I.—l

38

Hon. Sir D. McLean. 27th Sept., 1875

825. Mr. Sheehan.] I understand that the letter was accidentally mislaid? —Yes. 826. And in that case, I suppose, no action would have been taken with regard to it ?—I never even read the letter until I found it the other day. 827. Mr. Bradshaw.] You have not seen Colonel McDonnell since then ?—Xo, I have not. 828. Mr. Rolleston.] What you have mentioned about there being communication with Colonel McDonnell from the Defence Office, has nothing to do with this matter ? —No ; nothing whatever. It is merely a matter of discipline. It was alleged that he had taken a private letter belonging to Mr. Brissenden, and Mr. Brissenden reported it to the Defence Office, and Colonel Lyon, who is the officer in charge, sent the letter to Colonel McDonnell, for any explanation he might have to offer. 829. Is Colonel McDonnell a Colonel under the Defence Office ? —-He is a Colonel in the Militia service. 830. Had you any reason to believe, other than Mr. Brissenden's statement, that he had taken the letter?—No; but it is usual when anything of the kind occurs to refer the matter to the officer for explanation. 831. It is simply a letter for explanation?— Yes. 832. And no comment upon it ? —I do not know what was in this letter.

Thursday, 30th September, 1875. Colonel McDonnell re-examined on oath. 833. Mr. SheehanJ (After the passage from Colonel McDonnell's evidence relating to the laying of his letter on Sir D. McLean's table, in Auckland, had been read.) "Was the letter enclosed in an envelope when you delivered it to Sir D. McLean? —-Yes. 834. And addressed to Sir D. McLean ?■—Tes. 835. Mr. Bradshaw.] "Was it sealed?—lt was gummed. The very tip of the envelope was fastened. 836. Hon. Sir D. McLean.'] Did you not state here that you brought the letter up and laid it on my table ?—No, that was a mistake. When I wrote the letter downstairs I put it in an envelope, and addressed it to you, and was on the point of sealing it when I thought I would take it up to you. It was my intention to read the letter to you. 837. The Chairman.'] In your previous evidence, you said that you mentioned, in your conversation with Sir D. McLean, the names of Sir Julius Vogel and Dr. Pollen?—I mentioned the name of Sir Julius Vogel, but I am not certain that I named Dr. Pollen. 838. You said, also, that Sir D. McLean told you to put it in writing ? —Yes. 839. What was the purport of what he said to you P—l said I knew where Mr. Brissenden was, and could bring him up to the office, and Sir D. McLean said there was no necessity for it. Then he asked me whether I would have any objection to put what I had said in writing, and I said I would not, and I did so at once. 840. Mr. Thomson.'] Was the draft written before or after the letter?— They were not written at one and the same time. My first draft was written as it were now, but I afterwards thought I would write it again, and, without moving from my chair, I wrote the letter from this draft that appears in the printed evidence. 841. Ron. Sir D. McLean.] Was that the original draft that you laid before the Committee ?— Yes. 842. The Chairman.] Was there any apprehension in your own mind as to endangering your position if you put the names of Ministers too prominently forward ? —Not at all; because I did not believe that Brissenden had that authority from any member of the Government. There were many reasons which I had for not reporting what Brissenden had told me. I knew that I could keep him from doing those things as long as I remained with him ; but I thought that if I reported him to Sir D. McLean he would be sure to deny it, and Sir D. McLean would have only my bare word. Afterwards I thought my position was endangered, and that it was probable I should go in a few weeks, and that he would then be able to carry out his own plans. I told Sir D. McLean what Brissenden had said Ministers had authorized him to do. Hon. Sir D. McLean re-examined on oath. 843. The Chairman.] We are anxious that you should give us an account of how this letter of the 25th January was found. Was it found as it is? Was it opened or not?—lt was found opened with other papers. It was not in an envelope. 844. Who actually found it ?—Myself. I was looking for some papers relating to Auckland in a travelling box, and I found this paper, and brought it down to the Under Secretary immediately, and told him that as it was an official document he had better take a copy of it, as I intended the original for the Committee. I also told him I was glad it was found, on Colonel McDonnell's account. 845. Was the box in the office here ? —lt was at my own house. The letter was in one of my travelling boxes. I got it on the day before I started from Auckland for Waikato. In the hurry of going away, all the letters that were on the table of my office in Auckland were swept into the box. 84G. Was a clerk with you when you found it ?—No. A clerk was at Auckland on the day I was leaving for Waikato ; and I cleared the table and left next morning early. All the papers on the table were put into the box. 847. Mr. Thomson.] Was this letter in an envelope when it was found? —I think Colonel McDonnell gave an explanation of that in his evidence previously. He said he went down stairs from the office to write it, and I suppose he did not think it necessary to put it in an envelope. 84S. Mr. Richmond^] Was Mr. Davis not there ?—Mr. Davis was the record clerk, and just before I went away he was in town doing some business in connection with the journey to Waikato, and in the hurry of packing up the papers on the table it was put into the box. I went up to Waikato,

Col. McDonnell. 30th Sept., 1875.

Son. Sir D. McLean. 30th Sept., 1875.