the following letter, resigning his position as chairman: —■ " To the Committee on the petition of Luudon and Whitaker. " Gentlemen, —I hereby resign to the Committee my position as chairman. "Wellington, 3rd September, 1871. "I am, &c, James W. Thomson." Upon the motion of Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. Shephard was appointed Chairman. Upon the motion of Mr. Eyes, Mr. Haughton took the chair during the temporary absence of the chairman. Mr. Travers, counsel for the petitioners, appeared to prove the allegations made in the tables in answer to question 4 handed in by him on the 29th September. On the motion of Mr. Eyes, Resolved —That the Committee does not require the production of the deeds in support of the petitioners' title, but will be satisfied with oral evidence iu support thereof. John Lundon, duly sworn and examined. Mr. Shephard took the chair. Frederick Alexander Whitaker, duly sworn and examined. John Lundon, recalled and examined. Mr. Charles O'Neill, M.H.R., duly sworn and examined. Mr. Travers brought before the Committee writ and pleas in the case of Tookey and Graham as an analogous case, and read an extract from the Journals of the House of Representatives, re " Tho Native Lands Act, 1869," in order to prove that the view taken by the House at that Session was erroneous, and that the assertions made by Mr. De Hirsch on that occasion, " that Mr. Whitaker, Jun., had taken advantage of his position as a lawyer to acquire a valuable property," had prejudiced the minds of members of the House, and that in consequence the clauses in the " Native Lands Act, 1869," which affected petitioners' interest, were passed. The Committee then adjourned until Friday next at 11 o'clock. Friday, 6th October, 1871. The Committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: Mr. Shephard (Chairman), Mr. Thomson, Mr. Karslake, Mr. Carrington, Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. Haughton, Mr. Eyes, Mr. Johnston. The minutes of the preceeding meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Haughton asked Mr. Mitchell, the shorthand writer employed at the last meeting, if the copy of the evidence handed in by him was a correct transcript of the shorthand notes ? Mr. Mitchell replied it was. Mr. Carleton appeared before the Committee in accordance with their request, and gave evidence. The room was then cleared of strangers. Resolved on motion of Mr. Haughton—That the Chairman be requested to move the House for an extra fortnight to bring up the report, and also that the evidence be printed. Resolved on motion of Mr. Haughton —That the petitioners be informed that they are discharged from attendance upon the Committee. On motion of Mr. Johnston, the Committee adjourned for a week. Friday, 13th October, 1871. The Committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: Mr. J. Shephard (Chairman), Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. Haughton, Mr. Eyes, Mr. Karslake, Mr. Thomson. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Travers attended, and made a statement that the rental of block 14, amounting to _240, payable to Natives, should have been deducted from the amount of £2,550, as per table 2, and that the petitioners only owned five-ninths of block 16. The Committee proceeded to consider their decision as to the several issues agreed upon on the 27th September. Issue I.—Moved by Mr. Haughton.—That the first issue has been affirmed. Agreed to. Issue 2.—Moved by Mr. Bradshaw.—That the second issue has been affirmed. Agreed to. Issue 3. —Moved by Mr. Karslake.—That the third issue has been affirmed. Agreed to. Issue 4. —Moved by Mr. Haughton.—That the amount proved to have been expended was -1,544; 6s. Bd., as follows: — 2 .1

H.—No. 4

6

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE

Mr. P. A. Whitaker.

Mr. Lundon,

1. Paid cash to Natives ... ... ... ... ... 315 6 8 2. Legal expenses of 14 days trial before Native Lands Court under the Messrs. Rees and Tyler ... ... ... ... 400 0 0 Native witnesses ... ... ... ... ... 60 0 0 Mitchell ... ... ... ... ... 77 0 0 Interpreter ... ... ... ... ... 32 0 0 European witnesses... ... ... ... ... 40 0 0 3. —Miscellaneous expenses : — Legal expenses (drawing Deeds, Registration, Stamping, &c.) ... 60 0 0 Interpreter's expenses and fees in travelling to obtainNative signatures 130 0 0 Paid for drawing and engrossing Petitions and obtaining signatures to one in 1869 ... ... ... ... ... 30 0 0 Expenses to Wellingtons 1869 ... ... ... 100 0 0 1870 ... ... ... 50 0 0 1871 ... ... ... 200 0 0 General expenses, travelling, &c, for signatures, extending over two years ... ... ... ... ... 50 0 0 £1,544 6 8 Moved by Mr. Karslake.—That this Committee recommend the claims of petitioners to the favorable consideration of the House. Agreed to. The Committee then proceeded to the consideration of the draft report, which was read and agreed to. = MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE. Tuesday, sth September, 1871. Mr. F. A. Whitaker examined. Chairman!] Will you state to the Committee the grounds on which you base the allegations in your Petition, that the passing of "The Native Lands Act, 1869," acted prejudicially in a case then pending in the Supreme Court, iu which the Petitioners were interested? I base it upon the fact that an action, Tookey and Graham v. Lundon Brothers, was commenced on the 13th May, 1869, in which action the question in dispute as to the validity of deeds made before the issue of certificate of title was distinctly raised. %- Tuesday, 3rd October, 1871. John Lundon, sworn and examined. By Mr. Travers!] Your name is John Lundon £ Yes. What is your occupation ? A farmer. Where were you residing in 1868 ? In the district of Mongonui. Did you, early in 1868, proceed to the Thames r Yes ; I landed there on Ist January, 1868. Did any Natives accompany you ? Yes. For what purpose did you go to the Thames ? To buy land, and to take up mining claims. Were the Natives who accompanied you in any w-ay interested in the land there, as owners ? They had relations there; two of them had relations there through marriage. When you reached the Thames, did you enter into negotiations for land ? I did. Do you know the blocks called Kauaeranga Nos. 14, 16, and 24 ? Yes, I do. Had you negotiations with the Natives in reference to those blocks ? I had. When did you commence those negotiations ? In March, 1868. Before you commenced those negotiations, had you noticed any notification on any board or place, of those allotments being for lease by Mr. De Hirsch. No. Do you know whether those three blocks had been put into the Native Lands Court ? They were afterwards. Do you know Mr. Mackay, who was then Native Commissioner ? Yes, I do. Had you any conversation with him in reference to these blocks of land before they went into the Native Lands Court ? I had no personal communication with him. Did you observe any notices posted in reference to dealing with Native lands ? Yes, there were printed notices up. Were those notices, of which copies were produced before the Native Lands Court ? Yes, they were. What was the purport of those notices ? Cautioning people against dealing with the Natives for those lands, as the Government had a prior claim upon them. Did you, iu consequence of those notices, abstain from further negotiations ? Yes, I did. Was it solely in consequence of those notifications that you abstained from further negotiations ? Yes. Was it in consequence of those notifications, and other communications you received, that you abstained from concluding any dealings with the Natives ? Yes. I presume you had become aware that Mr. De Hirsch was engaged in some negotiations with the Natives ? I knew Mr. De Hirsch laid a claim to Block No. 24. I did not know him personally at that time. Do you know Mr. Whitaker, Senr. ? Yes, I do. Have you known him long ? Twenty-eight or twenty-nine years. Has he ever acted as your solicitor ? Always; he has always acted as my legal adviser.

