7

A

(1.) They were both confidential, and there- (1.) The complaint made was not that he had not fore he was prohibited from doing so by the shown the confidential despatches of the 22nd Eegulations. October and the 4th December, 1881, but that he had not shown the open despatch of the 28th December, 1881. This complaint (as stated in the memorandum of the 25th January, 1883) was a mere reiteration of those made by Ministers in the memorandum dated the 10th June, 1882. It is extremely surprising that a gentleman of the eminence and experience of Sir Arthur Gordon should gravely assume that on the 10th June, 1882, Ministers could have referred to despatches of the existence of which they were ignorant until the Imperial Blue Book, published in August, 1882, reached the colony. (2.) Newspapers on both sides were regularly (2.) Ministers are aware that all the loading sent Home. The objection of Ministers is tanta- newspapers in the colony—the Lyttelton Times mount to a suggestion that a Governor should amongst the number—are sent Home in a bag never send Home Opposition papers. by themselves. No complaint of this was ever made; but what was complained of was that, in addition to this, certain portions of the Lyttclton Times were cut out and forwarded as enclosures in despatches, in such a manner that they, and they only, would be laid before the Imperial Parliament with the despatch. Again, in Sir Arthur Gordon's despatch of the 4th November, 1881, he promises to forward a collection of articles from newspapers supporting the policy of the Government. Was this done? None of them are printed in the Blue Book. (3.) In their Memorandum of 10th Juno, 1882, (3.) No sr.ch claim was ever made. The claim Ministers claim that the Governor's despatches made was that Sir A. Gordon, having seriously should always be shown to them before transmis- impugned his Ministers, they should have had sion ; but to this they have no right. an opportunity of answering his charges, so that" both statements could be laid before the Imperial Parliament at one time, instead of some months elapsing between the publication of the Governor's charges and the answers of the Ministers. 11. Sir Arthur Gordon says that Sir James Prendergast and Mr. Whitaker take exception to his expression of a " disposition " to share the views advocated in the four articles enclosed in his Despatch of the 22nd October, 1881. He answers:— (1.) His agreement referred only to the articles (1.) a. Mr. Whitaker never said anything about then enclosed. To suppose (as Sir J. Prendergast articles published after the 22nd October, 1881; and Mr. Whitaker do) that in that despatch he the articles sent with the despatch of that date expressed agreement with articles which did not are quite sufficient to support his words, appear until a fortnight later, is absurd. b. It is plain that Sir Arthur Gordon did concur with the views expressed in the later articles, as he forwarded them specially as enclosures to his confidential despatches of the 4th Novemerb and 2nd December, 1881, " in continuation of the extracts previously forwarded." (2.) He admits, and never denied, that the (2.) This matter is not now under discussion; views with which he expressed agreement were and if it were, it would be easy to show, by the those of the minority; but maintains that they result, that the policy adopted by,the Ministers were right, and that the minority comprised on the West Coast of the North Island was many of the ablest and best men of the colony. unquestionably right. 111. Sir Arthur Gordon says that Ministers and Sir James Prendergast take exception to his having mentioned in his Confidential Despatch that it was only from his Private Secretary, Mr. Murray, that he received information as to the progress of affairs in New Zealand during his absence in Fiji, Concerning this Sir Arthur Gordon says : — (1.) That before he left the colony the promise (1.) Whatever promise may have been made was made that during his absence he should have to Sir Arthur Gordon Ministers consider must the fullest information as to what was going on have been of a private character, and they hold in New Zealand. that it was not their duty to communicate — directly with him,. There was in their opinion therefore no neglect on their part in abstaining from doing so. It does appear that, as a matter of courtesy, Sir John Hall did offer to communicate with Sir Arthur Gordon, but the offer was declined.