and to request that I may be informed whether it is the view of Her Majesty's present Government that Mr. Webster should be referred to the colonial government to obtain redress for the losses and injuries he has sustained from the acts of official personages executing the orders of the home Government, or acting in their official capacities ultra vires. Mr. Webster desires respectfully to state that he should be obliged to decline to recognize the colonial government as his debtor in respect of the claims put forward by him, and that he may know precisely the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this point, in order to determine his own course, he begs that your lordship will relieve him from the doubt raised in his mind by the somewhat ambiguous language of the last paragraph of Mr. Herbert's note. At the period of life he has now reached Mr. Webster can ill afford to abide delays, and, as he has remained in London until this time, in the hope that the report from the governor would be sent forward without undue delay, and that upon receipt of it Her Majesty's Government would be not only ready and willing, but also prepared, by a sufficent acquaintance with the facts, to deal with his claims, he hopes the arrival of such report at the foreign office will be kindly notified to him through the undersigned. While yet in England Mr. Webster is desirous that your lordship may, if possible, indicate a modus agendi which would admit of his personally bringing this most serious business to a speedy conclusion in some manner alike just, honorable, and satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government and to himself. Finally, I beg leave to submit herewith, for convenience of reference by your lordship, a printed copy of the statement of Mr. Webster's case as laid before the right hon. ourable the Earl of Kimberley by Messrs. Kimber and Ellis.

I have, etc.,

The Right Hon. the EARL OF CARNARVON,

L. C. DUNCAN.

Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies.

The governor of New Zealand to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, WELLINGTON, 1st August, 1874. MY LORD: According to my promise in my despatch No. 55, of yesterday, sent by way of San Francisco, I have now the honour to transmit copies of minutes upon the correspondence transmitted by the Earl of Kimberley in his despatch No. 75, of the 30th October, 1873, and by your lordship in your despatch No. 23. of the 1st June, 1874, by the commissioner of crown lands and the colonial secretary, the latter of whom knew Mr. Webster during the period of his residence in New Zealand, and is well qualified to judge of the merits of the case. These ministers set forth the entire history of the transactions between the Government and Mr. Webster.

(2) The most important point appears to be his present claim that his case should have been considered strictly as that of an American citizen. The records show that he elected to have his claims referred to the commission appointed for the purpose of adjudicating upon such claims to land not granted by the Crown, after he had been informed by the governor that he could only consent to their being "laid before the commissioners in the usual way" if "they were lodged as a British subject." Mr. Webster, indeed, made no such explicit declaration, but replied, I am told, after some hesitation, "I wish my claims to be laid before the commissioners, and am willing to take my chances with all others." He appeared and prosecuted his claims before the commissioners. There is no record of his having made any protest against their awards, and he must be held to have accepted them, as he received the Crown grants made in pursuance thereof, and sold or mortgaged all the land so granted. His claims were, in fact, treated with exceptional indulgence, and admitted to a larger extent than those of any other individual.

(3) I shall, should your lordship deem it necessary, transmit certified copies of the documents quoted in my enclosures. They are very voluminous, and I think that the correct quotations will demonstrate sufficiently, especially in the absence of any representation from the Government of the United States, that Mr. Webster has no rights as an American citizen, and that his claims were properly decided by competent authority.

I have, etc.,

JAMES FERGUSSON.

[Memorandum for his excellency the governor, by the commissioner of land claims in respect of certain land claims in New Zealand of Mr. William Webster.]

The information required concerning this claim relative to the points mentioned in the report by the emigration board, enclosed in despatch No. 75, is given herein, taking the various points seriatim:

1. "The dates and extent of the several purchases made by Mr. Webster, and the consideration for each."

The information required under this head will be found in the schedule attached hereto.

2. "The claim preferred by him to the first commission, and the grounds on which his grant was limited to 2,560 acres, and on which he was denied the benefit of Lord John Russell's instructions of March, 1841."

In a letter dated the 20th July, 1841 (marked 1), Mr. Webster first preferred his claims in the following terms: "I have sent seven copies of titles to land and seven statements of purchases, which I beg you will lay before the commissioners, for examination only. I have sent all my claims to land in this country before the United States Government, by the advice of the American consul of Sydney; and I trust his excellency Governor Hobson will not suffer any of my lands to be interfered with until the question is settled." He further states that he was willing to come forward to prove all his purchases, but requested to be allowed, time in which to do it. He trusted that when his claims were examined the commissioners would understand that they were all bought before any government was formed in New Zealand.

