27

8.—5

No. 11. Offices of the Crown Agents for the Colonies, Silt,— Spring Gardens, London, S.W., 14th May, 1875. We have the honor to enclose, for the information of the Government of New Zealand, further correspondence which has taken place between Mr. Vogel and ourselves as Loan Agents, in continuation of that forwarded to you in our letter of the 16th ultimo. We have, &c, P. G. Julyan. I. E. Featherston. The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, New Zealand. W. C. Sargeaunt.

Enclosure 1 in No. 11. The Hon. Sir J. Vogel to the Loan Agents. 7, Westminster Chambers, Victoria Street, Westminster, S.W., Gentlemen, — sth May, 1875. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 12th April. There are some points in it to which I think it desirable to reply. 2. I cannot agree with you that the state of my health forbade you to hope for the possibility of my meeting you, seeing that I had never been unable to grant you an interview. It is true you had had to meet at my house—-a course which had I been well it would not have been unreasonable to expect you to follow. About the time of your preparing the report, I had been out several times ;so that my illness could have had nothing to do with your isolating me from your proceedings. I prepared, as you state, a draft letter, and read it to one of you. I read it to Mr. Featherston, at his office, and he told me that a report had already been prepared, and was being forwarded to me. In the course of an hour or two, when I reached my house, I found there two documents about which we are corresponding. On the afternoon of 9th March, when the Californian Mail was leaving, I was first informed of the desire to send a report. Mr. Featherston and Mr. Sargeaunt called on me with one prepared. I pointed out its inaccuracies, and said I would prepare one. They took the document away to point out its mistakes to Sir P. G. Julyan. When I afterwards asked for it, I was told Sir P. G. Julyan had it, and that he was not at the office. I prepared a letter without it, and took the draft to Mr. Featherston, who then told me of another report having been prepared; and, as I have said, when I reached home, I found it with the copy of the letter which purported that the original had been signed by each of you. 3. Ido not consider those documents beyond the right of comment. I had already written to the colony before your letter of March 19th, enclosing another report which you had adopted, reached me. Besides, I should not in any event have consented to the document purporting to be a copy of a signed original, but which original, it afterwards appeared, had not been signed, being withdrawn. The whole proceeding was of a nature which my duty forbade me to overlook. 4. A great deal of your letter of April 12th does not require reply. All that you urge does not do away with the facts that Messrs. L. N. Rothschild and Sons sold the loan well; that we obtained a very good price for it; that they procured a large circle of new investors, thereby occasioning much annoyance to some persons who had grown to look upon colonial loans as a sort of monopoly ; and that, in stating the rates of your previous transactions, you do not accurately describe the sales effected. 5. You correctly state that I approved of the sale of the £1,500,000, and I do not recall that approval, although until I reached London I was not aware of the discontent which the syndicating, after obtaining a higher price from the public for a part of the loan, had occasioned. 6. You dwell upon my having required the sale of the £4,000,000 without having given you the particulars of the requirements of the colony. You will permit me to say that those requirements were freely discussed between us, and that on one occasion Mr. Featherston produced a calculation, from which he showed the expediency of negotiating the whole loan, and the necessity of negotiating at least £3,000,000. You are not, however, accurate when you say that I insisted upon the sale of the £4,000,000. I stated to you that I would be satisfied with the sale of £3,000,000, but that I thought it better the £4,000,000 should be sold; for that until the whole amount was sold the market for our securities would be depressed. 7. Your recollections of what has passed between us at different interviews are inconsistent with my own. lam aware that you have the advantage of numbers; but as I can prove some of your recollections to be erroneous, and as some, though vouched by all, are statements as to what took place in the absence of some of you, I venture to strongly affirm that you are very much mistaken in a great deal of what you state. 8. At the interview on the 18th February, the gentleman to whom you refer (Mr. Scrimgeour), who was present by appointment to meet us all, gave it as his opinion that 92 might be obtained for £2,000,000, 91 for £3,000,000, and 90 for £4,000,000. The first, he said, he thought was probable; the second less probable, and the third only possible. I deny making the statement about the Government being "in a mess," and that I must have the four millions sold firm. On the contrary, I said I would consent to a sale of £3,000,000; and when it was proposed to sell to a brokers' syndicate £2,000,000, accepting their undertaking to lend us money on part of the balance, I said I would have nothing to do with such a dangerous transaction, and would prefer obtaining the money in a different way, by short-dated debentures. On Mr. Scrimgeour withdrawing, I expressed my opinion that we should, if necessary, take 90 from Messrs. Rothschild and Sons, if we could not get more; 90 was the price the broker had said it was barely possible to obtain for £4,000,000. It is absolutely incorrect that I stated " it would be very advantageous to dispose of the whole £4,000,000 to Messrs Rothschild and.Sons, if necessary, at the price offered by them, namely 88 net." The proof that this statement is incorrect is, that Messrs. Rothschild and Sons had not offered 88 up to that time, nor was that price