sition of an English friend, obtained a hearing at the colonial office, and then pressed his claim as best he could, but there also he was courteously informed that nothing could be done in England; that his recourse must be to the colonial authorities of New Zealand, and that the home Government would only take cognizance of the subject upon such reports as might ultimately be sent from the local government authorities of New Zealand. Having, as he considered, already exhausted all reasonable means of redress before the colonial authorities, and entertaining no hope of a different result from a repetition of these efforts Mr. Webster abandoned any further attempts to get redress by direct appeal to the British Government, returned home, and has now presented his memorial to Congress.

A copy of this memorial was handed to the Secretary of State by the Hon. S. S. Cox, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with request for information.

The facts above summarized are brought together for the twofold purposes of showing the history of the claim and its present status.

These are the facts and circumstances, supported as they are by ample documentary and circumstantial proofs:

I. That Webster is a native-born citizen of the United States, and that he has never done any act or taken any steps looking to a change of his nationality or that in any way impairs his rights as an American citizen.

II. That he purchased the lands in New Zealand, which he claims in his memorial, from the proprietary chiefs of that country.

III. That the proprietary as well as the sovereign rights of the native chiefs and rulers of New Zealand were formally admitted and acknowledged and recognized by the British Government prior to the acquisition of the country by Great Britain.

IV. That the cession above referred to, by the chiefs of New Zealand to the British Crown, was made by the treaty of the 6th of February, 1840.

OPINION OF J. W. EDMONDS, COUNSELOR-AT-LAW.

It seems to be quite apparent from Lord Normanby's letter of instructions to Lieutenant-Governor Hobson, that the colonial department of the British Government were at that time aware of Webster's purchases of land and intended to cut them off.

Or at least if they were not aware of it, and that was not the direct object of those instructions, they were so framed as to produce that result.

I. The colonial secretary admits the sovereignty of the natives and their paramount title to the land.

II. He avows that Great Britain has no purpose of conquest in view but to obtain sovereignty by treaty and title by grant from the natives.

III. Starting with these views, which would commend themselves to the regard of the civilized world, the secretary has, however, in view another purpose, and that is to get rid of the titles which "land-jobbers," as he calls them, may already have acquired.

IV. He proposes to attain that purpose only so far as British subjects are concerned.

Because the basis already admitted and international law would forbid British interference with titles already acquired by persons not British subjects from natives whose sovereignty and title were alike conceded.

V. Therefore it was that all proceedings by Lieutenant-Governor Hobson and his Government aim nominally at British subjects alone, and it was only by regarding Webster as a British subject that any dealing whatever could be had with Webster's claim.

1. Hence, doubtless it will be found to be a position insisted upon by the British Government that Webster was a British subject.

2. For if he is not, the whole action of the British authorities as to his property would be entirely without warrant.

VI. But there is no positive limitation of authority to British subjects; it is a limitation by implication only, and Lieutenant-Governor Hobson might well understand Lord Normanby's instructions as comprehending all purchases from the natives as well by others as by British subjects.

VII. But whatever the limitation or extent of action in this respect, the purpose of the colonial secretary to destroy individual grants like those to Webster is very plain.

1. He avows that circumstances beyond their control have compelled the Brit

S. Doc. 231, pt 3-10

ish Government to alter the course which recognized the title to the soil and to the sovereignty to be indisputably in the natives.

The sending Captain Hobson there was to carry out this change of views, and that could be done only by getting sovereignty and title both vested in the British Government.

This purpose thus avowed runs through the whole action of the British authorities.

2. He avows as one reason for sending a governor there to be that "extensive cessions of lands have been obtained from the natives."

This consideration is not confined by him to cessions to British subjects, but is broadly stated in terms embracing all cessions.

3. He avows his object to be to obtain a contract that no lands shall be ceded except to the Crown of Great Britain.

Thus clearly showing a purpose beyond mere sovereignty, and a purpose as to title at once in conflict with Webster's claim.