Governor Hobson minuted Mr. Webster's letter as follows: "Mr. Webster must distinctly state whether he claims land in New Zealand as a British or an American subject. If the former, his case must take the course the law prescribes; if the latter, his claims for land must depend upon the decision which may be arrived by the joint consent of both governments. But Mr. Webster in seeking assistance from a foreign government must relinquish all the rights of a British subject, such as the ownership of a British vessel, which I understand he now possesses. [If] the claims of Mr. Webster be lodged as a British subject,* [I will] consent to their being laid before the commissioners in the usual way."

Mr. Webster was informed accordingly, and in his reply dated the 3rd October, 1841 (marked 2), said, "I wish my claims to be laid before the commissioners, and am willing to take my chance with all others." His claims were then referred to the commissioners in the usual way.

From the attached schedule of Webster's claims, it will be seen the commissioners, Godfrey and Richmond, awarded 7,541 acres to claimant, namely: In case 714 (305), 250 acres; case 715 (305A), 250 acres; case 716 (305B), 550 acres; case 717 (305c), 800 acres; case 722 (305G), 1,944 acres; case 724 (3051), 1,187 acres; case 726 (305K), 2,560 acres; total, 7,541 acres.

But, on the 18th December, 1843, in reporting on Claim No. 726 (report marked 3), the commissioners further reported that the awards should be reduced in the aggregate to the maximum grant of 2,560 acres, the reason being that clause 6 of "The Land Claims Ordinance, 1841," Session I, No. 2, 9th June, 1841, provides that "no grant of land shall be recommended by the said commissioners which shall exceed in extent 2,560 acres, unless specially authorised thereto by the gov ernor, with the advice of the executive council."

3. "On what grounds the second commission altered the previous decision in his case."

The second commission (R. A. FitzGerald, commissioner), appointed under "The Land Claims Ordinance, 1844," Sessions III, No. 3, having been authorised, by a minute of the executive council, dated the 10th April, 1844, recommended an extension of the award of the previous commission on the following grounds, given in a memorandum dated the 22nd April, 1844 (marked 4): (1) That the outlay of Mr. Webster on his land claims amounted to £7,787 13s., which, according to the scale of valuation in the land claims ordinance, would entitle him to be considered as having paid for 50,904 acres, and, even limiting his outlay to the

*Original torn.

+ Mr. Webster avoids a definite answer to the governor's question whether he claims as a British or an American subject.

In explanation of the dual numbers used in this report, it should be stated that in the interval between 1841 and 1856 most of the original claimants had sold their claims or some of them, so that the system of including all of the claims of the same owner into one case under the same number with a differential letter for each separate claim, adopted by the first commission, was no longer applicable. Commissioner Bell therefore renumbered the whole series of cases, giving to each claim therein a separate number, and so that the 459 cases of the first commission became 1.049 claims under the third commission.

mere payments to the natives, he would be fairly entitled to 17,950 acres. (2) That, considerable sales of land having been made by him on the faith of all his valid purchases being recognised by the Crown, he would be likely to be overwhelmed with lawsuits, and subjected to great losses, if not treated with great liberality by the governor (Captain Fitzroy).

For these reasons Commissioner FitzGerald recommended that there should be granted to Mr. Webster himself 5,000 acres, and to purchasers from him 12,655 acres, in all 17,655 acres. The governor approved of these recommendations, and the grants were issued on the 1st May, 1844.

In Claim No. 36 (32), of Abercrombie, Nagle, Webster and Co. (report marked 5), the first commission recommended no grant, on the ground that the claimants had already received the maximum grant of 2,560 acres. Governor Fitzroy queried this award, and Commissioner FitzGerald replied that they had received grants "nowhere as a company, and only Webster individually."

The case was brought before the executive council on the 18th June, 1844,* and it was submitted for the consideration of the council that, according to the report of the commissioners. the claimants had validly purchased a considerable part of the Great Barrier Island, but as one of them, Mr. Webster, had already been awarded a large grant upon his other claims, the commissioners had not awarded any grant in respect of this claim to either of the parties; that the case was one of extreme hardship, and that a benefit would accrue to the colony by awarding a grant of a part of the Barrier Island to enable the claimants to proceed with their mining operations, upon which much capital had already been expended. The council were unanimously of opinion that a grant should be awarded of part of the Barrier Island.

Governor Fitzroy gave instructions that all that part of the island which the commissioners had reported to have been validly purchased should be granted to the claimants; and on the 6th July, 1844, grants were issued as follows, namely: To W. Abercrombie, 8,119 acres; to J. Nagle, 8,070 acres; to W. Webster, 8,080 acres; total, 24,269 acres.

4. The judgment of the commission on the title-deeds which he is said to have left in their hands when he quitted the colony in 1847."

