that Mr. Webster originally claimed 80,000 acres at the Piako; that he sold onehalf-40,000 acres of his alleged rights to Mr. Peter Abercrombie, and subsequently 25,820 acres to various other person. The Piako claim was allowed, and, under the recommendation of the second commission, 12,674 acres were granted to him and those who purchased from him, and he subsequently sold and conveyed to a purchaser his own portion. But it was afterwards foundupon the survey of the Government purchase at Piako-that the area admitted by the natives to have been purchased by Webster amounted to only 7,500 acres ; while under the existing land-claim laws an award to the extent of 14,319 acres has been made, so that the colonial government has been at a considerable loss in connection with the claim

I regret the delay that has occurred in furnishing a report upon this case, but I deemed it necessary to take the papers with me to Auckland to inquire into it there.

COURT OF CLAIMS, Wellington, July 21st, 1874.

G. MAURICE O'RORKE,
Land Claims Commissioner.

NOTE. The inclosures referred to in this report are not printed herewith; the information therein will be found in the insertions to the memorandum printed in the earlier part of this document.

Opinion of Mr. Whitaker on foregoing report.

The draft report appears to me to have been carefully compiled, and, with one omission, to give a correct and sufficient account of Mr. Webster's land transactions as brought before the Government in respect of purchases made from the aborigines before New Zealand became a British colony. The omission I refer to has reference to the Piako claim. It appears from the papers that Mr. Webster originally claimed 80,000 at the Piako; that he sold one-half of it, 40,000, to Mr. Peter Abercrombie, and subsequently 25,820 acres to various other persons; that the whole block is found to contain only 18,000 acres, and that the quantity admitted by the natives to have been purchased by Mr. Webster amounts only to 7,500 acres. It should, I think, be added to this that the Piako claim was allowed, that 12,674 acres were granted to him and those who purchased from him, and that he subsequently sold and conveyed to a purchaser the portion granted to him.*

Although it is true that Mr. Webster, when required to do so, did not distinctly state whether he preferred his claim as a British or American subject, yet he distinctly elects to be treated in the same way as British subjects, by stating it to be his wish that his claims should be laid before the commissioners, and that he was willing to take his chance with all others, by appearing before the commissioners when his claims were referred, as wished by him, and prosecuting them, and by accepting the commissioner's awards, receiving the Crown grants made in pursuance of them, and selling or mortgaging all the land thus granted to him.

There is no doubt that Mr. Webster was treated with greater liberality than any of those he was willing to take his chance with, and I cannot see that he has any reasonable claim on the British Government, imperial or colonial. FREDK. WHITAKER.

20th June, 1874.

[Memorandum for his excellency the governor-Mr. William Webster's claim.]

I knew Mr. Webster during the period of his residence in New Zealand, from January, 1840. He was what was then called a "trader on the coast, and was known to represent or to be supported by Sydney merchants.

Towards the close of the year 1839, when it became certain that the sovereignty of New Zealand was about to be acquired by Great Britain, Mr. Webster, as did

The draft report was amended accordingly.

many others, dealt largely with natives for land, or rather for land claims. There was then no way of ascertaining the right to land of the natives who took "trade" for their signatures; there was no survey, and the estimate of area within the boundaries, when any boundaries were defined in the deeds of conveyance, was almost always excessive-in many cases ridiculously so. Hence the exaggerated

character of some of the claims.

The early land purchases, which were made with deliberation and care and in accordance with native usage, were rarely questioned: but those which were made in haste immediately before January, 1840, and, as it were, more for the purpose of getting up a "claim" than of acquiring a title, were commonly repudiated by the native owners of the land. Some of Mr. Webster's claims are in this category.

Mr. Whitaker, of Auckland, who has a derivative title through Mr. Webster to a large block of land in the Piako district, has not to this day been able to get possession from the natives. It will be necessary, in order to keep the faith of the Crown (as the land in question was awarded to Mr. Webster by the land claims commissioner), and to preserve the peace of the country, either to extinguish the native title to this land by purchase or to find for Mr. Whitaker an equivalent elsewhere. A proposal with a view to settlement of this claim is now before this Government.

