81

G.—2,

to do with it, and I said, " I am going to publish it, unless you have any objection with your name to it." Hβ said he would rather not have it addressed to him. I subsequently showed it to Mr. O'Hara Smith, and he said he would make a type-written copy of it. He did so, and sent it to me. I signed it, and had it published. I wrote it for the purpose of publishing it. 467. You communicated with me, and I replied I only wanted to get the facts : did I not say in my letter that there would be a Eoyal Commission shortly, and that would give you an opportunity of bringing everything out ? —You did ; but I was not going to depend on any Eoyal Commission to do me justice. 468. Is it not a fact, when you showed the letter to Wilson, he refused to give it oack, and said he would send it to Mr. McKenzie ? —He did not. 469. Did he say he would take it to Mr. McKenzie ?—He asked me to take it to him. The exact words he said to me were, that he would think over it; and he considered that the information in it, as a history of the block, was so valuable that it should be placed at the disposal of the Government. 470. Did you read it to Mr. McKenzie ?—No. 471. Did you hand it to him?— No. 472. Did you hand it to anyone on his behalf?—l gave it to Mr. O'Hara Smith. I was very much flattered that Mr. Wilson thought it a concise and proper history of this block, of which he had heard so much, but in which he was not previously personally interested, and he considered that documents throwing light on the question should be placed at the disposal of the Minister of Lands. I accordingly took it to Wellington, but the Minister had gone to Invercargill. 473. Did you leave it with Mr. O'Hara Smith for his perusal?—No; he was good enough to say that he would make a type-written copy, and he did so. 474. Did Mr. O'Hara Smith tell you he was instructed by the Government to reply to Sir Walter Buller, and would like to quote from your letter ?—He told me he was compiling a pamphlet in reference to you. 475. Did not he say he wanted to take extracts from your letter, and, having read the letter, did he not say he would rather have the letter published in full, and would like to borrow it as a whole? —He said, if the letter appeared in any paper he would prefer to take extracts from it for his pamphlet from the paper. 476. And you published the letter in the Farmer ? —Yes. 477. Was that not two days before the Commission sat ?—I do not know ;it was a few days before. The date on the letter w%s not the date I wrote it. 478. Do you think it was a fair thing to transgress the well-recognised rule as to not commenting on matters sub judice ? —I do not think it was proper to publish the letter at that time, and if I had known as much about the Eoyal Commission as I know now, I would not have done so. But I would have published it some time or other. 479. You admit I wrote to you, saying that I wanted to get all the facts and the truth, but that you would have an opportunity before the Eoyal Commission ?—I would not accept your opportunity; I wanted to make one myself. 480. The Chairman.] Why did you see Mr. O'Hara Smith?—lt was this way: Mr. Wilson said the letter ought to be placed at the disposal of the Minister, and asked me to take it to him and read it to him, and I went to Wellington for that purpose. The Minister was away, and I said nothing to any one. I came back to Otaki, as I had some business in the Native Land Court there, which engaged me till Wednesday or Thursday. I finished my business, and was going back home on Friday, when I received some letters readdressed to me at Otaki. Amongst these was one from Mr. Wilson, to say that he had received a private note from Mr. McKenzie, the substance of which was that he would be much obliged if he would take the letter and read it to Mr. O'Hara Smith. Who he was I did not know. There were also a whole sheaf of telegrams, some to Mr. Wilson and one to myself, asking Mr. Wilson to induce me to come down; so I went down and read the letter to Mr. O'Hara Smith. 481. Sir W. Butter.} You speak of the letter as being a reply to my pamphlet, of which you had received a copy : was not that pamphlet a mere reprint of the speech and my examination at the Bar of the House ?—Yes. 482. That speech was made before the Horowhenua Block Bill was passed ?—I had read the proceedings in Parliament in Hansard, and, only for the pamphlet, would not have taken notice of them. 483. The pamphlet was a mere reprint of the official record ?—So far as it went, yes. 484. You impugn some of my statements in what you call my pamphlet : is it not a fact these statements are the statements put forward in the petition of Kemp, which was drawn up by me under instructions? —Chiefly. 485. Almost entirely?— Yes; I believe it was all in that petition. But a general inference ■was drawn throughout the thing that I considered was very detrimental to me, considering the part I took. 486. That petition was, on the face of it, the petition of Kemp, and the result of instructions from my client: that you admit?— Yes. 487. If I state it as a fact, will you deny that, at the time of the presentation of that petition in 1889, you received from me a printed copy in pamphlet form ?—I have not the slightest doubt I did. 488. There was no concealment about it ?—No. 489. Mr. Morrison.~\ Do you remember who was actively moving in Palmerston in 1886 on behalf of the descendants of Te Whatanui ?—There were several, but the only one I distinctly recollect is Neville Nicholson. 490. He appeared to be the most prominent ?—He did to me ; I think he tried to say something in Court, because his name was not in the certificate. 11— G. 2.