The title-deeds said to have been left by Mr. Webster in the hands of the commissioners can only be those connected with the claims reported upon by them, for Mr. Webster asserts he proved all his claims to the satisfaction of the commissioners; and it has always been the practice of the Court of Claims that the original deeds of purchase should be deposited and recorded in that court.

Of the fourteen claims preferred by Mr. Webster, the commissioners reported that in eight† claims-714-717, 722, and 724-726 (305–305C, 305G, and 3051-305K)— bona fide purchases had been made; in one claim 723 (305H) the purchase was not made from the rightful owners; in one claim 727 (305M), the purchase was not completed at the date of Sir G. Gipp's proclamation, 14th January, 1840. Four, 718-721 (305D, 305E, 305F, and 305L) were withdrawn by the claimant.

In the case of Abercrombie, Nagle, and Webster, claim No. 36 (32), the com missioners reported a bona fide purchase; and in claim No. 31 (29B), of Peter Abercrombie, in which Webster had sold the land to claimant in 1839, that, the claim being derived from W. Webster, to whom the maximum grant of 2,560 acres had been awarded, no grant could be recommended, and no expression of opinion as to the validity of the purchase was given.

The records of the land claims court furnish no explanation of Mr. Webster's omission to appeal to the home Government; but it would appear from them he had no grounds whatever for making any appeal. When Mr. Webster quitted the colony in 1847 he could have had no interest in any of his claims, for he had sold the whole of the land granted to him, or awarded in seven of his claims, in or prior to the year 1844; and the land in the other, the Great Barrier claim, was mortgaged, and fell into the hands of the mortgagees.

The claim of Mr. Webster in the Bay of Plenty, of which it is alleged the Government took possession and felled spars for the use of Her Majesty's navy to the value of £8,000 to £10,000, appears to be No. 723 (305H), concerning which the commissioners reported that it had not been purchased from the rightful owners. In the evidence of one of the native chiefs opposing this claim of Webster's the following passage occurs: "When Captain Wood, in the Tortoise, Pehi and Hokianga (the sellers to Webster) came to Tauranga to ask me and my party to go with them to drag out spars from this land for Captain Wood

Extract from the minutes marked 6.

+ Vide schedule and commissioners' reports.

+ Vide report-evidence marked 7.

in order that both parties might obtain payment, we consented that some of our party who lived at Tuhua (Mayor Island) should go."

In the appendix to Commissioner Bell's report on the land claims (Appendix, H. R., 1863, D.-No. 14), the final adjudication upon Mr. Webster's claims under the land claims settlement acts, 1856-'58, will be seen.

Mr. Webster's estimate of the extent of some of his claims has varied considerably, as will appear from the following comparison of area as stated to the Government in Sydney and Auckland, respectively:

It may be remarked that in two of Mr. Webster's claims, those at Point Rodney and Piako, complications with the natives have arisen and quiet possession can not be obtained. Mr. Webster sold the Point Rodney claim to a Mr. Dacre in 1844, who took possession without opposition. In 1859 some natives set up a claim to a portion of the land which was not admitted by the Government or Dacre, but the native opposition to Dacre's occupation of the land gradually increased until in 1862 they drove off a tenant of Dacre's and some woodcutters. The Government endeavored to induce the natives to relinquish their claim but without avail. The natives took possession of the land, and have, or had in 1871, several large settlements and cultivations upon it, and it is stated by the superintendent of Auckland that any attempt to remove them would require to be made with an armed force. The Government, being unable to give Dacre quiet possession, ultimately issued scrip in exchange for the land to the amount of £1,458, which Mr. Dacre received.

Concerning the Piako claim, Commissioner Bell states, in his award dated the 26th September, 1861 (marked 8): "It is certain that, as regards the Piako claim, notwithstanding the evidence before Commissioner Godfrey in 1842, the natives would never have agreed to give up possession to the extent Webster claimed to have purchased. When Johnson* tried to go on the land comprised in his grant (for 1,280 acres) he found serious obstructions and difficulties; and as to the residue, the papers recorded in the case show that quiet possession was, ten years ago, certainly not to be had. From time to time the natives offered land for sale to the Government, nominally as new blocks, but really including the greater part of the claims of Webster and another man named Cormack, and in the years 1853-54 installments were paid on the land thus offered to the amount of £750, whereof £550 related to the land alleged to have been bought by Web

ster."

