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