4. He avows a hostility to large landholders, which of itself brings him in direct conflict with us.

5. He avows that the British Government will not acknowledge any title (whether held by British subjects or otherwise) which either has been or may be acquired without its sanction, and instructing his lieutenant-governor so to proclaim immediately on his arrival." He thus in limine courts a conflict with our claim.

6. In his reservation, to prevent alarm among actual settlers of lands acquired by them on equitable conditions, he is careful to exclude acquisitions "upon a scale which must be prejudicial to the latent interests of the community."

Thus establishing a conflict with us, inevitable from the magnitude of our claim, at the same time that other settlers are quieted.

7. He instructs his lieutenant-governor that the embarrassments occasioned by such large claims will demand his earliest and most careful attention.

And it is worthy of observation that this is pressed on the lieutenant-governor's attention even more vehemently than the preservation of the title or the sovereignty of the natives.

8. He directs a commission to be formed to ascertaiu what lands are held by grants from the natives, and how far they ought to be respected.

But this is in terms confined to British subjects, and excludes all inquiry into grants to others; and it is worthy of remark that this is the only part of the instructions on the subject of title which is confined to British subjects.

9. He directs an annual tax on all uncleared lands, with the avowed object that a forfeiture for non-payment of the tax may restore them to the demesne of the Crown.

10. And, finally, he avows his main object by saying, “Having by these measures obviated the damages of the acquisition of large tracts by mere land-jobbers, it will be your duty to obtain cessions to the Crown," etc.

So that the Crown, having obtained title at a cheap rate from the natives, might obtain a revenue by selling at a higher rate.

Such are the clearly avowed purposes of the British Government as contained in the instructions of the colonial secretary to the officer sent to take possession of New Zealand. And the acts of that officer are clearly within the spirit of those instructions.

Those acts, therefore, are not merely trespasses on his part for which he would be individually responsible, but are governmental in their character, and for them the Government is responsible to the party aggrieved.

TRINITY BUILDING, New York City, 1861.

J. W. EDMONDS.

The committee, then, from a careful examination of the information supplied by the Department of State and of that found in other official papers contained in the pamphlet which is made a part of this report, and after a consideration of the facts therein disclosed, are of the opinion that the claim of William Webster possesses eminent merit, and is entitled to and should receive the favorable action of Congress. The conclusions of your committee are as follows:

The claimant, William Webster, is a native-born citizen of the United States, and has done no act that in any way impairs his rights as such.

He purchased about a half million acres of land in New Zealand from the proprietary chiefs, and paid a large consideration for the same, during five years preceding the British occupation. (See his letter to United States Consul Williams and Consul Williams's letter to the Secretary of State. Pamphlet, pages 19 to 21.)

The proprietary as well as the sovereign rights of the native chiefs and rulers of New Zealand were formally admitted and recognized by the British Government prior to the acquisition of the country by Great Britain. (See Lord Normanby's instructions to Captain Hobson. Pamphlet, pages 17 to 19.)

The cession by the New Zealanders to Great Britain was made by a treaty dated at Waitangi, on February 6, 1840. (See page 14 in pamphlet.) And Webster had, some years previously, purchased his lands from the same chiefs and others who were parties to that treaty, and hence his titles were paramount.

The right of American citizens to their land purchased from the chiefs was recognized by the British Government. (See Lord Aberdeen's letter to Hon. Edward Everett. Pamphlet, pages 32 to 34.)

There is no intimation by the British authorities, in any of the papers in the case, that Webster's land purchases were not bona fide and for a valuable consideration; nor does your committee find any reflection upon his personal character for integrity and fair dealing.

That Webster's claim for indemnity against the Government of Great Britain for the value of his lands and other property, of which he was deprived without warrant or right of law, with the increments arising from improvement, enhancement of value, etc., is a just and subsisting claim, and one that presents just grounds for the interposition of his own Government.

Your committee do not deem it necessary to burden this report with a copious citation of authorities. The doctrine is clear and incontestible, and has been accepted and established by Congress, in regard to the duty of the Government in the case of a citizen having a bona fide claim against a foreign Government, the payment of which is refused or has been unreasonably delayed.

Your committee therefore recommend the adoption of the accompanying joint resolution.

