A.-^4,

28

7. Ministers desire to repeat that they are anxious to avoid controversy, but they feel it their duty to submit the foregoing for consideration by the Secretary of State. They hope, that Lord Derby may be pleased to give attention to the matter, with a view to prevent, in the future, inconvenience which, in the opinion of Ministers, cannot fail to affect prejudicially the relations that ought to exist between the Secretary of State for the Colonies, a Colonial Governor, and his Eesponsible Advisers. Wellington, January 25th, 1883. Feed. Whitaker.

No. 39. Sir John Hall to the Peemiee. Mt deab Mb. Whitakee, — Wellington, February 22, 1883. Mr. Fox has shown to me your memorandum for His Excellency, dated January 25th, and its enclosure. The fifth and sixth paragraphs of that enclosure refer to Sir A. Gordon's despatch of October 22, 1881, printed in the recent Imperial Blue Book on " Native Affairs in New Zealand." lam hardly in a position to volunteer a formal statement respecting the passages in that despatch on which you comment ; but on one question of fact, I think it is right, as I am on the point of leaving New Zealand, you should not be without information. In the despatch of October 22, Sir Arthur Gordon refers to intelligence he received while at Levuka, as to events in New Zealand; and he adds, "This intelligence " I obtained from a letter written by my Private Secretary, and from a perusal of the New Zealand " newspapers, not a single member of the Ministry having addressed a single line to me on that or any " other subject." If this fact involves anything blameworthy, the blame attaches to me, as it would be the Premier's duty —if the duty of any Minister—to write to Sir Arthur. I entirely agree, however with the statement in your memorandum, that Ministers had no duty to Sir Arthur Gordon in the matter. Nothing could be more distinct than was the understanding, when Sir Arthur left for Fiji, that the Administrator of the Government would possess, in every respect, the full powers of the Queen's Representative. But for this, Ministers never could have advised Sir Arthur that no public inconvenience would result from his departure for Fiji. Our duty as Ministers was, therefore, solely to the then Representative of Her Majesty, Sir James Prendergast. I cannot, however, agree with my late colleagues, that it would have been improper, in the circumstances, to have written to Sir Arthur Gordon, provided- this were done with the knowledge of Sir James Prendergast. I think that, as a matter of" courtesy, the Premier might well inform an absent Governor of any matter of importance occurring in the colony, which would or might affect his movements. In fact, I contemplated doing this: but when I asked Sir Arthur Gordon whether he would like me to write to him on what was taking place in New Zealand, he replied distinctly in the negative ; nor did he, before leaving, give me any information as to where it was likely letters would reach him. In these circumstances, my writing to him on public matters affecting the colony was, of course, wholly out of question. I see that you have forwarded to the Secretary of State, the first memorandum which Sir Arthur Gordon, after his return from Fiji, sent to me as Premier, and also my reply thereto, which documents had not previously been used with any view to their publication. This may, not improbably, raise discussion upon a question respecting which many false statements have been made —namely, whether, when the Proclamation of October 19th was issued, Ministers had information that Sir Arthur Gordon would return to the colony almost immediately. I can only suppose that the assertions made —that Ministers had such information—-originated from, a short conversation I had with Mr. Murray, Sir Arthur Gordon's Private Secretary, who acted in the same capacity to Sir James Prendergast. On leaving Government House, after I had informed Sir James of Ministers' intention formally to advise him to issue the Proclamation of the 19th October, and had also arranged with him as to holding a meeting of the Executive Council to swear-in Mr. Bryce as Native Minister, I passed Mr. Murray at the door. I asked him, in passing, if he had any news of Sir Arthur. Were it not that I have since learned that such news had at that time been received, I should have no hesitation in stating that Mr. Murray replied in the negative. Of course, he could not have done so; but the impression left on my mind by what he said, was clearly shown by the fact that, on returning to the Government Buildings, I told my colleagues that no news had been received about Sir Arthur. Mr. Murray, I must add, gave it as his own speculation that Sir Arthur might return at any time. This was, however,, given merely as his opinion upon a question as to which I might form an opinion for myself. Certainly, what Mr. Murray said did not afford me any ground for supposing that he had other or better reason for his speculation than I, or any other Minister, had for speculating on the matter. The fact that information had at that time been received at Government House as to Sir Arthur's movements was, I feel bound to say, carefully concealed from me, as it was also, I believe, from the Administrator of the Government. At the time of the issue of the Proclamation, I had no ground whatever for anticipating Sir Arthur Gordon's immediate return. I am sorry there should be a prospect of renewal of the controversy on this matter; but as it may be renewed, and m} r name be brought into it, and as I shall be absent from the colony, I have thought it right, injustice to my late colleagues and to myself, that I should put you in possession of the facts. You are at liberty to make such use of this letter as you may think proper. I am, &c, John Hall.

See Nos. I*2.