A.—C.

19

The Hon. the Chief Seceetabt, Victoria, to the Hon. the Colonial Seceetaet, New Zealand. (No. 3,799.) Chief Secretary's Office, Sir, — Melbourne, sth May, 1874. I have the honor to inform you that the Despatch of Sir James Fergusson of the 12th March, forwarding the Memorandum of Mr. Vogel of the 11th March, has been referred by His Excellency the Governor to his Besponsible Advisers. I purpose in this case (as in all previous correspondence) to restrict communications upon intercolonial matters to the proper Ministers of the respective Colonies ; and, taking this principle for my guidance, I desire to inform you that, acting upon the advice of his Ministers, and following the precedents of Governor-General Sir W. Denison, and of the other Governors of the Australasian Colonies, the Governor of Victoria declines to become, in any way, a party to the grave innovation on the well-known principles of Parliamentary Government, and in the constitutional usage so long established (on the English model) in Australia and New Zealand, which Mr. Vogel, by his own admission, has advised His Excellency Sir James Fergusson to make in his Despatch of the 25th November last. However, Sir James Fergusson, in his later Despatch of the 20th February, has signified that he agrees that the official correspondence between Victoria and New Zealand should hereafter, as heretofore, pass through the ordinary channels. All' future communications, therefore (except respecting matters involving Imperial interests), in order to insure action being taken on them by this Government, should be addressed directly, in the usual form, by the Colonial Secretary of New Zealand to the Chief Secretary of Victoria. You are, of course, aware that Sir James Fergusson took exception to certain terms which I used in a Ministerial Memorandum addressed to Sir George Bowen in reference to a Despatch which His Excellency had received from Sir James Fergusson, relating to the prohibition of the importation of diseased cattle, &c, into Victoria. The tone and language which Mr. Vogel has thought it not unbecoming in him to assume, in an official Memorandum, towards the Governor, the Ministry, and the Law Officers of this Colony, would alone render it difficult to follow the indirect mode of correspondence advocated by him, unless and until he shall have withdrawn imputations which can only be pronounced unwarrantable. Moreover, it is to be observed that Mr. Vogel's arguments imply that, in intercolonial questions and controversies, every Governor is to be guided, not by the advice of his own Eesponsible Ministers and Law Officers, but by those of another, and it may be, as in this case, an opposing Colony. It need scarcely be pointed out that if this theory were admitted in principle, or accepted in practice, Parliamentary Government would virtually be at an end, and a Colonial Governor would be acting, not by the advice of his Eesponsible Advisers, but in opposition thereto, and would thus assert a position which has never been hitherto suggested, and which I should assume Mr. Vogel and his colleagues, as Eesponsible Ministers, would decline to concede. As a further proof of the undesirability of indirect correspondence, I would observe that Mr. Vogel does not offer any explanation of the fact that the same mail which brought Sir James Fergusson's Despatch of the 25th November to Sir George Bowen, accusing the Victorian Government of aggressive and illegal conduct towards New Zealand, brought also an official letter from yourself, as Colonial Secretary of that Colony, courteously thanking the Victorian Government for its action in the very matter of which Mr. Vogel advised the Governor of New Zealand to complain direct to the Governor of Victoria. No public advantage can be derived from continuing this correspondence ; otherwise, in reply to Mr. Vogel's Memorandum, I might point out how the very friendly course adopted by Victoria has not been appreciated by him. Still, although it remains with the Government of Victoria to adopt a course which we are almost challenged by our own colonists to adopt, and which is within the law, viz., to issue a proclamation more eifectually carrying out the agreement of the Conference at Sydney, this Government will take no course which could in any way serve to justify the imputations so unwarrantably made against our action. I will therefore conclude by assuring you, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that, provided we are addressed in the proper and constitutional form, we shall always, in the future, as in the past, be glad to consider favourably and promptly any communication from the Government of New Zealand, and to co-operate with it in promoting the interests of both Colonies. I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, New Zealand. J. G. Feancis. The Hon. the Chief Seceetaet, Victoria, to the Hon. the Colonial Seceetaet, New Zealand. (No. 3,900.) Sib,— Chief Secretary's Office, Melbourne, 11th May, 1874. Adverting to my letter to you of the sth instant, I have the honor to inform you that the Governor of Victoria has referred to His Excellency's Eesponsible Advisers the further Despatch on the same subject, addressed to him on the 13th April ultimo by the Governor of New Zealand. I observe with much satisfaction that Sir James Fergusson " accepts unreservedly " my assurance that the Government of Victoria, while asserting the well-known principles and usages of Parliamentary Government as applicable to intercolonial correspondence, had no intention whatever of showing any want of respect to His Excellency's office, or discourtesy tewards himself personally. Here, I would gladly close this correspondence ; but it seems to me absolutely necessary to make some remarks on the concluding paragraphs of the Despatch now under acknowledgment, lest it should be supposed in any quarter that the Victorian Government assented to the doctrines therein promulgated. With every respect for Sir James Fergusson lam bound to make the observation that it appears to me he has altered his views of the 20th February, and adopted the theory propounded by Mr. Vogel in his Ministerial Memorandum of the 11th of March ultimo. .In his Despatch of 20th February Sir James Fergusson writes as follows : — " These expressions appear to mo to be somewhat inconsistent with my own acquaintance with the