I, Ranulph Dacre, of No. 4, Nelson Terrace, Clapham Common, in the county of Surrey, esquire, make oath and say: That I was a merchant carrying on business in Sydney, Australia, and in New Zealand, from the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one to the year one thousand eight hundred and fiftynine, and that I first became acquainted with William Webster, now temporarily staying in London, England, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five, at the time he went from Sydney to New Zealand. I know of my own knowledge that he was largely engaged in mercantile business there in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty, when Her Majesty's Government declared a right of sovereignty over that country. The said William Webster arrived in Sydney in the latter part of the year one thousand eight hundred and forty, and chartered a bark called the Planter, to convey a cargo of spars and other New Zealand produce he had collected there to England for sale. He intended proceeding in the bark to England, whence, I believe, he intended to go to the United States to ask protection from the Government of the United States in regard to title to land he had purchased in New Zealand from native chiefs, which title (with others) had been declared null and void in a proclamation issued under direction of Her Majesty's Government, on the thirtieth day

of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty, the day on which the right of sovereignty was proclaimed over New Zealand. On the eve of the Planter sailing the said William Webster was arrested at the suit of Messrs. Abercrombie & Co., merchants of Sydney, and lodged in the debtor's prison there, and the cause of his arrest arose, as I have been informed by him and believe, in connection with New Zealand land titles, aud certain parties who had had some land transactions with the said William Webster.

The Planter sailed from New Zealand as per charter, leaving the said William Webster in prison, where he remained about seven weeks, and until I procured bail to the amount of about twelve thousand pounds for his appearance at court, and thus released him. He returned to New Zealand again after several months' delay in Sydney. I have been informed by Mr. Robert Brooks, of St. Peter's Chambers, Cornhill, London, with whom I had business transactions at the time of the charter of the Planter, and to whom the Planter's cargo was consigned, and I believe it is true that the said William Webster suffered heavy losses by having been detained in Sydney in manner aforesaid. In the year one thousand eight hundred and fourty-four, I went to New Zealand to settle the accounts between the said William Webster and myself, and upon that occasion he conveyed to me, and I purchased from him, five thousand acres of land, being part of his various original purchases from the native chiefs prior to one thousand eight hundred and forty; but I did not receive proper grants for the property till one thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight, fourteen years after the sale to me by the said William Webster, when I received from the colonial government the following grants of land, namely: Out of the tract at Point Rodney, containing, by original purchase made by the said William Webster of the native chiefs, eight miles square, or forty thousand nine hundred and sixty acres, I received one thousand nine hundred and forty-four acres; out of another tract purchased by the said William Webster, known as Taupiri, containing by original purchase, two thousand five hundred acres, I received four hundred acres; out of another tract purchased by the said William Webster, on the river Piako, containing by original purchase, eighty thousand acres, I received one thousand two hundred and nineteen acres; and the balance to make up the five thousand acres sold to me by the said William Webster I received in similar proportions out of other of the said William Webster's original purchases. I went from Sydney in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven to New Zealand, where I remained till the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine. I am well acquainted with the before-mentioned original land purchases made by the said William Webster from the chiefs, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, out of the whole of them there has not been grants made in favor of the said William Webster or his nominees by the colonial government to the extent of nineteen thousand acres, and I believe his lands have been sold or otherwise dealt with, in whole or in part, by the New Zealand Government, or is still withheld from him through the acts and proceedings of that Government. I held in my name, in and during the years one thousand eight hundred and forty-one and one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, several British-built vessels,subject to the order of the said William Webster.

RANULPH DACRE,

Sworn at the Mansion House, in the city of London, this 23d day of July, 1873 before me. SYDNEY H. WATERLOW,

Lord Mayor.

APPENDIX No. 2.

Copy of correspondence with the British Government in the Webster case.

79 LOMBARD STREET, LONDON, 1873.

To the Right Honorable the EARL OF KIMBERLEY,

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

MY LORD: We have the honor to lay before you the case of Mr. William Webster, a citizen of the United States, in respect to certain land claims of his in the colony of New Zealand. There will be found in the archives of your lordship's department certain correspondence which passed in reference to the matter between Mr. Edward Everett, who was envoy extraordinary of the United States

of America, and Lord Aberdeen, on the 26th December, 1843, the 3d January, 1844, and the 10th February, 1844.

