May it please you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Royal Commission,—

In the case which has now occupied your patient attention for a period of forty days or more I have appeared in a two-fold capacity. I have had to defend the rights of Major Kemp and the Muaupoko tribe in the Horowhenua Block, whilst, at the same time, I have had to vindicate my own professional character. But inasmuch as throughout the entire business my interests were identical with those of the people I represent, I have not been embarrassed—nor, I trust, have you—by my having been compelled to act in a dual capacity.

As is perfectly well known, Sir, this Royal Commission is the practical outcome of a debate in the House of Representatives last session on the Horowhenua Block Bill, in the course of which very gross language was applied to me by the Minister of Lands, Mr. John McKenzie. Evidence of what Mr. McKenzie said on that occasion is before the Commission, and I shall therefore refer to it.

On the morning of 26th October I was startled by reading in the Government newspaper—the New Zealand Times—that the Minister of Lands had said in Committee of the whole House that "since he had been a Minister he had come across some disgraceful dealings, but none to equal those in connection with this block." Connecting my name with these "disgraceful dealings," the Minister went on to say that, instead of being knighted by Her Majesty for my services to the state, I ought to have been in goal !

But I restrained for the moment my natural wrath, and what I did was this: I addressed a very temperate letter to the Minister of Lands, inviting him to repeat his slanderous statements in some way not covered by his Parliamentary privilege, in order that I might have an opportunity of meeting and refuting them. My character had been assailed, my professional honour impugned, and the worst motives inputed to me by a Minister of the Crown, under the shield of Parliamentary privilege ! I felt I had the right, in common with every other page 4 British subject, to be heard in my defence before being condemned, and that my proper appeal was to a Court of Justice and to a jury of my countrymen.

That letter was declared by the House of Representatives, after a lengthy debate, to be a breach of privilege, and I was summoned to appear at the Bar of the House. Arraigned accordingly, I was accorded, by the Speaker's ruling, the right to be heard in explanation Called upon at a moment's notice, and with little or no time for preparation, I there defended my honour as I would my life; for I felt that I was practically on my trial before the country. I met and refuted every charge, and tendered myself for cross-examination. I have reason to believe that the explanation I then made was satisfactory to the House, and more than one member on the Government side called upon the Minister to apologize and withdraw; but, so far from doing that, he repeated his odious charges. I will read the official record of what took place from Hansard:—

The whole burden of Mr. McKenzie's appeal to the House was that it would be unfair to compel him—a comparatively poor man—to meet in the Supreme Court one who was supposed to be wealthy, and he therefore implored the House to agree to a Royal Commission, before page 5 which he undertook to prove the truth of all he had alleged. And in this he was supported by the Premier, who is reported in Hansard to have said this:—

I know it does not require me to tell honourable members what wealth can do In the employment of counsel. There are many men who cannot employ counsel it all, not merely in the higher Courts but in the lower Courts, and I say our system is defective in that respect. As my colleague here says, he would be taken at a disadvantage with an eniment barrister as plaintiff, and who has wealth as well. He is not in a position to go, in case he considers an injustice is done, to the highest Courts in existence.

And by such specious arguments as these Parliament was prevailed upon to authorise the setting up of a Royal Commission, in the choice of which I could of course have no voice—a tribunal which (to use Mr. McKenzie's own words) my " money could not purchase."

And now Mr. McKenzie has refused to meet me before the Royal commission—the tribunal of his own creation ! It is unnecessary for me to offer any comment on this. But, I am tempted to ask, what will the press say now ?

I desire, in the first place, to refer to subsection 9 in the Commission, which, although general, evidently relates to Block XIV. Now, as all the dealings with that particular block are known to have been either with me or through me, the suggestion of fraud involved therein, so far as this block is concerned, can only relate to myself. If the Commission, in the course of this enquiry, has discovered the smallest impropriety in any of my dealings, private or professional, in connection with these lands, I trust it will not spare me in making its report But I submit, with the utmost confidence, that in the whole course of these lengthy proceedings not a single witness, pakeha Or Maori, has suggested in the slightest degree any wrong-doing or unfairness on my part—much less insulted me by any suggestion of fraud. This matter is of such vital importance to myself, and the attempt to put me in the wrong is so obvious, that I propose to go somewhat exhaustively into the evidence in regard to Block XIV. in its proper place.