8.—15 d

6

make. But, without indicating any direction in which there is room for economy or more effective management, you offer us your unsupported opinion that such room exists, and desire us thereon to agree to a change in administration which may or may not prove of advantage to the shareholders. Certainly you do not assist us with any data in submitting your proposals. As regards the London expenses, our opinion is that they are so low as to afford no room for reasonable objection; but, we may add, the subject of reduction therein to an aggregate of £500 per annum is being considered. We shall be glad to hear the nature and extent of the economies in New Zealand which you have in view in submitting your proposals. Finally, this Board is certain to give most careful attention to any proposal for the better management of the company's properties which may be put before it. With regard to the disposal of your shares in London, which you state you would transfer for a very liberal concession from the £2 per share previously mentioned: we do not know whether we could assist you in this, but if you will state the lowest price and give us a firm offer for months we will see what can be done in your interests. I am, &c, C. DugaiiD Bucklbe, Secretary. The General Manager, Assets Eealisation Board, Wellington, New Zealand.

Letter from Assets Board to Company, dated 7th December, 1898. Dear Sir, — Assets Eealisation Board, Wellington, 7th December, 1898. I am duly in receipt of your favour of the 22nd October. As regards Mr. Hume's continuance as local director of the company's business in the colony, I have, by direction of my Board, already cabled you that we do not approve. As to Mr. Hume's integrity we have no doubt whatever, but his ability to manage and control is quite another matter, and in this direction we unhesitatingly differ from you. The results of the past management have been disastrous, and we see nothing foreshadowed by the management to indicate a more profitable outcome in the future. There is surely some misconception on the part of your Board as to our having been consulted upon the management, as neither of the appointments referred to have been made at the instance or with the approval of the Assets Eealisation Board, which only became proprietors of the shares in your company as from the 31st March, 1895, from which date till the 31st March, 1896, its affairs were controlled by the attorneys of the Bank of New Zealand Estates Company. The Assets Eealisation Board is vested with the bulk of the assets of the Estates Company for the purpose of realisation, and is entirely independent of either the Estates Company and or the Bank of New Zealand. We have, as you are doubtless aware, large properties of similar description to yours, viz., pastoral country, which we are managing with considerably greater success than was the case when Mr. Hume acted for the Estates Company in a somewhat similar capacity to that he is now occupying with you. Mr. Hume, who has been a worthy and capable bank officer, is, in our opinion, not qualified for his continuance in the local directorship. He is now also living at much greater distance from the property; and, besides, I believe his new business (that of secretary and manager of a large flour-milling company in Auckland) will probably very fully occupy his time. From March, 1895, his supervising control of the Estates Company's properties in the Waikato was determined by the attorneys of the Estates Company, who were also directors of the bank. My Board considers that, in view of the large interest that we have in your company, the local control should be placed with us. We have the necessary expert machinery, and may be well trusted to do our very best for all parties. My Board confidently anticipates that you will appreciate this. Should you decide as suggested, we will, on being properly authorised, report upon and arrange a system that will insure better results. As time is of consequence, perhaps you will wire us your decision. Yours, &c, Walter G. Foster, General Manager. The Secretary, New Zealand Thames Valley Land Company, Dashwood House, 9, New Broad Street, London, E.C.

Telegram from Company to Assets Board, sent 16th January, 1899. Referring to our letter of 2nd December, we await reply.

Telegram from Assets Board to Company, received 30th January, 1899. In our opinion correspondence on subject explains position fully. We await your reply letter December seventh. —Assets Board.

Letter from Company to Assets Board, sent 11th February, 1899. New Zealand Thames Valley Land Company (Limited), Dashwood House, 9, New Broad Street, London, E.C, Dear Sir,— 11th February, 1899. We thank you for your favour of the 7th December, in which, however, you do not give us detail of your plans for future management, and the economies and improvements to be effected thereby.