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE.

7 IL—No,

7

When did you first become acquainted with Mr. Whitaker, Junr., in connection with these 1 transactions ? I think in February, 1869. You first had communication with him in reference to these transactions in February, 1869 ? Yes. Will you state whether Mr. Whitaker, Junr., first went to you about the land, or whether you first went to him ? I first went to him about the land, as he did not know me before that time. What was the nature of your communication to him at that time? I told him I had made arrangements for acquiring land from the Natives, and asked him to go partners with me—that I would do the Maori business and that he would do the law business, and that we should provide the cash in equal shares. Was that your proposal ? Yes. Why did you go to him ? Because it was the cheapest way of getting law. You knew he was the son of Mr. AVhitaker, Senr. ? Yes. You communicated with him first ? Yes, he didn't know me. Did he agree to your proposals ? I think he took a day or two to communicate with his father, and then he agreed to my proposal. By the Chairman!] When was this? It was in March, 1869. By Mr. Travers.] Did you then mention to Mr. Whitaker, Junr., the blocks of land that you were in treaty for ? No, Sir, I did not; I only wanted his name and his law. You afterwards completed your arrangements with the Natives ? Yes. By whom were the deeds prepared ? By Messrs. Whitaker and Russell, of Auckland, by my instructions. Had you any communication about the preparation of the deeds with Mr. Whitaker Junr.T No, not a word. Did he provide a share of the funds necessary ? He provided a very small portion of the funds. Iu whose name was the deed made ? In my name and that of Frederick Alexander Whitaker. You state in fact that Mr. Frederick Alexander Whitaker had little or nothing to do with the transaction, excepting joining you as a partner? That was all. Were your negotiations with the Natives conducted openly ? They were. You abstained from completing any arrangement with them of any kind until Mr. Whitaker, Senr., had informed you that the title was complete ? Yes. Had you before entering into these transactions conferred with Mr. Whitaker, Senr., in reference to the period at which you should get your title ? Yes. What did he tell you ? He told me there was no use in drawing the deteds until the certificates were issued, as the deeds would be valueless. Do you know Mr. White, Resident Magistrate at Mongonui ? Yes. Had you conferred with him upou the subject before leaving Mongonui ? I bought land in Victoria Valley, Mongonui, and he told me the same as Mr. Whitaker, Senr., had informed me. That was before I left for the Thames. Were you aware in 1869, of Mr. De Hirsch's complaints to the Legislature about your having interfered with his title ? I was. At what time ? I think about a week before the prorogation of the Assembly. I heard of it in Coromandel a week before the Session closed, and I started off at once the same day for Wellington. I arrived the day before the Session closed. I heard the last debate upou it that night. You had no other opportunity than that of appearing against Mr. De Hirsch's statements ? I was before the Committee that morning. You had no other opportunity than that? None. Was that the morning of the prorogation ? Yes. I wrote a letter to the Committee on that morning wishing to be heard. They allowed me to commence a statement which I had no opportunity of completing, as I w ras ordered to withdraw. I had no opportunity of completing my statement before the prorogation of Parliament. Until you had received that notification at Coromandel you knew of no proceedings in the House of Assembly at all in reference to your title; you knew of no action on the part of the Legislature in reference to it until a week before tho termination of the Session ? No ; I had heard that a petition was presented and I had heard also that it was rejected. The petition was thrown out by the Public Petitions Committee. Witness withdrew. Frederick Alexander Whitaker sworn, and examined By Mr. Tracers.] Your name is Frederick Alexander Whitaker ? Yes. You are a Solicitor ? Yes. You were in practice at the Thames in the year 1869 ? I was. Do you know Mr. Lundon ? I do. You were a partner with him in certain transactions with the Natives ? I was. Can you state when you first became acquainted with Mr. Lundon in connection with these matters ? About February, 1869. Had you any previous business transactions with him ? No, none that I recollect. You had merely known him as a client of your fathers ? He was a well-known man. I had no business transactions with him prior to February, 1869. How did the communication between you commence ? Did he apply to you, or you to him, about the matter ? He applied to me. What was the nature of his application to you ? He asked me if I would join him in a speculation he was going into. What was the nature of the speculation? I asked him what it was, and he replied —land at Grahamstown. Did you ask him the particulars of the blocks that he was going into ? No, I did not ask him.

Mr. Lundon.

l Mr. P. A. Whitaker. i

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE.

H.—No. 4,

8

Mr. F. A. Wlii taker.