Mr. Webster's failure was, as I recollect, of the usual commercial character, he was already in difficulties, as shown by his arrest in Sydney in 1840,* and his insolvency was completed in the financial crisis of 1842–43 in New South Wales, by which his principals there were affected. His misfortune was never, so far as I know, until now attributed to the action of the colonial government or of the Imperial Government. If any such complaint had been made in the early days of settlement, I think that I must have heard it. I do not think that it would have been made in the presence of any person familiar with the facts. It may at present be regarded as a lawyer's plea merely, on his client's behalf. DANIEL POLLEN. 29th July, 1874.

[Despatch from the secretary of state to the governor.]

DOWNING STREET, 28th November, 1874. MY LORD: With reference to Sir J. Fergusson's despatch No. 57, of the 1st of August, transmitting reports by the commissioner of crown lands and the colonial secretary on Mr. W. Webster's alleged claim to certain lands in New Zealand, I enclose, for your information and for communication to your ministers, a copy of a letter which I have caused to be addressed to Mr. L. Č. Duncan on the subject, together with a copy of the letter which I have received from him in reply.

I have, etc.,

The Most Hon. the MARQUIS OF NORMANBY, K. C. M. G., etc.

[Enclosures.]

Mr. Herbert to Mr. Duncan.

CARNARVON.

DOWNING STREET, 17th November, 1874. SIR: With reference to your letter of the 23rd May, 1847, and to the reply from this office of the 1st of June, I am directed by the Earl of Carnarvon to inform you that his lordship has received the report from the governor of New Zealand which he was called upon to furnish upon Mr. Webster's claims in respect of certain lands in New Zealand.

Lord Carnarvon desires me to inform you that, this matter having been most carefully inquired into, the only conclusion which his lordship can come to is, that not only has Mr. Webster no claim to compensation, but that he has been treated throughout with exceptional liberality.

I have, etc.,

L. C. DUNCAN, Esq.

• See Mr. Dacre's affidavit in printed statement.

R. G. W. HERBERT.

Mr. Duncan to Mr. Herbert.

47 FINSBURY CIRCUS, LONDON, 19th November, 1874. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of yesterday referring to one addressed by me to the colonial office on the 23rd May of this year.

It is proper that I should take this occasion to say that, since the date of my previous note, I have been thoroughly convinced that Mr. Webster, the individual referred to therein, is a person in whom no confidence whatever is to be placed. I regret that, deceived by his specious manner and plausible story-as no doubt many others have been-I should have caused the colonial office of Her Majesty's Government the trouble of investigating his claims anew.

I have, etc.,

ROBERT G. W. HERBERT, Esq.

L. C. DUNCAN

APPENDIX B.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON MR. W. WEBSTER'S LAND CLAIMS IN NEW ZEALAND.

26TH JANUARY, 1887.

Resolved by the Senate, That, after due examination of the matters presented in the petition of William Webster, and the evidence brought to their attention in support of his claim for idemnity from the British Government for lands in New Zealand, purchased by him in good faith from native chiefs, and duly conveyed to him before the Government of Great Britain acquired the sovereignty over that country by a treaty made with said chiefs, the Senate of the United States consider that said claim for indemnity is founded in justice, and deserves the cognizance and support of the Government of the United States; and that said claim, as a claim for money indemnity.was not presented by the United States to Great Britain prior to September, 1858.

Resolved, That the President is requested to take such measures as, in his opinion, may be proper to secure to William Webster a just settlement and final adjustment of his claim against Great Britain growing out of the loss of the lands and other property in New Zealand of which he has been deprived by the act or consent of the British Government, and to which he had acquired a title under purchases and deeds of conveyance from the native chiefs prior to the 6th February, 1840, and prior to any right of Great Britain to said islands.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of William Webster, a citizen of the United States, relating to his claim against the Government of Great Britain, respectfully report:

The petition discloses and the evidence found in public records heretofore submitted to Congress and to the Department of State supports the claim of William Webster to indemnity for the seizure and sale, under the authority and direction of the British Government, of certain large bodies of land in New Zealand, the rightful property of said Webster.

