5

G.—l

No. 3. Sir Walteb Bulleb, K.C.M.G., to the Hon. Sir Eobekt Stout, K.C.M.G. Sib, — 52, Stanhope Gardens, Queen's Gate, London, S.W., 28th February, 1887. I have to thank you for your letter of the 30th December last, promising to lay my statement re, Owhaoko before Parliament, and to do all in your power to give it as wide a publicity as the original memorandum obtained. Since receiving your letter I have soon the New Zealand Herald of the 31st December, containing an explanatory letter from Mr. Fenton (copy of which I enclose), upon which I desire to make a few remarks by way of supplement to my former statement. With Mr. Fenton's lengthy explanation of his " reasons" for writing the letter to Mr. Studholme of the Bth July I have nothing to do. But, as he accuses me of a " most flagrant breach of faith " in the publication of that letter, I feel bound to reply. Mr. Fenton writes : " Sir W. Buller says my letter was not marked ' Private.' Now, was ever such a paltry subterfuge discovered for doing a thing that he must have known was wrong, and was altogether beyond the rules of conduct which govern gentlemen." And he says, in conclusion, " that, if the general feeling of honourable men does not condemn this gross breach of faith, this utter ignoring of the simplest law of honour, I suffer little, for the respect of the world would, under such circumstances, not be worth having." Here Mr. Fenton does not quote me fairly, for I went on to say that even if his letter had been marked " Private " I should have felt myself justified, under the circumstances, in making use of it. I may state at once that in the course I thought fit to adopt I consulted no one, considering it better to" act in such a matter upon my own sense of what was right. Mr. Studholme had forwarded the document to me in a covering note with these words : " Enclosed I send you a letter received last mail from Fenton, in which he enjoins on us the advisability of silence." I published that letter without asking his permission. I did not deem such permission necessary ; and, after what had occurred, I should have published the letter in spite of any objection from Mr. Studholme. After my statement had been printed and posted to the colony I submitted a copy of it to several friends in London whose opinion I value, and they all, without a single exception, approved of what I had done. As to whether, in this matter, I have transgressed " the rules of conduct which govern gentlemen," it will be sufficient to give the names (and I do so with their full permission) of two public men who are known all over the colony, and whose judgment is beyond question. Mr. Studholme having written to say that I ought not to have published the letter without his consent, I discussed the matter with the Hon. Mr. Gisborne, who not only considered I had done right in publishing the letter, but pointed out that its terms made it imperative on Mr. Studholme to communicate the contents to me, thereby entirely depriving that gentleman of any further control over it. Sir F. D. Bell, in reference to this, wrote to me, on the 14th instant, " Gisborne puts the point incontestably, as indeed I remember having done myself in the Fernery." The point is put with such force by Sir F. D. Bell himself that (with his concurrence) I append the notes that afterwards passed between us on the subject. Ido not deem it necessary to add anything of my own to the above. But, to my mind, even more conclusive still is the opinion of Mr. H. D. Bell, the " able counsel" to whom Mr. Fenton pays a tribute in his letter to the Herald. In a letter to myself, dated the 31st December, in answer to one from me saying that he might perhaps think I had taken an extreme course, he replies, "With regard to your action in printing Fenton's letter to Studholme, I personally think you were justified in so doing; but here I write, of course, my personal opinion only, which I have no doubt differs entirely from Fenton's." It was obviously impossible for me to get Mr. Bell's permission to publish this extract; but, after consultation with his father, I feel no hesitation in doing so. Mr. Fenton says that I had a malicious object in preserving his letter, adding, " The truth is that he perceived that he had the weapon in his hand, and put it by for use, and used it when the necessity arose, which he appears to have expected, with the sole view and hope of discrediting me generally." That this was not the case is proved by the fact that I have not published the whole of Mr. Fenton's letter, as I might have done. The first part of it reflected on members of the Committee who were supposed to be hostile to him, and are mentioned by name, and then gave a forecast of the probable result. I felt that the publication of this portion of the letter might be damaging to Mr. Fenton, whilst it did not seem in any way necessary to my case. Mr. Fenton now almost compels me to put you in possession of that portion of the letter also ; but I will content myself with saying that it appears to me inconsistent with his present statement that at the time he wrote it he shared " the general belief that the Committee would not report that session." Mr. Fenton says he will not follow my " evil example "by publishing my letter to him. I have no objection whatever to his doing so, if he thinks it can be of any interest to the public. It was a private letter, written from Carlsbad immediately after seeing his, and I kept no copy of it. But I distinctly remember saying this (or words to a like effect): " For the present lam content to leave my vindication in your hands ; but, to quote the Times of yesterday —in treating of England and the Bulgarian question —' it is not altogether safe to trust entirely to others to safeguard our in2—G. 1.