A—No. 1.

No. 18. Copy of a DESPATCH from Governor Sir G. E. Bowen, G.C.M.G., to the Eight Hon. the Earl of Kimberley. (No. 100.) Government House, Wellington, My Lord, — New Zealand, 24th October, 1871. At the request of my Eesponsible Advisers, I have the honor to transmit herewith a Ministerial Memorandum respecting the contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. I have, &c, The Eight Hon. the Earl of Kimberley. G. F. BOWEN.

Memo, by Mr. Vogel, 16th"Oct., 1871.

Enclosure in No. 18. Memorandum by Mr. Vogel. Ministers respectfully request His Excellency to represent to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, that if the Home Government should have received an intimation of the desire of the Government of Victoria to have the required notice given on behalf of that Colony to terminate the contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company for the mail service between Point de Galle and Sydney, this Government desires that notice be given for terminating the contract on behalf of !STew Zealand. J. Vogel, General Post Office, Wellington, 16th October, 1871. Postmaster-General.

No. 19. Copy of a DESPATCH from Governor Sir G. E. Bowen, G.C.M.G., to the Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley. (No. 101.) Government House, Wellington, My Lord, — New Zealand, 25th October, 1871. "With reference to my Despatch No. 38, of the 25th April ultimo, and to previous correspondence respecting the case Regina v. Barton, I am now requested by my Responsible Advisers to transmit a further Ministerial Memorandum on that subject. I have, &c, '" The Eight Hon. the Earl of Kimberley. G. P. BOWEN.

Memo, by Mr. Fox, 24th Oct., 1871, with 1 sub enclosure.

Enclosure in No. 19. Memorandum by Mr. Fox. Ministers having been informed by Mr. G. Barton's solicitors that a certain printed paper headed "Mr. Muston's Free Pardon," purporting to be written by Mr. Barton, and reflecting on the opinion of the Attorney-General which was forwarded to His Excellency in a Ministerial Memorandum of the Bth April last, has been forwarded by Mr. Barton to the Eight Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies, have the honor to forward herewith a copy of a letter from Mr. Haggitt, Crown Solicitor of Otago, who conducted the prosecution against Mr. Barton, replying to certain allegations made by Mr. Barton in the printed paper above referred to. Ministers respectfully request His Excellency to forward the copy of Mr. Haggitt's letter to the Bight Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Wellington, 24th October, 1871. William Fox.

Sub-Enclosure to Enclosure in No. 19. The Crown Solicitor, Otago, to the Attobney-General. Sic, — (Begina v. Barton.) Dunedin, 23rd September, 1871. In reply to your telegram of the 13th instant, on the subject of a Memorandum published in the Otago Daily Times newspaper, and headed " Mr. Muston's Free Pardon—JSfoteson the Statement and Opinion of the Attorney-General," I have the honor to say that the statement therein contained, " that a telegram from you to myself, containing instructions to object to any evidence which Mr. Barton might tender in support of the truth of the statements contained in the articles published by the Daily Times, was handed to Mr. Barton's counsel in open Court," is untrue. It is a fact that, on the 26th January, on the occasion of Mr. Barton's counsel intimating his intention to make an application for a remand for a month, in order to obtain the attendance of the Hon. Mr. Gisborne and certain officers of the Telegraph Department from Wellington, it was intimated by me in open Court, that if such an application were made, I should oppose it on the ground that such evidence was inadmissible on a preliminary inquiry, and I stated that the case of Eegina v. Townsend would be relied on as an authority in support of that contention; but the question was never raised, and the case of Eegina v. Townsend was not quoted in Court, or even referred to subsequently. The statement contained in the notes before referred to, to the effect that " when Mr. Barton's counsel entered upon the examination of witnesses with a view to justify the publication of the iibel, the counsel for the prosecution strenuously objected to the admissibility of the evidence upon the ground that,the Magistrate had only to consider the question of authorship and publication," is also without foundation in fact. I have, &c, B. 0. Haggitt, The Hon. the Attorney-General, Wellington. Crown Solicitor.

16

DESPATCHES FROM THE GOVERNOR OF