What were the terms upon which you agreed to join him? I do not know that there were any distinct terms made. He said he would get the Native signatures, and I was to give advice. I was to provide my share of the money. By the Chairman!] Was there anything else you were to do with the Natives ? If I recollect rightly, there was no distinct understanding, excepting that I was to pay half the money. He said— "I will get the Natives, and you will find the law," or some expression of that sort. By Mr. Tracers.] He was to negotiate with the Natives, and you were to provide law, as well as half the money requisite ? Yes. Did you prepare any deeds in connection with this transaction for Mr. Lundon? I forget whether I prepared any ; the great majority were prepared by Messrs. Whitaker & Russell. I did not prepare any of the deeds relating to the three blocks in dispute, that I recollect. Did he apply to you to prepare any of the deeds ? Not that I recollect. Have you ever executed deeds yourself? I have not. Did you sign any deed at the time ? No. The deeds were prepared by your father, iu Auckland? They were prepared by the firm of Messrs. Whitaker & Russell, Auckland. Had you personally any communication with the Natives in connection with this transaction ? No, none whatever. You merely provided a share of the money as required ? That is all. On one occasion I provided the expense of an Interpreter. You were acting as agent for your father at the Thames ? I was on that occasion. Do I understand from you, that until the deeds were actually prepared and completed you had no knowledge of the properties comprised in them ? He told me the land was at Grahamstown, but I did not kuow the blocks. Did you know the actual land he w'as acquiring? No, I left the negotiations entirely to him. I had not inspected the land. Mr. Graham had some land there, which was not disputed. As far as I kuow, he had land there. It is called Grahamstown. You are aware that some proceedings were taken by De Hirsch with the Legislature, in 1869 ? I am aware of that. When did you first receive notice that the matter was under the consideration of the Legislature ? I received notice about ten days before the close of the Session. I left by the steamer the next day after receiving the notice, and arrived here about forty-eight hours before the close of the Session. You were examined as a witness ? Yes. Had you before arriving here any such knowledge of the complaints of De Hirsch as would have enabled you to produce necessary rebutting evidence ? No: I was absolutely ignorant of the character of his complaints. I believe you attended some of the debates which took place in the House in connection with the Bth and 9th clauses of the Native Lands Act, 1869 ? Yes, I did. That was immediately before the close of the Session ? It was the day before the prorogation. You are aw-are that at that time you were charged with having betrayed the confidence reposed in you as a solicitor ? I became aware of that at that time. In the third paragraph of Mr. De Hirsch's declaration he states —" That the solicitors whom I employed, to get from the said aboriginal Natives and prepare the said lease, were Frederick Alexander Whitaker and John Edwin Macdonald, of Shortland, aforesaid, who were practising there together in partnership, under the style of ' Macdonald and AVhitaker'" —were you at that time in partnership with Mr. Macdonald of Shortland ? I was not. When did you first join him ? I joined him iu the October following. I had been in England, and had just arrived in Wellington on my way to Auckland on the day mentioned in the third paragraph of the declaration. The statement in that paragraph is absolutely untrue ? Yes, it is absolutely untrue. Do you know whether a printed copy of that declaration was circulated in Wellington ? I saw it when I was down here ; I had a printed copy of it. Can you state whether they were circulated ? I presume so, as the contents were generally known. You were present in the gallery of the House on one occasion when that declaration was being read ? I forget whether I was or not: I was there all the time of the debate. I believe there is a statement handed in of the costs you were put to in consequence of that transaction ? Yes, a statement has been put in. Is the statement correct as to the amount expended ? Yes, the statement is correct. I believe some of the items are lower than the amount actually expended. lam certain that the costs exceeded the amount I have put down in the statement. Was this estimate of value of the property made up by Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Lowther Broad ? Yes, I believe it was. Who is Mr. O'Neill ? Mr. O'Neill is a member of the House of Representatives for the Thames district. Is he well acquainted with the district ? He is intimately acquainted with the Thames as he was Provincial Engineer at the Thames. Mr. Lowther Broad was Warden of the district. I wish to state to the Committee that when I asked Mr. Lundon where the land was he said it was in Grahamstown. I did not know where it was, and I said to him —If there is any interference with the rights of persons who have been in any way connected with me as clients, it must be distinctly understood that their rights should be respected. I believe that the portion of the land for which the deed was prepared by you in February, 1869, was not included in the lease to Mr. Lundon and yourself? No, it was not. By Mr. Haughton.] Did you take any proceedings against De Hirsch in consequence of the statements in his declaration alleged by you to be false ? Yes, I did. What proceedings ? I laid an information for libel in the Auckland Police Court.

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE.

9 H.-No,

9

When ? About April or May, 1870. What was the result of the proceedings ? The proceedings never terminated on account of the abrupt departure of Mr. De Hirsch for Europe. The proceedings were greatly embarrassed from the commencement on account of the absence of the original declaration. The third paragraph had to be substantiated by the printed documents connected by the evidence of members of the House relating to conversations that Mr. De Hirsch had with those members. The proceedings were adjourned on several occasions for the evidence of important witnesses. Mr. De Hirsh left before the day fixed for the final hearing. He left for Europe. We did not know he was going. The magistrate would not require De Hirsch to find bail on account of our having repeatedly to ask for adjournments. By the Chairman.] Are all the payments in the table of charges actually out of pocket—do the payments represent cash out of pocket ? They represent cash actually out of pocket. Witness withdrew. John Lundon re-called and examined — By Mr. Travers.] Did Mr. Whitaker, Junr., at any time, when speaking to you about the land you were about to acquire, say anything about the interest of any clients ? He did; it was mentioned in the written agreement between us. What was the nature of it? It was to the effect that the interests of his clients should be protected. The interests acquired was what was meant ? Yes, that was what I understood. Witness withdrew. Mr. Charles O'Neill, C.E., M.H.R., sworn and examined— By Mr. Tracers.] You are a Civil Engineer ? I am. You are a Member of the House of Representatives for the Thames District ? Yes. Were you formerly Provincial Engineer for the Province of Auckland ? Yes, and Engineer-in-Chief for the Thames Goldfields. Are you acquainted with blocks 14, 16, and 24, Kauaeranga ? Yes. You know Mr. Lowther Broad ? I do. Did he at any time occupy any official position at the Thames ? He was a Warden on the Goldfields for some time; I think for about two years. He would necessarily also be acquainted with these blocks ? Yes, he would. Do you know his writing ? Yes. Is that his writiug? (Copy of Valuation produced). That is his writing. That is your signature ? Yes. I presume the estimate you gave is a fair and proper one ? It is. And was agreed to by Mr. Broad ? Yes, it was. By the Chairman.] Mr. Broad would probably have been here to prove the document himself had he not to return to his official duties in Nelson ? Yes, he would have been here had he not to attend to his official duties in Nelson; he was here on Friday expecting to be examined. Witness withdrew. Friday, 6th October, 1871. Mr. Carleton in attendance, and examined. By the Chairman.] Have you any direct knowledge of the case, or is your knowledge derived from hearsay ? I have direct knowledge. I was Chairman of the Committee on the Native Lands Bill, and took a leading part in the House on this matter. Would you inform the Committee upon what particular points of the .case you possess direct information ? I possess direct information on those points on which the action of the Committee on the Bill had been impugned; also, in regard to the proceedings in the House. I hold in my hand a pamphlet entitled, " The case of Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker : Narrative of Facts connected therewith, and consideration of the Law thereon." I consider that this pamphlet discredits the action of the Committee on the Bill, and am prepared to show not only that the general impression conveyed by it is incorrect, but I am also prepared to go into particulars, and to deny certain allegations contained therein. Would you point out those particular allegations ? I desire first to point out where the pamphlet generally conveys a false impression as to the proceedings of the Committee on the Bill, and of the House. I desire to remark that the petitioners raise a false issue in this pamphlet, namely, the alleged unprofessional conduct of Mr. F. A. Whitaker. The real issue turns upon the 73rd section of the Constitution Act, which is not so much as mentioned in the pamphlet. The points upon which I desire to draw attention are these: —Firstly. The petitioners never did, as stated in the pamphlet, acquire the property, their own dealings with the Natives having been void, or, to use their own term, illegal. Secondly. They do not pretend to the equities of the case, and they never had the law. Thirdly. They cannot show that they were in any way injured by sections 8 and 9 of the Native Lands Act; for their legal status would have been equally bad without those clauses. For, notwithstanding the allegations of the petitioners, the Supreme Court could never decide in their favour in the face of section 73 of the Constitution Act. Whence then, I ask, is derived the claim for compensation ? The pamphlet, in itself, reflects upon character unnecessarily, for the plain fact is, that all parties, Graham as well as Whitaker, believed themselves to be complying with the law. Graham goes on the dictum of Judge Munro, and the supposed effect of the Crown Lands Act; but all were wrong from having overlooked section 73 of the Constitution Act. I now refer to page 5 of the pamphlet, section 18 :—" That the said Bill was referred to a Select Committee of your Honourable House, who examined Mr. O'Keeffe and Mr. De Hirsche, uud other witnesses iu support of the said clause." It is not true that Mr. De Hirsch was examined by the Committee on the Native Lands Bill. For De Hirsch read "Home and Buchanan." I refer to section 22 : —"That your petitioners most respectfully submit to your Honourable House that such a mode of dealing with private rights of property is without 3

Mr. F. A. Whitaker.

