PL—7.

Messrs. Kirk and Atkinson will, of course, see that the title to each allotment is completed and indefeasible before the purchase-money is paid; and in respect of those blocks for which you already have Land Transfer titles no question can arise. I have, &c, The Hon. the Minister of Defence, Wellington. Hugh Gully, Crown Solicitor.

No. 17. Messrs. Kirk and Atkinson to the Hon. the Minister of Defence. Sir,— * Wellington, 31st August, 1891. Referring to Mr. Kirk's interview with you on Saturday morning, and seeing that you had understood from our letter to you of the 24th instant and Mr. Atkinson's interview with you that an expression used in that letter was deemed by you to modify our position with the department, we think it well to write you definitely on this aspect of the case. We desire to point out that the letter of the 24th instant was written by us, in answer to the Under-Secretary's, to explain the effect of Ihaka's writ on the whole contract and your present completed titles, and not in any way to modify the relations previously existing between us. At Mr. Atkinson's interview with you he said he did not desire in any way to recede from or modify the relations existing between us and the department, as defined in the previous letters, and he did not deem the expressions quite inadvertently used in his letter explanatory of the writ as of sufficient importance to warrant alteration or withdrawal of the letter. However, as the expressions have had weight with you, and formed an impression in your mind that we desired by that means to shift our ground or qualify our previous position, we now have the honour to ask you to deem the expression " purchased through us," twice used in our letter of the 24th, withdrawn, and the words " purchased in terms of our existing contract" substituted. Our position was defined by us in the letter to the Under-Secretary of the 12th September, 1890, " as principal vendors, the relations of that position being only modified by the fact that we propose to effect direct transfers of the land to the Queen, and in taking these transfers to the Queen we act as solicitors for the parties." From this position we have never and do not ever intend to recede for one moment, and we therefore trust that there will be no further misunderstanding on this point. If you are now satisfied on this head we trust that the explanations offered as to the effect of the writ will induce you to give us an acknowledgment that any misapprehensions as to the matter not being in order have been removed. We have, &c, The Hon. the Minister of Defence. Kirk and Atkinson.

No. 18. A. Hume, Esq., to the Solicitor-General. Sir, — Wellington, Ist September, 1891. The points on which the Minister requires information are — vide first paragraph of Messrs. Kirk and Atkinson's letter of the 24th ultimo—(l.) Are these lands now vested in Her Majesty, irrespective of any operation of the writ now issued? (2.) How do Messrs. Kirk and Atkinson stand with reference to the Government in the matter of the purchase of these lands ? I have, &c, A. Hume.

In answer to the points above stated, in the form of questions, my reply is,— (1.) The lands for which Land Transfer titles have issued to Her Majesty are now vested in her irrespective of the writ. (2.) Messrs. Kirk and Atkinson's position in reference to the Government is explained in thenletter of the 31st August last, and an expression used in their previous letter of the 24th August last is also explained. So far as I can gather from the papers, there appears to be no doubt thaiMessrs. Kirk and Atkinson are in the position of vendors to the Crown; but, instead of their conveying direct to the Crown, the parties from whom they purchase do so at the request of Messrs. Kirk and Atkinson, or agree that the title shall issue to their purchaser. This is a very common arrangement, and perfectly legal. Of course it is assumed the title is correct in other respects. I have, &c, 4th September, 1891. W. S. Reid.

No. 19. The Chairman of the Commission to the Hon. Captain Russell. (Telegram.) Wellington, 6th May, 1892. Hope you have seen from the Press that Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the purchase of land at Polhill Gully for rifle-range has commenced its sittings, and that any person appearing to have any interest in, or to be specially affected by the inquiry, will be allowed to be present, in person or by proxy; but that no person will be allowed to address the Commissioners in the interest of any person or persons. Hon. Captain Russell, Napier. A. Saunders, Chairman.

No. 20. Captain Humfrey to the Commissioners. Gentlemen,— Hutt, 10th May, 1892. The impression left on my mind after my interview with and the statement male by me to the Commissioners at 2 p.m. yesterday, is, that I failed to enlighten them from my point of view of the reason the sum of £3,000 for the purchase of the Polhill gully rifle-range was not placed 6—H. 7.

41