5

C—6,

stration. The statement that Paul denies having " supplied the facts," seems to me to be a jocoserious, paranomastic subterfuge, where ambiguous diction is used as an armour of defence. Paul certes did not supply the facts, but he supplied (by means of an interpreter, myself) a narrative of the facts, and all the circumstances connected therewith. Did not Paul and other Natives interview his Honor the Superintendent for a specific purpose ? Did not Paul visit Colonel Haultain, and, as Tiopira's agent, object to the registration of certain deeds ? I have put these two last statements interrogatively, remembering that as once an eminent scholar and logician proved satisfactorily to himself that Peter was not Peter, so the Hon. the Colonial Secretary might, by an equipollent process of ratiocination, disprove the identity of Paul. Tour " assertions," Mr. Tole, are estimated as visionary figments. This is the correct thing: I grant that an assertion without proof is a nonentity. The Hon. tho Colonial Secretary, I have noticed, is not always such a toe-the-line stickler for dialectical rules. Of course we shall now have tho pleasure of demonstrating the " assertions," to the doctor's satisfaction. Very well — nous verrons ! As regards the remarks of Messrs. Preece and Kemp, I, in toto, deny their appositeness, admitting that the difference of our views is the result of parallax, our positions of observation being so very far apart. My having advanced £620 to Tiopira and other Natives on account of land sold has nothing whatever to do with the subject of your letter, unless Messrs. Kemp, Preece, and Co. intend to balance the accounts by contras, and prove that I have been negligent and remiss in my duty, or ever betrayed the trust reposed in me by the Hon. the Native Minister. I grant that advances, amounting to £620, were made " at a very early stage" of my negotiations, but not a moiety of this money was paid when Mr. Wilson, who was surveying the Waipoua Block, received a letter warning him to leave the field, as otherwise Parore would send an armed party to drive him (Wilson) off the land. Mr. Wilson gave me the letter ; it was written in English, and subsigned " Preece and Graham, agents for Parore." Mr. Graham was at that time surveying some land of Parore's; however, the ruse de guerre did not succeed. The assertion that I ignored Parore's claim to the land is utterly void of truth. I can, if called upon to do so, adduce irrefutable evidence of having offered Parore £200 as an advance on the sale of his land ; but he said, " Give me £500, or the land shall never be yours." I could not controvert the assertion that "Parore is the principal chief in the district" where he lives, and where he has disposed of thousands of acres ; but I deny that he is the principal chief in the locality sold to the Government, area 72,892 acres, and the nearest boundary four hours' ride from Parore's settlement. Had Messrs. Kemp and Preece taken the precaution to make " an early stage" in their negotiations, and advanced £400 or £500 to Parore prior to the decision of the Native Lands Court, they would have saved the country £500. As regards Tiopira's reserve, it is a portion of the Waipoua Block. It was surveyed by Mr. Wilson, and a plan of it, containing the area, was produced in the Court, where it was adjudicated upon conjointly with the Maunganui and Waipoua Blocks. The expression, " which afterwards turned out to be 12,000 acres," is consequently nothing but puerile clap-trap; and indeed, to my mind, the whole of the statements above Mr. Kemp's signature form the most flimsey, flabby, and vapid exegesis I thought it possible to emanate from such a fountain of self-sufficiency. I now come to Paora's letter: it is manifestly an answer to Mr. Kemp's questions, "Who interpreted these matters to Mr. Tole ? Was it Mr. Nelson ?" Paora's reply is, " 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." Now, as you know, I brought Paul to your office once only, when I, at his request, gave you an account of his alleged grievances. So far, therefore, Paul is correct; but in the same breath almost, he acknowledges having seen your brother oftener than me. What an segis of protection may not this equivocal manner of expression afford to an evasive controversialist. Paul's concluding sentence, "I had nothing to say with reference to the matter complained of," is all but the truth. While I gave you " the matter complained of" in English, Paul graciously condescended to treat you to an occasional mandarin nod. Now, Sir, being at the limit of my scribbling tether, I must ask you to overlook any inelegance of diction I may have indulged in unwittingly; while at the same time I would assure you that, oven assuming the plasticity of some of the Natives concerned, in conjunction with their official allies, I shall still be able to prove that truth can make headway against the strongest current of opposition, and that the conduct of Messrs. Kemp and Preece has been contrary to the letter and spirit of the Native Lands Act. I have, &c, J. A. Tole, Esq., Solicitor. Chaeles E. Nelson. No. 4.

The Hon. the Colonial Seceetaey to His Honor the Sitpebintendent, Auckland. Sic, — General Government Offices, Auckland, 4th May, 1876. I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter No. 1022/76, 2nd May, 1876 covering copy of a letter and its enclosure addressed to your Honor by Mr. J. A. Tole. I have, &c, His Honor the Superintendent, Auckland. Daniel Pollen.

No. 5. Tiopiba Ki-Taki to the Hon. the Native Ministeb. [Tbanslation.] Peiend,— Okahu, sth May, 1876. Greetings. Listen to this, my word to you, with respect to the Maunganui and Waipoua Blocks.