Mr. Lundon.

Mr. O'Neill, M.H.B.

Mr. Carleton.

H.—No. 4

10

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE.

Mr. Carleton

precedent in the legislation of the Imperial Parliament, or in any community where the laws of England are in force." I understand this as a reflection upon tho Committee on the Bill. There was no private property in question. The property had never been acquired by anyone; moreover, admitting the property, it is not true that there is no precedent; section 25 states:—" That the investigation in reference to 16 and 24, the first two of the said three allotments adjudicated on, was continued for several days, when the Chief Judge delivered a lengthened judgment, deciding to issue amended certificates, under the said section 8, thereby in effect destroying your petitioners' title, and transferring the property lawfully acquired by them to their opponent, Mr. James De Hirsch." It is not true that they had a title, and the Court has decided that they never could have got a title. I refer to section 30: —" That your petitioners were advised, and believe, that the law laid down by the Native Lands Court, upon which the judgment mainly proceeded, is clearly erroneous. They, therefore, desired to appeal against the same under the 81st section of ' The Native Lands Act, 1865,' and applied to the Governor for an order in Council to enable them to do so, but such application was refused, thus leaving your petitioners without any remedy except an appeal to the General Assembly." Petitioners, in mentioning their desire to appeal, should have stated to what or to whom. Such appeal would have been from the Chief Judge of the Native Lands Court, possibly sitting with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to certain puisne Judges of the Native Lands Court. But if compensation be sought on the ground that the judgment of the Court was wrong, let that be expressly stated, and the issue confined to that. That would be a true issue, and not the issue which is raised in this pamphlet. Section 31: —" That at the hearing of these cases by the Native Lands Court, it was clearly established that the evidence given by Mr. De Hirsch before the Committee of the General Assembly, and the solemn declaration and affidavit made by him, were false in the most important particulars." I object to the peculiar use of the words " Committee of the Assembly " which obtains throughout this pamphlet, or nearly so, and which is calculated to mislead. Petitioners should say which Committe they mean. I presume that by the words "the Committee," the petitioners intend the Committee on the Bill in which the clauses complained of were drawn. Now, I say that the evidence of Mr. De Hirsch did not in any way affect the report of that Committee, and of that I will give proof. The Committee on the Bill was appointed on 13th August, 1869, and reported on the 23rd of the same month. On the 31st August, 1869, a Committee on evidence was appointed to take the evidence of Mr. F. A. Whitaker on certain allegations affecting him contained in the evidence of certain witnesses examined before the Committee on the Native Lands Bill. On the Ist September, 1869, the petition of James De Hirsch, of Shortland, was referred to the Committee on Evidence from the Public Petitions Committee. The Public Petitions Committee sat upon the 31st August and Ist September. By comparison of those dates it is impossible that the minds of the Committee on the Bill could have been swayed by the evidence given by Mr. De Hirsch before the Public Petitions Committee. Section 35: —" Also, that the statement made by Mr. De Hirsch, that your petitioner, Frederick Alexander Whitaker, in his professional capacity, prepared a deed for him, and afterwards disputed its validity, and claimed the land included in it, was devoid of truth." ******* It is not entirely false. De Hirsch's statement, though untrue or mistaken as regards the first deed, namely, the deed of the 30th June, 1868, is not yet shown to be entirely untrue as regards the second deed of 15th February, 1869. Section 39 : —" That your petitioners have been put in possession of the original declaration made by him at Wellington, from which declaration it is now manifest that Mr. De Hirsch gave false evidence before the Native Lands Court." I desire to draw attention to the fact that two petitions have been presented by petitioners to the House. In the petition presented in 1870, the following section occurs :—" That your petitioner, Frederick Alexander Whitaker, commenced a prosecution against Mr. James De Hirsch for libel, in connection with his statements as to these matters before the House and elsewhere, which Mr. De Hirsch evaded by leaving the country clandestinely." I observe that this section is omitted in the petition presented in 1871. Section 40 : —"That the passing of the eighth section of ' The Native Lands Act, 1869,' by the General Assembly has resulted most injuriously to your petitioners, as they have thereby been deprived of valuable property by retroactive legislation of an unprecedented character, without any provision being made for compensating them." I say that this statement is untrue, for they were not deprived of any property by the passing of the Bth section of " The Native Lands Act, 1869." In page 9 of the pamphlet I read: —" In the year 1869, when this matter was under the consideration of the House of Assembly (vide " Hansard " of that year, cap. Native Lands Bill), the numerous warm supporters of Mr. Graham aud Mr. De Hirsch's cause, based their strongest arguments on the supposed equity which invested it by reason of the priority of their respective rights to that of their opponents." lam at a loss to know why Mr. De Hirsch's name should be coupled with Mr. Graham's. I desire to observe, iu regard to the words, "the numerous warm supporters," that the report of the Committee on Evidence was that this Committee declines to make any recommendation on the petition of James De Hirsch, of Auckland. I find, in the same page of the pamphlet, these words: —"Mr. Lundon was, of course, then anxious to take immediate steps to secure the portions of land, the purchase of which he had been negotiating by a formal document, but was informed by his legal adviser that no conveyance, lease, or other instrument made before the issue of the certificate of title would, by virtue of the 75th section of 'The Native Lands Act, 1865,'be in any way valid or binding." I say it is impossible that Mr. Lundon should have been so informed by his legal adviser, in the face of the Judge's assurance that the certificate must issue as from the date of the hearing of the case at Shortland ; also, in the face of the fact that the flaw in the Crown Grant Act, which would otherwise have set up a title, was not discovered until after that period. In page 11, I see these words: —" Upon the broad face of the matter, therefore, the legal right to the land in May, 1869, was in Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker." I say it is not true that they had a legal right, the Court having decided the contrary. In page 12, I find these words: —" Native lands, which have passed through the Native Lands Court, and which, between the issue of the certificate and the execution of the Crown Grant, have been acquired by the Crown, and, therefore, become Crown Lands." It is not true that the lands in question are Crown lands. In page 14, I find these words : —" This action, then, to be tried before the Supreme Court of New Zealand, would have put au end at once to the matter in dispute between the

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE.

