we both signed the deed; and I said, " Mr. Burke, I cannot interfere with the property; the land belongs to you, and you must have it." In the same way I agreed to deal with Captain Storey, whose battery also stood on the land, and whose title had passed through our office. I went even further than that, for hearing of these things, when permission was given to the shareholders of the Shannon claim, which was near or on this piece of land, I refused to attach my name to any document, because I was perfectly careful not to do so in reference to any deed which had been in our office. I said I could not do it because it was possible that it was within the boundary of the piece of land in question, and I would not compromise myself in the question. Although our names appear in every Native deed, yet that is directed de Hirsch against Lundon. It was to sink upon a piece of land of which I could not tell the position, and therefore I refused to sign any document, which Mr. Lundon did. It can be proved by the writ in regard to Kauaeranga, No. 24, that it is de Hirseh against Lundon, and not against Whitaker. I consider the charge a most cruel and unfounded one, considering the stipulations I made with Mr. Lundon before I made any agreement with him. Mr. Lundon and my father were in the office together, and 1 said, " I must insist upon two things —first, that the rights of my clients are respected, and the land given up to them ; and secondly, in reference to the Golden Grate claim, that nothing shall be done to injure the shareholders, because I am solicitor for the Company, and it is my duty to look after their interests." I made these stipulations which were carried out; and why did not Mr. de Hirsch come forward when I stated it in the newspaper at the time he brought his charges, when he would at once have had the land? He took no notice, and I had no further intimation of it until the subject was revived on this affidavit. It was doubtless brought down here because I was in Auckland, and was not expected down to contradict the statement. I wish the Committee to consider that I have given a clear explanation of the real facts of the case, and I hope they will signify the same by some formal motion to that effect. With reference to the representation to the Maoris, that is of a piece with all the rest. One Maori lives at Mercury Bay, another at Poverty Bay, and a third at Coromandel. I never saw them, never held any communication with them, and, as to offering to give more money than Mr. de Hirsch, I never did so, and the interpreter, Mr. Lundon, will show that one of the Natives was continually following me about, asking me to take the land as no rent had been paid to him. Mr. Lundon told me he did not consider the land was worth much, and that he did not want it. Any representations as stated by Mr. de Hirsch cannot have been so, inasmuch as I never saw the Natives, and would not know them if I did, besides the fact that it was impossible for me to leave my business. Mr. Whitaker and the other witnesses were directed to retire. After some consultation, the Chairman was requested to call in Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Lundon, and to ask whether the lease executed by the Natives to Whitaker and Lundon was in their possession, and if so, to produce it. Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Lundon being in attendance, Mr. Whitaker proceeded with his evidence as follows :— The lease in question is in the Registry Office, Auckland. I have a plan showing the exact boundaries of the land included in my lease. 52. Mr. Brandon.'] Are the Committee to understand that the piece of land comprised in the lease of Juno, 1868, to Mr. de Hirsch from Wiremu Kingi and other Natives, is the piece of land comprised in the lease to you of April, 1809 ? —Tes, and it remains still vested in me. 53. Mr. Dillon 13e11.~\ I understand by that answer that the deed which is in Auckland is for the same piece of land which is included in the deed of June, 18G9 ?—Tes. 54. When the second deed of the 15th February was made for the same piece at the south-east corner, were you aware of the existence of the lease to Mr. de Hirsch of the 13th June, of the square part of No. 24 ? —No, I was not, but I became aware afterwards, on searching the registry. 55. This deed appears to have been registered on the 7th September, 1868 : at what time did you become aware of it ? —After my deed of April was completed. On the motion of Mr. Bell, the witnesses present were requested to withdraw. After consultation, Mr. Lundon was called in, and informed by the Chairman, that if he desired to make a statement, the Committee would hear him. Mr. Lundon said: — I arrived here this morning, and have only just seen Mr. O'Keofc's evidence, and Mr. de Hirsch's evidence was read to me. They have both made statements which were not true. He says he was concerned in block No. 23 when I bought it from the Natives, and that I had offered a largo sum of money to the Natives to get them to sign. I did nothing of the kind. There were four Natives ; three of them signed, and I paid them three months' rent. Mr. O'Keefe had no call to the block then. He has given evidence in relation to a deed prepared in Mr. J. B. Eussell's office, for Hannaford and Walker. Mr. O'Keefe was not interested then. Mr. Whitaker signed over a a portion of his interest to Hannaford and Walker for forty pounds a year. I refused to sign it. I asked Mr. Whitaker why he signed, and he said that Hannaford and Walker were his personal friends, and he could do as he liked with his own. They repeatedly since wanted me to assign my interest to Hannaford and Walker, and threatened if I did not do so, Mr. Hannaford, being in the Bank of Australasia, would use his interest with the General Assembly to try and upset my title. With regard to No. 24, speaking from memory, Mr. de Hirsch lays claim to it. Mr. Whitaker never saw any of the Natives connected with the block, or with any of the blocks which I lay claim to. The deed for No. 24 was made at Messrs. Whitaker and Eussell's office in Auckland, and it was signed by one of the Natives in their office. Another Native in Poverty Bay signed to Mr. Eicke, who conveyed his interest since to Mr. Whitaker and myself. The other Native owner lives at Mercury Bay, and has very lately signed —about six or seven weeks ago. Those are the only owners for the block, and the round piece on the deed is not included. Mr. de Hirsch has entered an action against me in the Supreme Court, and so has Mr. Graham, relating to the lands, which will be heard on the 14th of this month. There is a statement in the printed report that I got the Natives to sign in the hotel, but they never did so, or had a glass of grog from me, but signed, in Whitaker and Eussell's office, and in

E.—No. 6a,

Mr. F. A. WUtaker, 2nd September, 1869.

Mr. Lundon. 2nd September, 1869.

11

NATIVE LANDS BILL COMMITTEE.