H.—2i.

the case, and if it was again referred, and he repeated that he was still satisfied of the guilt of the man, they then said that notwithstanding that, because a Committee had reported two years ago that the man was entitled to some consideration, they would set aside and ignore the Judge's opinion." That fully bears out the statement which I submit—that it was really a conflict between the Petitions Committee and the Government, relying upon His Honour's report. Your Honours will notice that that statement was made on the 2nd December, 1897, and that for fourteen months the money had laid in the Treasury untouched by Meikle. The reason the money remained untouched was that Meikle was asked to sign a receipt in full discharge if he took the money. Then, as to the pecuniary position of Meikle, it may easily be seen in what position a man's farm would be after he had been in gaol for five years, and after having spent two and a half years in hunting down a perjurer, and after the time he had spent in worrying the Legislature and Ministers in Wellington. Fortunately some explanation appears on the face of the receipt. Half of the money was paid to him and half to a Dunedin money-lender, to whom he had been paying 40 per cent. He had to pay £40 interest for six months to George Esther, money-lender, Dunedin. He signed for £250 and got £210, and nobody who considers the nature of the security can say that the rate of interest was excessive. Dr. Findlay: If we are to have a part of Mr. Seddon's statement read, I think it is only right that the following statement by Mr. Seddon should also be read: — " At the interview there was present the then honourable member for Mataura (Mr. McNab), the Minister of Lands (Mr. J. McKenzie), and himself, and it was clearly understood by him (Mr. Seddon) that if the sum of £500 was placed on the estimates in full satisfaction of Meikle's claim the honourable member for Mataura would move no further in the matter." Mr. Atkinson: The receipt which Meikle signed is as follows: — " I, John James Meikle, do hereby acknowledge to have received from the Colonial Treasurer, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen and the Government of the Colony of New Zealand, the sum of £500 (five hundred pounds), of which the sum of £250 (two hundred and fifty pounds) is about to be paid at my request to George Esther, of Dunedin, in full satisfaction of the release and discharge of all claims and demands, or alleged claims and demands, which I have now or at any time heretofore have had against Her Majesty the Queen or the Government of New Zealand upon or in respect of the prosecution and conviction of myself for sheep-stealing, or the prosecution or conviction at my instance of one William Lambert for perjury, and in respect of any expenses, costs, or charges in or about the said prosecution or either of them, and any losses sustained or alleged to be sustained by me thereby.—John James Meikle, 15th December, 1897.—Witness to signature, J. W. Kelly, M.H.R." You will notice that the receipt was dated within fourteen days after the date of the debate in the House from which I have cited a sentence or two. On the strength of that statement, and the omission in the receipt of any reference to false imprisonment, and on the advice which he received, Meikle took the money, but he protested strongly both before and at the time of signing the receipt. We shall be able to prove the protest. The question for your Honours to consider is whether the colony is cleared by it. Mr. Justice Edwards: Is it clear that he protested ? It would be to a subordinate officer, at all events. Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Justice Edwards: There is no question of law about it. At the same time there must be some means of getting finality in a claim against the colony. Mr. Atkinson: Unless the colony is deprived of autonomy you can never take away from it the ri<drt to deal with such claims, and it is free to recognise a debt of honour, and to give to any person a sum of money whether he deserves it or not. As your Honour has said, it is not a question of law; but even as a question of politics or of public affairs, I submit that there can be no bar to making any such payment. Of course, precedent does not come in very much in this matter; but I do submit that, assuming a new discovery was made entirely altering the basis on which the receipt was signed, the colony would be in a position to exercise its rights of making a payment or exercising its bounty if it thought right to do so. Then, you have to take into consideration the circumstances under which the receipt was signed, and the protest that was made. Mr. Justice Cooper: We have to find out the circumstances under which the money was paid. We do not know anything about the circumstances until they are placed before us. Dr. Findlay: I understand that Mr. McNab, M.H.R., conducted negotiations between the head of the Government and Meikle, and I told your Honours in Wellington that we would probably have to ask the Commission to take his evidence. lam instructed that it is very important indeed. Mr. Atkinson: When the adjournment was taken I was engaged in the question of the signing of this receipt for £500 which my client signed in 1897. There is, my friend reminds me, another sum, for which I have not got the receipt—it was £294, and covers the same argument and the same consideration. It is a difficult question, being a matter which never was a matter of law—the question being a matter of honour and public policy—as to how far in a matter of this nature the effect of thereceipt would be a release. It is a somewhat novel position your Honours find yourselves in no doubt with regard to this point. The Lord Chancellor is called the keeper of the King's conscience, and your Honours are here temporarily in charge of the people's conscience. Mr. Justice Cooper: We have the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor as far as the Court of Chancery is concerned, but I am'not aware that goes to keeping the King's conscience. Mr. Justice Edwards: We have very much in actual jurisdiction- -very much power. Mr". Atkinson: In the equitable jurisdiction, as in everything else, the practice has become fixed in certain rules and ruts. But in the present matter your Houours are like the original Lord Chancellor, in that you have no precedents to bind you.

30