11

H.—No. 4

Carleton,

rival, claimants to the land." It is true that the Supreme Court would have put an end to the matter Mr. in dispute at once, but by giving the land to neither, under the 73rd clause of the Constitution Act, petitioners would have been turned out of Court, and Graham left as he was, if a preferable title could not be set up. In page 15, I read these words : —" Had the evidence they heard, and the statements made at the time by apparently respectable persons, been correct, the decision of the Committee, based upon them, would have been equitable. But the members of the House, and of its Committee, were cruelly misled by statements which will afterwards appear to have been utterly without foundation." I say that it is not true that the Committee on the Bill were misled by any statements made before them. It is for petitioners to point out which of those statements were incorrect. I have the evidence before me. Lundon complains in the Committee on Evidence of what was never said before the Committee on the Bill. Whitaker complains that representations might be held to mean misrepresentations. I find the following w'ords in Mr. Whitaker's evidence before the Committee on Evidence, Ist. September, 1869 : —■" It is mainly as to the words 'by representations,' which seem to impute somewhat of fraud to myself, that I wish to speak." He also says:—" If' misrepresentations' are meant, I most emphatically deny it, because the whole thing was laid before the Natives." Mr. Lundon, before the same Committee, complains that Mr. O'Keefe says that he (Lundon) "had offered a large sum of money to the Natives to get them to sign." Mr. O'Keefe did not say so; he said that a Native told him so. In page 16, I find these words: —"Two clauses were prepared to be introduced as an amendment into this Bill;" and further on, in page 17, I find these words: —" These clauses were referred to a Select Committee." It is not true that these clauses were referred to a Select Committee. The clauses were drafted in the Committee—clause 8, by Mr. Howorth. In page 22 is the following: —" There can be no question in the mind of anyone perusing the later debates on the Native Lands Bill that the false accusations of Mr. De Hirsch and others were the incentive to those members who were anxious to push the Bill forward, to use such strenuous endeavours to make it law during the Session. Mr. Carleton, indeed, contended that however those accusations might have shocked the House, the Bill was passed in accordance with the principle of morality involved in the acquiring of property by Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker, which was previously in the possession of another. But the speeches of the different members who spoke in favour of the inserted clauses clearly disprove this idea, and show conclusively that the sole thought in the minds of members was to remedy a grievous wrong done his opponents by Mr. F. A. Whitaker, in acquiring land in reference to which he had been their legal adviser. And honorable members who were at that time in Wellington will, no doubt, remembering the extreme indignation that was felt, endorse the statement that their sole bias in favor of one party or another, arose from the grievously false allegations by which they were wilfully misled. Had these allegations been true, their conduct was not only justifiable, but just, and no blame can attach to any, if credence was placed in the solemn declaration of an individual apparently of good position and reliability." I say that the speeches clearly prove what I assert, as may be seen by reference to " Hansard." It is true, indeed, that a professional gentleman on the Committee of Evidence took exception to Mr. Whitaker's professional conduct; but this was based not upon the original deed, but upon the deed of the 15th February, 1869, which bears Mr. Whitaker's signature. I am not professional, and am not competent to form an opinion. It is also true that Mr. Dillon Bell, an opponent of clauses 8 and 9, raised a new issue before the House, that of fraud alleged; but the House was not thereby diverted from the true question, the double dealing with the natives —a transaction afterwards described by a Judge of the Native Lands Court, as " repugnant both to private and public morality." But the House could not fall into the error complained of by petitioners, seeing that De Hirsch himself had given evidence to the contrary before the Committee on Evidence, thereby, in effect, amending his affidavit. I refer the Committee to question 51 in the Report on Evidence. I find in page 23 the following words:—" They had, as has been said, acquired their title in strict conformity with the different Statutes then in force relating to Native lands; but by this section an entire alteration in law was effected, rendering their forethought of no avail." It is not true that they acquired their title in conformity with tho different Statutes then in force, for the Constitution Act was one of them. In page 25, I find the following words: —"The great strength of Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker's case lay in the unassailable legal position in which they stood." It is not true that their position was unassailable, for it has been ruled " that the leases to Messrs Whitaker and Lundon, having been made before the extinction of the Native title, are contrary to the common law, and in disobedience of the Constitution Act, and therefore void; and as the claim of these gentlemen for consideration rests entirely on the assumed legality of their position, their right to interfere with the consideration of the application now before the Court cannot be allowed." Also —" I have no doubt in my mind, therefore, that the opposition having failed to establish its own legal position, this Court will be carrying out the intention of the Legislature by making an order as asked for, and I so determine. I refrain from expressing any opinion as to wh'ether I should have thought proper or otherwise to make this order, if the opponents had succeeded in establishing an unassailable legal right." The conclusion to be drawn is this: That neither the Committee on the Bill nor tho House were influenced by any misrepresentations, and that before a claim for compensation can be entertained, the judgment of the Native Lands Co rt must be upset. Witness was thanked, and withdrew.

APPENDIX. Statement made by Mr. Travers before the Committee. Friday, 29th September, 1871. Mr. Travers made a statement in reference to certain written issues which had been agreed to by the Committee. *«*|* ■-■m^s 1. Had the petitioners a"legal title to the land in question when the Act of 1869 was passed? This is a question upon which_the Committee will, no doubt, be satisfied, from the written admission of

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE.

