I.—B.

Walker, public accountant, on the dale of sale, was £125,662, and in May, 1890, the Hon. J B. Whyte valued it at £139,000 —the figure at which it was transferred to the Bank of New Zealand Estates Company in August, 1890. Between four and five months after the sale of Mangatoro, and three months before the deed was executed by the Registrar to the bank—on the 2nd August, 1889—the Legislature passed the New Zealand Bank Act 1861 Amendment Act, 1889 This measure was introduced as a private Act by Mr Lance, and was passed without much discussion in Parliament. Its provisions gave the bank power to purchase and hold freehold or leasehold land if exercised under the power of sale contained in any mortgage. Section 6 was retrospective, and validated such proceedings as far back as the 11th 1888. The effect of this measure was to cover the sale and seizure of the Mangatoro Estate, and deprive petitioner of any legal remedy that he might possess. Your Committee submit that the issues that remain to be determined are, — (1 ) Was the sale of petitioner's property, and its purchase by the bank at a fraction of its value, a legal transaction 1 (2 Did the passing of the New Zealand Bank Act 1861 Amendment Act, 1889, prejudice the petitioner's position? Your Committee is of opinion that the petitioner, through the seizure by and sale of his' property to the bank at a mere fraction of its value, and the subsequent validation of that transaction by the New Zealand Bank Act 1861 Amendment Act, 1889, has suffered a serious wrong, and it recommends his claim for redress to the favourable consideration of the Government. 6th October, 1910. A. W Hogg, Chairman

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Wednesday, 31st August, 1910. The Hon. T. W Hislop examined. (No. 1.) The Chairman Will you proceed with your statement, Mr Hislop 1 Witness: Captain Hamilton has asked me to put the points so far as I have noticed them from an investigation of the matter The main points in the case are these: I think this security was given to the bank upon an understanding that it should be a security for the development of this property It was well known that the property would not be developed—could not be developed—under a very long series of years, and that in the meantime, it would probably not pay The advances were made, and during the time of the bank carrying it on Captain Hamilton had offers from other people to find some money upon a more permanent security than the security which was given to the bank. The bank, however, told him that there was no necessity for him to go outside the bank, and that the bank would carry him on. The time came when the bank began to be worried for money, and they then were offered what they were willing to take —a sum of money from the Northern (Loan Company—and afterwards they declined it. Then towards 1889 they stated that they recognized that the property was good property, and one which would pay well on being further developed, and they agreed that if they got £40,000 the sale would be stopped. That is shown in a letter quoted in page 93 of printed book, a letter of the Bth February, 1888. First of all the company was going to agree to advance at 6J per cent., but got word from the directors at Home that they required 7 per cent., and the bank upon that withdrew, and stated that they would not do business at 7 per cent. The terms proposed were laid before the inspector, who said that owing to the high rate of interest the matter must be referred to the board of directors of the bank. I understand that the directors could not see their way to allow Mr Hamilton to take £40,000 at 7 per cent, although the returns from the station showed a bigger return than 7 per cent. Captain Hamilton will be able to show that. Negotiations went on until the property was put up for sale on the 25th March, 1889. The point about the Bank of New Zealand selling was this: I think, on the 25th March, 1889, the bank had no power to sell in this way —that is to say, they had no power to buy in themselves. That is, to my mind, a very important matter When the Land Transfer Act was originally passed it did not include the power of selling through the Registrar and the mortgagee purchasing in that way, and I think, for two sessions, in 1878—79, movements were made to amend the Land Transfer Act in that direction, and when I was in the House I very strongly opposed it, and it was thrown out on these two occasions, but it was afterwards passed in 1880 or 1881 Under the Land Transfer Act as it was originally adopted there was no power for the mortgagee to buy through the Registrar, and in hard times that formed a protection to the mortgagor, which, under the judgment of the Court of Appeal—which no doubt is right, considering the practice which had been adopted—it simply resulted that there was no protection to the mortgagor in hard-up times. The sale took place, and you will notice that the evidence of Mr Buller and Mr Balfour was that the bank would not take less than their debt for the property; so that, at all events, fixes them this way : if a stranger had come forward and offered them the full amount of the debt he might probably get the property, but he could not have got it for less. They were asked if they would take £60,000, and said No, they must have the full amount of the debt. What strikes one ; s that the only excuse, I submit, for the bank dealing with it in this way at that time was that the bank was in need of money They could have got £40,000 to ease this tightness, and by this sale they got nothing at all; so that the transaction was only a transaction by which Captain Hamilton's chance of getting anything out of this valuable property upon which he was working was absolutely destroyed. In August, 1889, the Bank of New Zealand Act was passed, and among

3