3

C.—6.

Enclosure 3 in No. 2. Paoea Ttjhaeee to Mr. Kemp, CC. (Translation.) Mb. Kemp— 17th March, 1876. The information you asked me for in reference to what Mr. Tole, the lawyer, said. —I cannot say who the interpreter was to that lawyer. I only saw Mr. Nelson there once, but Mr. Tole, the surveyor, I saw oftener; and perhaps it was he who interpreted for Heta and Te Haurangi. This is merely an idea of my own, but, as for myself, I had nothing to say with reference to the matter complained of. Paoea Tuhaebe.

Enclosure 4 in No. 2. (Memo.) Heta and Te Haurangi, Natives of Ohaeawai, came to Auckland to receive a sum of £90 due to them on some of these blocks, and which, at their own written request, had been held by Mr. Preece for them, £10 having been paid at Kaihu, total amount being £100. H. T. Kemp.

No. 3. His Honor the Supebtntesdent, Auckland, to the Hon. the Colonial Seceetaey. Sir, — Superintendent's Office, Auckland, 2nd May, 187 G. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th ultimo, regarding a communication which I enclosed you from Mr. J. A. Tole, solicitor. In reply, I enclose copy of a further letter I have received from Mr. J. A. Tole, and of its enclosure, and beg to request earnestly that you will cause an inquiry to be made into the irregular circumstances alleged in this correspondence to have taken place; and further, that until such inquiry has terminated, all proceedings relative to the deeds for the blocks of land iv question may be stayed. Mr. J. A. Tole is right in stating that the chief Paora te Tuhaere, together with Mr. Tole and some Natives, sought and obtained an interview with me on the subject of the wrong proceedings which in this correspondence it is alleged took place. I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, Auckland. Ot. Gbet.

Enclosure in No. 3. Mr. Tole to His Honor the SupebintendE-Tt, Auckland. Sic, — Shortland Street, Auckland, Ist May, 1876. I have the honor to ackowledge the receipt of a letter, dated 27th ultimo, from the Provincial Secretary, covering copies of a letter to your Honor from the Hon. the Colonial Secretary, and also of a memorandum from Mr. Kemp, and a letter from the chief Paul Tuhaere. I have carefully perused that letter and its enclosures ; and, in reply, beg to state that there is (whether designedly or not, I am unaware) nothing in them which deals with, much less explains, the extraordinary circumstances connected with the sale of the "Waipoua and Maunganui Blocks, as stated to your Honor in my letter on this subject; and that the Hon. the Colonial Secretary appears to me to have at least misinterpreted my letter to your Honor, seeing that he, strangely enough, replies as if the Native Parore were the complaining party, whereas the most casual perusal of my letter could not have failed to make it manifest that Tiopira, and not Parore, was and is the aggrieved person. Furthermore, in view of the fact that my letter was submitted to Messrs. Kemp and Preece for information, it is incomprehensible to me how such a misconstruction as that to which I allude could have arisen, except by reluctantly attributing it to design, a cause to which I should be glad to leafri, it cannot be ascribed. But passing on to the merits of this correspondence, your Honor will observe, by a comparison of the facts contained in my previous letter relative to Tiopira with the reply, and the irrelevant enclosures therewith from the Hon. the Colonial Secretary, that those facts are in no respect controverted, or justified, or even explained. Nowhere is it denied that on the occasion of the execution of the deeds by Tiopira the consideration money of each of the blocks (Waipoua and Maunganui) was not only understood to be £2,000, but that amount only was also interpreted to him; and that, after execution, the consideration money was increased to £2,200 and £2,300, and those sums inserted in the respective deeds. Indeed it is admitted by Mr. Kemp, under whose " personal notice " these matters came, that the "extra price" was given to Parore. Nowhere is it denied that Tiopira did not receive his proportion of the "extra price," though on the face of the deeds, and by his executing them, he is made to acknowledge the receipt of such proportion. Nor again is it denied that, at the time of the execution of the deeds by Tiopira, it was distinctly understood and publicly expressed that the pecuniary consideration of each deed was £2,000, and that according to that intention, and not otherwise, he subscribed his name. But this acknowledged settlement was permitted to be violated to the prejudice of Tiopira, for, in the concluding sentence of his memorandum to the Hon. the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Kemp, under whose "personal notice" "these arrangements" came, states that Parore afterwards (i.e. in the interval between the signing by Tiopira and that by Parore) sold his interest for £2,500, from which it would appear that an impropriety is at once admitted. And yet I may say, with astonishment, the result of the inquiries made by the Trust Commissioner under the Native Lands Prauds Prevention Act is deemed to be satisfactory. It is needless further here to discuss the effect of statements which would properly be the subject of evidence in any inquiry which it might be deemed necessary