H.—No. 4,

12

Mr. De Hirsch, " that if they call upon me to produce evidence which will justify them in coming to a conclusion favorable to the petitioners, the only evidence I can offer is that of Mr. Whitaker, Senr., who is prepared to state on his reputation as a lawyer that the petitioners had such a title at the time referred to." 2. If so, was this legal title obtained by fair and equitable means? That is a question purely for the opinion of the Committee, and I can only submit, upon the facts of the case, that the title was obtained by perfectly fair and equitable means. This will be shown further by the evidence of Mr. Lundon, who will state how he obtained these titles. The fact is that Mr. Whitaker, jun., never had anything to do with the negotiations with the Natives ; that he merely undertook to assist in furnishing means to carry out the arrangement intended to be entered into by Mr. Lundon; that Mr. Whitaker, sen., of the firm of Whitaker & Russell, of Auckland, who had been Mr. Lundon's solicitor for many years, transacted the whole of the businses, so far as the preparation of the legal documents went, Mr. Whitaker, jun., being purely a sleeping partner in the matter, and scarcely aware of the character of the transaction; that, in fact, he knew nothing of the circumstances affecting the nature of the title of the land, or that the negotiations with these Natives interfered with the interests of any client of his. At the time Mr. Lundon instructed Mr. Whitaker, Senr., to prepare the deeds he had never had any communication with his partner as to the title, and was entirely ignorant of any negotiations having taken place between the Natives and a third person. The whole matter was perfectly equitable and bona fide on his part; Mr. Whitaker, jun., coming in as a sleeping partner, and providing funds for the transaction. Mr. Shephard.] Your answer resolves itself into two ; the first relieves Mr. Whitaker, Junr., from the implication made against him ; and secondly, that it was a perfectly fair and equitable transaction as between Lundon and the Natives ? Yes. 3. Admitting that the Act of 1869 interefered with petitioners' title, are they entitled to compensation from the Colony ? That is a question for the opinion of the Committee ; and what I intend to rely upon is the prejudicial effect produced upon the minds of the Legislature in 1869, when that Act w-as passed, by the statements and conduct of Mr. De Hirsch. In particular I purpose to shew the circumstances under which a declaration, which was printed and circulated, and which has been referred to, was prepared. Mr. De Hirsch has sworn in his statement that he deliberately altered or required an alteration to be made in the draft —he said at first it was in the original declaration, but subsequently said he had made the alteration in the draft. I have inspected the draft, and so far from the alterations referred to having been made, they are alterations of quite a different character. Iu the original draft the words were these : " That the Solicitor whom I employed to get from the said aboriginal Natives and to prepare the said lease was Frederick Alexander Whitaker, of Shortland, aforesaid, who was practicing there." Mr. De Hirsch distinctly stated iu the first place that he had altered the declaration so as to strike out the words " Frederick Alexander Whitaker" and leave the name " John Edwin Macdonald" remaining. No such alteration has been made. Singularly enough on inspecting the draft declaration, I find that the alteration, so far from expunging the name of Frederick Alexander Whitaker, went to introduce the name of John Edwin Macdonald. It is perfectly clear therefore that when that declaration was made by Mr. De Hirsch, a very deliberate alteration was made in it, not by the erasure of Mr. Whitaker's name, but by the introduction of a second name, facts which are entirely at variance with the statement which he made on oath before the Native Lands Court when he attempted to account for the circumstance that the instrument contained the name of Mr. Whitaker ; so that in both respects his statement was a gross and unmitigated falsehood, and one wiiich greatly prejudiced the case in the minds of the Legislature. The Chairman!] I should like you to show how it prejudiced the case? Mr. Travers : I propose to do so by calling some gentlemen who were at that time members of the House, in order to show how their minds were influenced. I can speak personally to having been influenced by Mr. De Hirsch's statements. I shall also refer the Committee to the debates of the House, and the reasons urged in favour of the introduction of the clauses which prejudiced the rights of Messrs. Whitaker and Lundon ; and to the report of the Select Committee which was appointed to consider the matter. It is very clear that Mr. De Hirsch's statements were the cause of imputations on the honesty of Mr. Whitaker. The allegation was that he, as the professional adviser of Mr. De Hirsch, took advantage of the knowiedge which he obtained in his professional capacity for the purpose of acquiring a title which extinguished the title of Mr. De Hirsch. The natural effect of these false statements of Mr. De Hirsch (which he has since repeated before the Native Lands Court, and has published in a pamphlet) w ras to prejudice the minds of the members of the Legislative. I would therefore argue that if these statements influenced the Legislature to pass the Act without giving the petitioners any opportunity whatsoever of contradicting them, then the Colony has become responsible for any loss which the petitioners have sustained. Mr. Shephard.] You argue that the Act was obtained by fraud ? By wilful misrepresentation ; and it is now proved that Mr. De Hirsch in attempting to correct the false statements which he first made has made other statements equally untrue. 4. What amount of money has been actually expended by the petitioners, and in what way ? You will see that the answer to this question is bound up with the answer to the third; but as a direct reply to the fourth question I have brought down four tables, which I now lay before the Committee, and they show that the amount of money actually expended by the petitioners on the blocks at Kauaeranga in dispute, together with interest, is £1,853 2s. Bd. Mr. Thomson.] There is another question involved in the third, which has not been very clearly brought out, namely, whether the introduction of these two clauses really affected the claims of Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker. I should like you to show that they do so, because it appears to me that the case hinges upon that ? It is clear they did so. Messrs. Whitaker and Lundon had a perfect and indefeasible legal title to the property, good against all the world. The introduction of these clauses gave to persons who had no such legal title the opportunity of bringing the matter under the jurisdiction of a special tribunal, and of acquiring, by the judgment of that Court, a legal title in

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE.

H.—No. 4.

13

priority to that of Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker. The Native Lands Court had already adjudicaten upon these lands and issued a certificate, and had nothing further to do with the matter; but thd introduction of these clauses gave a power to rip the matter up and decide upon the question thee raised, being Messrs. Whitaker and Lundon on the one side, and Messrs. Hirsch and Graham on the other, although the title of the former was, at the time, unimpeachable in law.

In the General Assembly of New Zealand. In the metter of the Petition of Messrs. John Lundon and Frederick Alexander Whitaker. I, Benjamin Balmer, of Brown-street, Grahamstown, in the Province of Auckland, in the Colony of New Zealand, Articled Clerk, do swear: — 1. That I did on the eighteenth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy one, serve Robert Graham, of Grahamstown, aforesaid Gentleman, with a true copy of the notice now produced to me, and marked A, by delivering the same to him personally, at Albert-street, Grahamstown, aforesaid. Sworn at Grahamstown, aforesaid, this eighteenth day of B. Balmer. September, 1871, before me, Edwd. Hy. Power, A Justice of the Peace for tho Colony of New Zealand.

In the General Assembly of New Zealand. In the matter of the Petition of Messrs. John Lundon and Frederick Alexander Whitaker. 1, Benjamin Balmer, of Brown-street, Grahamstown, in the Province of Auckland, in the Colony of New Zealand, Articled Clerk, do swear: — 1. That I did, on the eighteenth day of September one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, serve James De Hirsch, of Grahamstown, aforesaid, Gentleman, with a true copy of the notice now produced to me and marked A, by delivering the same to him personally at his residence, situate at Grahamstown aforesaid. B. Balmer. Sworn at Grahamstow-n, aforesaid, this eighteenth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, before me James Kilgouh, A Justice of the Peace for the Colony of New Zealand.