The several tracts of land claimed by the petitioner are designated by red lines drawn on the chart found in Appendix No. 1, which accompanies this report, and are estimated as containing five hundred thousand acres.

William Webster claims these several tracts of land under regular deeds of conveyance to him, made by several New Zealand chiefs, exercising full sovereign powers over their respective tribes at the time and long prior to the dates of the conveyances.

The execution of these deeds has been proven before a commission appointed by the British Crown, which sat at Aukland. The boundaries of Webster's lands

*The appendices to the report are not printed herewith.

CLAIM OF WILLIAM WEBSTER.

are marked upon the chart found in Appendix No. 1 to this report, and each tract is numbered and lettered.

Mr. Webster produced his deeds before said commission and the chiefs who executed the same, and they established, as did other witnesses, the execution of the deeds to the lands claimed by him, and that he paid the chiefs and tribes a consideration for the purchase amounting, in the aggregate, to more than $70,000. Some of these deeds have been lost, without the fault of Mr. Webster, and others, possibly all of them, are of record in some form among the archives of the commission. Neither the Government of Great Britain or New Zealand has ever disputed the execution of these deeds, or their consideration, or that they were made by tribal chiefs who had full sovereignty at the time within the limits of their respective territorial dominions.

So the committee assume, with confidence, that there was no flaw in the title of Mr. Webster to the lands described in these conveyances, and that these chiefs could make valid conveyances of them, whether by deed to private owners, or by treaty to the British Government, or to any other power.

All the conveyances to Webster are of older date by several years than any claim of Great Britain to the ownership of any lands in New Zealand, or to sovereignty and dominion over that country. They were made before Great Britain attempted to colonize that country with her subjects, or to assert any ownership of lands in those islands, either by treaty or by force. The islands of New Zealand at the time these deeds were made to Webster, and at the time that Great Britain by treaty acquired the sovereignty of the country (on the 6th February, 1840), were under the sovereignty, dominion, and government of a number of the tribes of New Zealand, each of them having territorial boundaries distinctly ascertained and guarded carefully against intrusion by other tribes. They were a warlike people, and were frequently embroiled in conflicts about their respective tribal boundaries, in respect of which they were very jealous of each other.

When Great Britain determined to acquire dominion over New Zealand by treaty, and to acquire that possession by agreement and not by force, she could find no sovereign there with whom to treat respecting the entire country, but made her treaty with the chiefs of each tribe.

Great Britain, in gaining the sovereignty of the country and a qualified ownership in the lands, did precisely what Webster had done long before in getting a title to his lands, and that was, to go to each chief of each tribe and negotiate with him as a sovereign ruler within the limits of his own territory. The same chiefs that had conveyed these lands to Webster, for a valuable consideration, afterwards conveyed to Great Britain a partial interest in their public lands and political dominion over them, as sovereign, in consideration of the blessings that they would receive in becoming British subjects, as is stated in the third article of the treaty of the 6th February, 1840.

That treaty is copied on pages 6 and 7 of Appendix No. 1. It is the sole basis of any right of dominion, or property, that the British Government has ever acquired in those islands. Whatever may have been the previous designs of that Government as to the acquisition of New Zealand by conquest, the treaty of the 6th February, 1840, placed the chiefs of the tribes, respectively, on the footing of sovereign rulers, and recognized their full right to treat as such with Great Britain or any other power. Proceeding in this way to gain dominion over New Zealand, Great Britain avoided all questions of prior occupancy by citizens of other countries, and committed itself to the duty of treating them with justice. In 1839 Great Britain empowered Captain Hobson" to invite the confederated and independent chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following articles and conditions." The New Zealanders were reconciled to British sovereignty only when that Government, in the treaty, confirmed and guaranteed "to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession." The only qualification of this otherwise unlimited right of ownership in chiefs, tribes, and private owners is, that when any of them shall desire to dispose of or alienate their possessions the chiefs yield "to Her Majesty the exclusive right of preemption over such lands" at prices to be fixed by agreement. It would be difficult to select language that would more clearly import a perfect ownership in all the soil of New Zealand, in the chiefs, the people as tribes, and as private owners, than that which is guaranteed in the treaty itself. Such a title afterwards acquired by any person in Great Britain in lands to which he