The land purchase commissioner for the Piako and Thames district reported in 1856-57, with respect to Webster's claim, in the following terms: "With regard to Webster's purchase, I could do nothing, as I had no names to go by with regard to the boundaries, and a long time has elapsed since the purchase. Moreover, the Ngatihaurea, who, as vassals of the Ngatipaoa at the time of the purchase by Webster, did not then dare to say anything, have now, from the decline of the influence of the chiefs, come forward and denied the sale of the frontage from Mauhora to Angapunga stated to have been purchased by Webster; and declare his eastern boundary to be that laid down upon the accompanying plan. I have also shown in this plan what they state to have been his western or back boundary. In consequence of the facts above stated, and from the frontage to the river having been supposed to be twice its actual length, the purchase by Webster turns out to be only about six thousand acres. They have refused the sum offered yesterday (£50, on the 10th November, 1857), because they did not consider it sufficient, and also because they maintain that some payment ought to be made by Government on account of Webster's purchase. With regard to this purchase, they have been most consistent in asserting that, though their names were signed together in token of their assent, and their evidence before the commissioners' court went to prove that the purchase was a bona fide one, still they were induced to act thus by the promises and representations of Web

* Johnson purchased from Webster a portion of his claim.

ster, and that at that time they hardly knew the importance of the steps they were taking. I may observe that the sum promised by Webster was five times the amount paid by him; it is needless to state the promise was not kept. * * * I had one continued discussion with the natives with regard to Webster's claim, but they were always most consistent, ignoring entirely the boundaries as laid down in any documents to which I had access. From all that I have seen, I am inclined to think that the natives are in the right-at any rate, far more so than the European in this instance. The land included in Webster's claim that was retained by them south of Pouriuri amounts to about three thousand acres. Out of this I have since purchased and paid for finally about twelve hundred acres.

In 1857 the purchase by Government of the Piako block was completed, and among his remarks with regard to it Commissioner Bell says: "A more careful examination of the area which the natives admitted was Webster's showed that out of the 18,000 ac: es included in the survey there were about 7,500 acres so admitted to have been formerly sold, instead of 6,000 as estimated by Mr. Hay at first."

The Crown grants already issued in this claim having been called in and cancelled under the land-claims settlement acts, 1856-58, the Government were obliged under those acts to make good the title of the claimants to the area specified in the cancelled grants, together with an additional sixth. To do this would take much more than the area allowed by the natives to have been sold to Webster: and Commissioner Bell, referring to subsections A and B of section 23 of the land-claims settlement act of 1856, says: "The boundaries described in the grants being of more than sufficient extent, the grantees were consequently entitled to the award of quantity, and no discretion was left to me."

Mr. Bell accordingly directed that the claimants to the land should select land to the extent of 14,319 acres within the boundaries included in the settlement of the Piako block made by the Government in 1857.

Mr. Bell further says: "I do not consider it reasonable to require an immediate selection, as no one could be expected to commence occupation at Piako til the restoration of peace and order." To this day the position of native affairs at Piako has remained such that no survey of these selections could be attempted.

The correspondence with Mr. Hamilton. private secretary to Governor Fitzroy, referred to by Messrs. Kimber and Ellis, is not recorded in the land claims court, but will probably be found among the archives of Government House. All original records in Mr. Webster's claims are forwarded herewith, with the more important documents duly noted.

I have observed a note of Mr. Webster's appended to his statement of seven claims, attached to his letter of the 20th July, 1841 (No. 1), in which he says: "There are thirteen other pieces of land bought by me, and the titles are missing or taken away, but as soon as they can be* [found] the particulars will be sent in. The whole of my different purchases amount to twenty-seven pieces of land." It is to be presumed that these missing documents were not found; at any rate, the claims which they represented were not preferred to the commissioners, and undoubtedly had they been they would have been disallowed.

Upon reviewing the whole case, it would seem that, though Mr. Webster did not distinctly state" whether he preferred his claims as a British or an American subject, the plain inference to be deduced from his expression, "I wish my claims to be laid before the commissioners, and am willing to take my chance with all others," is that he did so prefer them as a British subject. It is evident that it was so understood at the time, for Mr. Webster, in his evidence before the commissioners in preferring his claims, in no instance appears to have alluded to his rights as an American citizen; nor, although he remained in the colony about three years after the settlement of his claims by the second commission, did he ever make them a ground for preferring any claim upon the Government.

The area in Mr. Webster's claims has been greatly overstated, as a reference to the column "Area surveyed, in the appendix to Mr. Bell's report (Appendix H. R. 1863, D. No. 14) will show; and, as a total area of 25,735 acres was granted in his claims by the second commission, it would appear that Mr. Webster was treated with excessive liberality-on a scale indeed not accorded to any other claimants in the whole history of the land claims court.

Before closing this report in respect of purchases made from the aborigines by Mr. Webster before New Zealand became a British colony, I desire to summarize the facts with regard to the Piako claim. It appears from the papers

Griginal torn.