(A.) In the General Assembly of New Zealand. In the matter of the Petition of Messrs. John Lundon and Frederick Alexander Whitaker. Take notice that a petition, of which a printed copy forms the first document is the printed pamphlet hereunto annexed and marked " A," was on the sixteenth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, duly presented by tho above-named John Lundon and Frederick Alexander Whitaker to the House of Representatives of New Zealand in Parliament assembled, and was by the said House duly referred to the consideration of a Select Committee of tho said House under an order of which the following is a copy:— " That the petition of John Lundon and Frederick Alexander Whitaker be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into and report on the allegations contained therein, in accordance with recommendations from Public Petitions Committee, the committee to consist of the Hon. Mr. Hall, Mr. Carrington, Mr. Haughton, Mr. J. Shephard, Mr. Eyes, Mr. Thomson, Mr. Karslake, Mr. Johnston, and the mover, with power to call for persons and papers. Three to form a quorum. To report in fourteen days." (On motion of Mr. Bradshaw). And take notice that at a meeting of the said Select Committee, held on the eighth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, the following resolutions were passed: — 1. That it is desirable that the petitioners be heard by counsel in order that the points of the case may be placed clearly before the Committee. 2. That counsel for the petitioners be requested to give immediate notice to Messrs De Hirsch and Robert Graham, or their solicitors, that the case will be gone into upon Tuesday fortnight, and that they may if they desire it appear before the Committee either personally or by counsel, and to enclose a copy of the previous resolution. And take notice that at the adjourned meeting of the said Committe, to be held on the twentysixth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, pursuant to the said resolutions, the case of the petitioners will be gone into, and that counsel will appear in support thereof. As witness my hand this twelfth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one. F. M. Ollivier, Parliamentary Agent and Solicitor for the petitioners. To Messrs. James De Hirsch and Robert Graham and all other persons whom it may concern. This is the notice marked A referred to in the affidavit of Benjamin Balmer, sworn before me on this eighteenth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one. Edwd. Hy. Power, A Justice of the Peace for the Colony of New Zealand. This is the notice-marked A referred to in the affidavit of Benjamin Balmer, sworn before me on this eighteenth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one. James Kilgouh, A Justice of the Peace for the Colony of New Zealand.

H.—No. 4,

14

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE.

Statement upon Issue 4. Table No. 1. 1. Amount of money actually expended by John Lundon and Frederick Alexander Whitaker, in and about Blocks, Kauaeranga, 14, 16, and 24, Grahamstown: — Paid cash to Natives ... ... ... ... £315 6 8 2. Legal expenses of 14 days trial before Native Lands Court under the Act of 1869: — £ s. d. Messrs. Rees and Tyler ... ... ... ... 400 0 0 Native Witnesses ' ... ... ... ... 60 0 0 Mitchell ... ... ... ... ... 77 0 0 Interpreter ... ... ... ... ... 32 0 0 European Witnesses ... ... ... ... 40 0 0 £609 0 0 3. Miscellaneous Expenses : — Legal expenses (drawing Deeds, Registration, Stamping, &c.) ... 60 0 0 Interpreter's expenses aud fees in travelling to obtain Native signatures 130 0 0 Paid for drawing and engrossing Petitions and obtaining signatures to one in 1869 ... ... ... ... ... 30 0 0 Expenses to Wellington in 1869 ... ... ... 100 0 0 1870 ... ... ... 50 0 0 1871 ... ... ... 200 0 0 General expenses, travelling, &c, for signatures, extending over two years ... ... ... ... ... 50 0 0 620 0 0 Legal Expenses ... ... ... ... ... 609 0 0 Paid Natives .., ... ... ... ... 315 6 8 1544 6 8 Interest at 10 per cent, for two years ... ... ... 308 16 0 Grand Total ... ... ... ... ... £1853 2 8

Table No. 2. Amount of Liability imposed upon Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker by " The Native Lands Act, 1869." It will be seen on perusing Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker's deeds from the Natives, that " all the estate, right, title, and interest of the Natives " is leased to the petitioners for twenty-one years from the middle of 1869 ; but by the validation of Messrs. Graham and De Hirsch's title the land became vested in them, but the petitioner's deeds of course still remained valid. The consequence of this is, that Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker are still liable, and will remain so until the expiration of the term of twenty-one years to a rent, payable to the Natives, which far exceeds the sum they would be entitled to receive from Messrs. Graham aud De Hirsch, as the " right and interest " leased to them by the Native owners. £ s. d. Annual rent paid by Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker for Block Kauaeranga, 14 ... ... ... ... 300 0 0 Annual rent paid by Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker for Block Kauaeranga, 16 ... ... ... ... 100 0 0 Annual rent paid by Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker for Block r Kauaeranga 24 ... ... ... ... 40 0 0 440 0 0 Rent paid by Graham and De Hirsch ... ... ... 200 0 0 Deficit ... ... ... ... ... 240 0 0 Annual rent paid for those blocks by Messrs. Graham and De Hirsch— £ s. d. Kauaeranga, 14 ... ... ... ... ... 150 0 0 „ 16 ... ... ... ... ... 30 0 0 24 ... ... ... ... ... 20 0 0 200 0 0 A capital sum of £2000, or thereabouts, would thus be required to save harmless Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker from their annual liability of £240 for the term of twenty-one years.

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE.

15

H.—No. £

Table No. 3. Value of the Property of which Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker were deprived by the Native Lands Act, 1869. There are two methods of estimating the value of these lands. Firstly, by comparing the entire acreage of tho blocks with that of other blocks, the value of tho rental of which is definitely ascertained, and deducting therefrom the proportionate value of the lost blocks of land; and secondly, by ascertaining the number of feet frontage contained in those blocks, and producing evidence of the average value per foot frontage. And as to the first method, — The block known as Parareha Block contains sa. 3r. 20p. This block produces a rental of £1,200 per annum. To this fact the petitioner, F. A. Whitaker, can depose, as he is interested in this piece of land. Now the Block Kauaeranga 14 contains 10 acres and a few perches. According to the acreage, therefore, the annual rental of this latter block shoidd be £2,000, or very nearly thereabouts. The Block Kauaeranga 16 contains la. 3r. lp. The annual value of this should be £400 as nearly as possible. The Block Kauaeranga 24 contains Oa. 3r. Op. Therefore the yearly rental should be £150. The aggregate rental of these three blocks would consequently be as follows:— £ s. d. Block Kauaeranga 14 ... ... ... ... 2,000 0 0 do. do. 16 ... ... ... ... 400 0 0 do. do. 24 ... ... ... ... 150 0 0 Total ... ... ... ... £2,550 0 0 From this is to be deducted, as per Table 2 ... ... ... 240 0 0 2,310 0 0 The capital sum required to cover the loss of this total sum for twenty-one years would amount to about £ , which represents the loss of Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker by the legislation of 1869. Table No. 4. The other method alluded to of computing the loss sustained by Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker, viz., by the measurement of the number of feet of frontage contained in the blocks, must be proved by the evidence of persons intimately acquainted with the locality and conversant with the value of land upon the Grahamstown Flat. For this purpose your petitioners would beg to be allowed to call 1. Mr. Charles O'Neill, M.H.R. This gentleman represents the Thames Goldfields in the House of Assembly, and was for some time Chief Engineer of the District, and resident therein. He will prove — That in Block Kaueranga 14, there are contained 3861 feet frontage, at an estimated average value of 15s. per foot per annum, making the total value £2895 15s. yearly. £ s. d. In Block 16—660 feet frontage, at 20s. ... ... ... 660 0 0 330 „ „ at ss. ... ... ... 82 10 0 Block 24 —f acre, annual value ... ... ... 100 0 0 Block 14—as above ... ... ... ... 2,895 15 0 £3,738_5_ 0 The above is the estimate of Messrs. Charles O'Neill and Lowther Broad, who also state that the property is increasing in value.

