THE AGENT-GENERAL AND SIR JULIUS VOGEL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4479, 28 July 1875, Page 3

THE AGENT-GENERAL AND SIR JULIUS VOGEL.

The following correspondence was laid upon the table of the House yesterday. It will be seen by it that Sir Julius Vogel suggests that Dr. Featherston should cease corresponding. 7, Westminster Chambers, 28th May, 1875.

Sir, —I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of May 11th, in reply to mine of April 24th, 2. In stating that I was willing to allow you all the satisfaction you could derive from the fact that the advertisement complained of, as to the Immigrants Laud Act, was sent to you by myself, I do not accuse you of acting in an “unworthy spirit.” You have chosen to consider that such satisfaction is unworthy. Whether it be so or not, your letter under reply affords proof that you do not undervalue the importance of the advertisement having been sent to you by me. Indeed, you appear to be now laying more stress upon the advertisement than you have done before.

3. I cannot accept your recollection of what passed at our earliest interviews here. I am satisfied that you gave me to understand that it was your opinion that the Immigrants Land Act left you no discretion in your approval of immigrants. If you had not expressed such an opinion, what possible reason could I have had for asking Mr. Mackrell to advise whether under the Act “ the Agent-General is entitled to use any discretion in his judgment as to who are or who are not suitable immigrants ?” I am quite clear in my recollection that the advertisement and my instructions were not the causes you alleged to me at our interviews, of your not having the right or power to exercise discretion.

4. I accept the responsibility of having sent the advertisement ; but since you have dwelt so much on its effect, I must say that had you not from the first regarded the Act with disfavor, you might easily, and no doubt you would, have remedied the mistake of the advertisement. In the body of the letter covering the advertisement I said : “ You will observe that immigrants who pay their own passages to the colony will be entitled, under conditions of occupation and settlement, to have purchased on their account £2O worth of land, in any part of the colony they may select, at any time within five years of their arrival.” Again, I said; “All emigrants coming under the Act will have to he axiproved by yourself or by some one appointed by you.” I also made some remarks upon the character of the emigrants required, which showed that you were expected to exercise discretion. Referring to the advertisement, I said: “ I suggest that you should widely publish in the newspapers a notice to the effect of the one •appended hereto.” Whilst, then, I do not shrink from responsibility in the matter, I must point out to you that there was in the body of my letter abundant material to lead you to conclude that it was desirable you should amend the advertisement before publishing it. By using the words “to the effect of the one appended hereto” I certainly avoided shutting you out from altering the terms of the notice. lam primarily responsible for the advertisement, but I am not prepared to admit that its publication laid the foundation of such claims as you now suggest ; and if it did so, you are. not free from responsibility for failing to alter the terms of the notice.

5. Respecting the case of Mr. U’Ren, the objection of the Government was to your favorably recommending the application for consideration. In saying this, I do not forget the terms of the despatch of July Ist, 1871. The sentence you ipiote from it was meant to express the opinion of the Government that if persons not entitled to land under the Act were making such eiforts to obtain it, there would have been no lack of persons glad to take advantage of the Act, and entitled to do so, had you exerted yourself in the matter as you had been asked to do. You now justify your recommendation in the case of Mr. U’llen, on the ground that you had received a memorandum from Mr. Lowther, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, who had beenmoved by Mr. Horsman, “ an eminent member of Parliament and late Minister.” You say you do not think you could “in common courtesy or official propriety have treated the recommendation of the Colonial Office in any less respectful way.” I concur with you that you should treat tlxe Colonial Office respectfully ; but your idea of respect is in this case somewhat extreme, and, you will permit me to say, remarkable, considering the unreserved terms in which you address the Government you. more immediately serve. You have admitted that Mr. U’Ren had no more claim to laud than the persons who went to New Zealand with Captain Cook ; and, so believing, it seems to me to have been wholly unnecessary

to lead Mr. Horsman and Mr. Lowther to believe the contrary. It would have been quite consistent with propriety and respectful, had you replied that the power of approving immigrants was expressly given to you by the Act, and that you were of opinion Mr. U’Ren’s case was not one to be dealt with under its provisions. Mr. Horsman and Mr. Lowther did no more than bring under your notice the case of a gentleman who had been reputably recommended to them. Cases of the kind constantly occur, and it would be very embarrassing if feelings of propriety and respect compelled an Agent-General to recommend all such cases to the favorable consideration of his Government. 6. I cannot agree with you that blame attaches to the officer who prepared the precis of cases.

7. I must decline to follow you in your various arguments respecting the Act. Correspondence of this kind entails a great deal of unnecessary trouble. In preparing my letter of instructions, I thought the easiest escape from such correspondence was to go again into the general question of the Act, and put the matter before you in such a way that it would be almost impossible for you to misunderstand the wishes of the Government. S. It was not through reading your letter hastily that X came to the conclusion “ that, following the not very novel device of raising a fictitious case,” you wished to image the position I should have been in had I adopted the course you supposititiously attributed to yourself. I saw no other reason for giving the rein to your imagination in your effort to conjecture what a court of law would have thought of you had you adopted a certain, course. I am glad to accept your explanation that you did not mean the sentence to apply to me ; but you must permit me to say that if you adopt imagery of this nature you must not be surprised at its being misunderstood. 9. I hope you will not deem it necessary to renew this correspondence.—X have, &c., (Signed) Julius Vogel.

7, Westminster Chambers, Victoria-street, Westminster, S.W., May 28, 1875. Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of May 12th, in reply to mine of May 4th. 2. I do not think that disrespectful memoranda made by the Agent-General on letters addressed to him by Ministers, are to be justified by the necessity which Ministers sometimes find themselves under of noting their opinions upon documents. Notwithstanding the extraordinary insinuations you throw out, I have no doubt whatever as to my right to require to see public documents, and to remark upon them, and upon any notes which officers in the public service may attach to them. 3. You complain of my corresxrondenee and of the letters which you have found it necessary to write “ during the last year,” X do not think your letters during the past year were more objectionable than some previous ones. You must recollect that before last year the Government very much objected to the tone of your correspondence. X need only remind you of the Colonial Secretary’s letter to you, No. of August 27, 1873. 4. Since you appeal to the people of New Zealand, I feel myself justified in saying that I believe the general opinion in the colony is, that the Government have displayed great forbearance ; and it is well known that personally I have endeavored to stand between you and much indignation which has been expressed. 5. It is needless for me to remark upon the disrespectful tone of the letter to which I am now replying ; and I hope you will not consider it necessaiy to continue this correspondence. —I have, &c., (Signed) Julies Yogel.