1.—17.

J. JONES.]

45

my petition was presented and laid on the table Dr. Findlay makes another speech—remember, while the matter was sub judice, before it was inquired into —and 1 think the Attorney-General should have known better. On the 17th August, 1910, he made a Ministerial statement. [Hansard, No. 15, 1910, p. 597 —Exhibit HH.] Following this speech, the next day a great red placard was posted all over Wellington in reference to it, and in the New Zealand Times an evidently inspired article appeared. Dr. Findlay says that Jones signed an undertaking to lodge no further caveat in New Zealand in respect of the title to the Mokau property and another one referred to in the Stout-Palmer report; but Jones gave the undertaking on the understanding that the executors would not put out false reports in respect to the property, and when this was laid before Lord Justice Parker he said, " This is a stronger reason why the man should have his action." It is laid down here very clearly that Herrman Lewis bought this property from the Registrar direct. He did not do anything of the sort. There was no bidding at the sale, and the property fell to the executors at the upset price. It subsequently became transferred to Herrman Lewis by the executors. i. Hon. Mr. Luke.] Did not Herrman Lewis bid at the auction?—No, he knew nothing about it. 5. He was not present at the auction? —No, sir. 6. Hon. Mr. Paul.] Are you sure that Herrman Lewis knew nothing about it? —I could not take my oath on that; but he says so himself. He says he knew nothing about the property until Messrs. Travels and Campbell put him on to it. 1 think you know that five Judges of the Court here gave a decision contrary to me, and that decision caused me to petition Parliament. Dr. Findlay said, " I am entitled to say that I supported that motion for the settingup of the Commission." My information is that he did nothing of the kind; my information is that he opposed it. Immediately the Committee reported and the report was laid on the table I sent my solicitor, Mr. Treadwell, to him to ask him that the Government should hold the property and set up an inquiry. Mr. Treadwell returned to me and said, " I have seen Dr. Findlay, and he says you shall have no inquiry, neither would the Government protect the property. He has put terms to me on behalf of Herrman Lewis." I said, " What the deuce has he got to do with Herrman Lewis?" and Mr. Treadwell said, "He says his firm of solicitors act for him." Dr. Findlay said he supported the motion for the setting-up of the inquiry—it is quoted here in a London newspaper through Dr. Findlay's own solicitors, Paines and Co. It is in a paper called the London Truth. Truth says, " Looking into Dr. Findlay's own version of his attitude on the question of the inquiry, I find that in the Legislative Council, 17th August, 1910, he said, ' The Government decided to set up a Royal Commission, and I am entitled to say that I supported that motion for setting up the Commission. Instructions were given to the Crown Law Office to carry out the necessary details; but the present Solicitor-General pointed out that a Royal Commission, in the circumstances 1 have referred to, could not be set up.' It was this statement which evoked the remark in my first article that apparently the junior Law Officer overruled the Attorney-General. In his evidence before the parliamentary Committee (September, 1910) Dr. Findlay dealt with the matter somewhat differently. Speaking of the report of the 1908 Committee he said, ' That recommendation (for the appointment of a Royal Commission) went to the Cabinet. My point is that T gave no expression of opinion to my colleagues about it. I made no attempt to block it. I am charged with opposing, blocking, and obstructing this inquiry, but, as you see, I had nothing to do with it. ... An application was made to me on a busy day in October, 1908, to see two lawyers —the one was Mr. Treadwell (at that time Mr. Jones's solicitor) and the other my partner. The Committee's report on the matter was then before the Cabinet. ... I told them that I would not advise the Cabinet to set up a Royal Commission, and that I did not believe they would do it. I repeat that now. I claim that I was as free to arrive at a conclusion as any member of the Cabinet.' " He said he voted for it, and what does he say now ? 7. Hon. Mr. Anstey.] What is the original authority for that extract in Truth? —Sir Joseph Ward, in London, wrote as follows to Truth, stating that the writer of the article in Truth of the 17th May, 1911, "has obviously been misinformed regarding both the facts and the legal position of this matter," and added, " The inferences and imputations contained in the article against my Government, and particularly against the Attorney-General, are absolutely, without foundation, as reference to the shorthand record of the evidence taken by the last parliamentary Committee, who fully investigated this matter, abundantly proves." That is the ground for this article; but there were two other articles before that. Sir Joseph Ward repudiates the whole thing. Dr. Findlay writes to Paines and Co., and they write a long letter to the editor of Truth. [See Exhibit YY.] 8. Where is this aHmitted —I want the original?— This is quoted from the original. The writer says, "I find that in the Legislative Council, 17th August, 1910, he (Dr. Findlay) said, ' The Government decided to set up a Royal Commission, and I am entitled to say that I supported that motion for setting up the Commission.' " 9. Hon. the, Chairman.'] In what New Zealand record can this statement be found referred to in the paper you are reading ? —He points it out in the Legislative Council proceedings. 10. Hon. Mr. Anstey.] You quote a newspaper article where it is stated that Dr. Findlay admits that he opposed it. Where is the original showing that Dr. Findlay opposed it?— Here. "In his evidence before the parliamentary Committee (28th September, 1910) Dr. Findlay dealt with the matter somewhat differently. Speaking of the report of the 1908 Committee, he said, ' That recommendation (for the appointment of a Royal Commission) went to the Cabinet,' &c." Mr. Anstey asks me if I can find the original in a parliamentary paper. I say Yes, the Ato L Committee report of 1910, page 16. Dr. Findlay says, "An application was made to me on a busy day in October, 1908, to see two lawyers—the one was Mr. Treadwell and the other my