(B.) Valuation op Property at Grahamstown by Messrs. C. O'Neill, and Lowther Broad. Block 14. 3,861 feet frontage, at 15s. per foot per annum... ... 2,895 15 0 Block 16. 660 feet frontage at 20s. ... ... ... ... 660 0 0 330 do. do. at ss. ... ... ... ... 82 10 0 Block 24. i acre annual value ... ... ... ... 100 0 0 £3,738 5 0 Memorandum. —The above is the estimated annual value at the present time, but we may remark that property is rapidly improving. Charles O'Neill, Wellington, 29th September, 1871. Lowther Broau.

LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE.

' tt—No. 4,

16

Draft Declaration marked C. I James De Hirsch of Shortland in the Province of Auckland & Col. of N.Z. Settler do solemnly and sincerely declare, 1. That I am the lessee mentd. in a certain deed of Lease dated the 30th day of Juno 1868 & made btwn. Wiremu Kiugi Auaru te Peroa and Teretui Kingi all of the District of Hauraki in the Prov. of Auckland afsd. aboriyinal Natives of the one part and myself the sd. James De Hirsch of the other part Whereby the sd. lessors demised & leased to me a certain block of land known ao x x purporting to be the whole of allot Kauaoranga lot No. 24 Kauaeranga. 2. The order of the Native Lands Court whereby the above named lessors were adjudged entitled to the fend sd block of land was made on the 23rd day of June 1868. 3. That the Solicitors whom I employed to obtain pro get from the sd aboriginal Natives & prepare the sd lease are Frederick Alexander Whitaker and John Edwin Macdonald of Shortland afsd who are practising there together in partnership under the style of Macdonald & Whitaker. 4. That on tho lot of October IS6B in consequence of the sd lease not having comprised the whole of the sd nllotment lot No. 24 Kauaeranga the sd Frederick Macdonald & Whitaker did prepare a further leaso bearing date the 15th day of Feby. 1569 by wh. the sd. aboriginal Natives demised & leased to me the whole of the said lot which lease was signed by me in the presence of the sd. P. A. Whitaker. 5. That in conDoquonco of by an error of the said Native Lands Court the certificate of title for the sd. block instead of being issued in accordance with the practice of the sd Court as if the 23rd day of June 1868 which was the date of the order of issue (in accordaneo with tho practice of tho od Court) was dated the day of 1869. 6. That inconsequence of the date of the certificate of title being subsequent to that of my last lease one of raj legal advisers namely the sd. Frek. Alexr. Whitaker in conjunction with one London did on the 23rd day of April 1869 obtain from the said Natives a lease in their par to themselves the sd. F. A. Whitaker & London of the same lot which had formerly been leased to myself. 7. That the sd. firm of Whitaker & Macdonald have alwayo always been my legal advisers at Shortland not only with regard to the sd. lease but also in respect of all other business transacted by me in wh I have needed legal assistance. 8. That owing to the error of tho sd. Court and the action of my legal adviser the sd. F. Alex. Whitaker my title to the sd lot has been jeopardized and I have been put to a great loss of time trouble and expense. And I make this declon &c. &c. Declaration as Corrected and Signed. I, James De Hirsch, of Shortland, in the Province of Auckland, and Colony of New Zealand, settler, do solemnly and sincerely declare — 1. That I am the lessee mentioned in a certain Deed of Lease,> dated the thirtieth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and sixty eight, and made between Wirimu Kingi, Anaru te Piroa, and Teretui Kingi, all of the District of Hauriaki, in the Province of Auckland, aforesaid aboriginal Natives, of the one part, and myself the said James De Hirsch, of the other part. Whereby the said lessors demised and leased to me a certain block of lsnd purporting te be the whole of lot number twenty-four (24), Kauaeranga. 2. The order of the Native Lands Court whereby the above named lessors were adjudged entitled to the said block of land, was made on the twenty-third day of Juue, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight. 3. That the Solicitors whom I employed to get from the said aboriginal Natives, and prepare the said lease were Frederick Alexander AVhitaker, and John Edwin Macdonald, of Shortland, aforesaid, who were practising there together in partnership, under the style of "|Macdonald aud Whitaker." 4. That in consequence of the said lease not having comprised the whole of the said lot, number twenty-four, Kauaeranga, the said Macdonald and Whitaker did prepare a further lease, bearing date the fifteenth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, by which the said aboriginal Natives demised and leased to me the remainder of the said lot, which lease was signed by them in the presence of the said Frederick Alexander Whitaker. 5. That, by an error of the said Native Lands Court, the certificate of title for the said block, instead of being issued in accordance with the practice of the said Court, as of the tw-enty-third day of June, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, which was the date of the order of issue, was dated the thirteenth day of October, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight. 6. That in consequence of the date of the certificate of title being subsequent to the date of my first lease, one of my legal advisers, namely the said Alexander Whitaker, in conjunction with one John Lundon, did on the 23rd day of April, 1869, obtain from the said Natives a lease to themselves, the said Frederick Alexander Whitaker and John Lundon, of the same lot which had been formerly leased to myself. 7. That the said firm of Whitaker and Macdonald have always been my legal advisers at Shortland, not only with regard to the said lease, but also in respect of all other business transacted by me, in which I have needed legal assistance. 8. That, owing to the error of the said Court, and the action of my Legal Adviser the said Frederick Alexander Whitaker, my title to the said lot has been jeopardised, and I have been put to great loss of time, trouble, and expense. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the Statutes in that case made and provided. James De Hirsch. Declared at Wellington, in the Province of Wellington, this twenty-sixth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, before me, W. H. Quick, Solicitor of the Supreme Court, Wellington.