We have obtained from Mr. Webster the facts, which we believe to be strictly true, upon which the following statements are founded, and which will enable your lordship to judge to how great an extent Mr. Webster has been injuriously affected with regard to these claims by the action of the British Government.

Mr. Webster located in business on the northern island of New Zealand, near the site of the city of Auckland, in the year 1835, and was the first white person who established himself there as a trader, having been influenced to do so by the strong inducements held out by the native chiefs, with a view of his coming amongst them to open up trade with foreign countries. At the time of his arrival the natives generally were in a very destitute and barbarous condition. He supplied them with the seeds of vegetables, grain, and fruits, taught them the rudiments of agriculture, and after a two years' residence was able to commence shipping native produce in large quantities to foreign countries. This produce consisted of corn, potatoes, pork, lard, flax, timber, spars, kauri, gum, sulphur, oil, etc., and the immediate effect of this development of trade, so founded and fostered by Mr. Webster, was to reconcile amongst each other the formerly hostile native tribes, who presently united for a distance of 300 miles along the coast in supplying him with produce. Between the time of his settlement and the year 1840, Mr. Webster purchased from the natives numerous extensive tracts of land, amounting altogether to some 500,000 acres. About 150,000 acres of that quantity had only been partially paid for by Mr. Webster; the remainder, however, about 350,000, was entirely paid for in merchandise and money, Mr. Webster expending in such purchases the sum of £16,000, out of which sum £7,717 13s. was reported as having been so expended by the commissioners subsequently appointed in the colony under the authority of the British Government.

At the time of the proclamation of Governor Hobson, of the 30th day of January, 1840 (to which we beg to refer your lordship), Mr. Webster was in quiet and undisturbed possession of the above 500,000 acres. That proclamation stated "that Her Majesty does not deem it expedient to recognize any titles to land in New Zealand which are not derived from or confirmed by Her Majesty." The immediate result of this declaration, which threatened a total disregard of lawfully acquired vested interests, and absolutely ignored Mr. Webster's title, was first to cripple the enormous business he was then successfully carrying on between New Zealand and other countries, to destroy his credit and impair the value of his assets, and finally to reduce him to utter ruin. Immediately prior to the 3d of January, 1840, the date of the proclamation, Mr. Webster's property was worth $3,000,000. Within two years after he was reduced to comparative poverty, and afterwards, in 1847, when he left New Zealand to seek the aid of the American Government to prosecute his claims, he had hardly a shilling left.

The proclamation stated in addition, "that Her Majesty had been pleased to direct that a commission shall be appointed, with certain powers to be derived from the government and legislative council of New South Wales, to inquire into and report all claims of land acquired on equitable conditions, and not in extent or otherwise prejudicial to the present or prospective interest of the community, and that all persons having such claims would be required to prove the same before the said commission when appointed."

Mr. Webster, desiring to comply as far as possible with the letter of regulations thus laid down without prejudice to his rights as an American citizen, duly sent to the commissioners notice of his principal claims, and incurred great expenses in bringing from time to time numbers of natives from great distances, in some cases hundreds of miles, for the purpose of proving his titles. The principal claims preferred will be found shortly stated in the Official Gazette of the New Zealand government of the 26th May, 1842, and we have appended a schedule of them to this letter.

The lands claimed thereunder amounted in the whole to about 243,100 acres, and from the various official gazettes and papers which we have been able to inspect we have ascertained that grants were actually made to Mr. Webster, or to his assigns, of certain lands in respect of his claims 305 A, B, C, E, G, I, and K, but to the extent of 16,468 acres only.

Mr. Webster states, however, that he duly proved all his claims to the satisfaction of the commissioners, and left a portion of his title deeds with them, but, owing to the pressure of circumstances, he left the colony without getting his titles confirmed. The title, in fact, which was recognized in the grants made,