had no title at the time he had previously attempted to convey the land to another would, by relation and estoppel, accrue to such grantee the moment that he got such a deed, or a treaty had granted the title to him. These chiefs had conveyed these lands to Mr. Webster before the date of the treaty. As no exception is made in the treaty of the rights of the persons to whom these prior conveyances had been made, their titles are necessarily confirmed by its terms, unless they were obtained by fraud. So that Mr. Webster, if he had no other claim to the land, would be entitled under the laws of England to the benefit of the express grant in this treaty made to the chiefs from whom he had purchased and who had previously conveyed the land to him.

But his titles were of equal dignity with that afterwards acquired by Great Britain as it relates to the sovereign power from which they are derived. They are of equal validity and force with the title of Great Britain as it relates to the fact of the prior ownership of the land by the chiefs and tribes. They are of equal integrity as it relates to the consideration paid for these lands, and of as much greater moral value as a voluntary contract stands above one made under coercion, in the estimation of all the civilized people. Mr. Webster's title came first in point of time from the same soverign power that Great Britain expressly recognises in this treaty, and it was purchased for value from people whom he had been at great expense and labour to benefit, and who, even in their savage state, appreciated and were grateful for his kindness. This treaty was preceded by British royal proclamations, prepared and issued just before the treaty was signed. It was under these proclamations that the rights of William Webster and other American citizens in New Zealand were afterwards stricken down. These proclamations are copied in Appendix No. 1.

The jurisdiction asserted in the first of these proclamations is confined to "the establishment of a settled form of civil government over those of Her Majesty's subjects who are already settled in New Zealand, or who may hereafter resort thereto," and the boundaries of this colony are fixed, in the other proclamation, "to comprehend any part of New Zealand that is or may be acquired in sovereignty by Her Majesty." If it is conceded that this is an act of sovereignty over all the islands, its date is the 13th of July, 1839, which is long subsequent to the dates of the deeds to Webster.

The treaty which followed in February, 1840, ceded "to Her Majesty the Queen of England, absolutely and without reservation, all the rights and powers of sovereignty which the said confederation of independent chiefs respectively exercise or possess over their respective territories as the sole sovereigns thereof." This admission of the sovereignty of the chiefs on the 6th of February, 1840, ill accords with the right of Great Britain before that date to dispose of all the lands in New Zealand as if they belonged to the Crown, as is done in the second proclamation, issued by Captain Hobson, of date the 30th January, 1840. The disposition of Webster's lands by the British Government was made under the powers given to the commission appointed by the Crown in the proclamations recited.

The Government of Great Britain assumed the ownership of all lands in New Zealand, and made rules for their disposal on the 30th January, 1840, and declared then that "no titles would be recognised that were not derived from or confirmed by Her Majesty." Afterwards, on the 6th February, 1840, they confirmed by treaty to the chiefs, tribes, and individuals all the lands possessed by them with all their forests and fisheries.

This reservation or confirmation practically covered the whole of New Zea land, for the tribes then claimed to possess as owners all the lands that they had not previously conveyed to other persons, including Webster, and as sovereigns their possession was distinctly affirmed.

Notwithstanding this treaty abrogation of the pretension of universal title in the British Crown to all the lands in New Zealand, which was declared in said proclamations, that pretension has been constantly adhered to and enforced, as against American citizens, through the decree of said commission, and according to the requirements of said proclamations. At this point the question arises whether the lands acquired before the 15th June, 1839, by American citizens in New Zealand from powers admitted by Great Britain to be sovereign inured to the Crown of Great Britain, either in virtue of the proclamations of the 30th January, 1840, or the treaty of the 6th February, 1840. The statement of the question precludes the possibility of an affirmative answer, either as a matter of law or as a question of conscience.

But on this, the turning point in Webster's land claims, the Government of Great Britain has given its answer promptly, and candidly in the negative. In