7

G—l

read it now, when the existing circumstances under which it was written have passed away, I can scarcely believe I ever did write. I venture, however, to think that the public, having obtained possession of that letter by a most flagrant breach of good faith, are in no way concerned in it except (1) as appearing to show an understanding between Mr. Studholme, Sir W. Buller, and myself that there was something to be concealed; and (2) that there was an intention on my part to secure the silence of those gentlemen until my own case was satisfactorily disposed of. Now, as to the first point, it seems to me perfectly clear that, if there had been any such understanding, Sir W. Buller would never have published a letter which must lead to its disclosure. It would have been as much his interest as mine to keep the letter secret. The very fact that he has given it to the world is surely a convincing proof that there never existed any arrangement or secret understanding, as a public knowledge of anything of the sort must be as injurious to him and his client as to me. On the second point the answer is equally conclusive. That there could have been no intention on my part of deriving personal advantage from 'their silence is evident from the fact that at the time there was a general belief that the Committee would not report that session, but would wait until Mr. Studholme and Dr. Buller had an opportunity of being heard. It was with that idea in my mind that I desired them to take no steps until they had seen the evidence, as I explain more fully hereafter. It appeared to me that it would be very ill-advised on their part to write letters in ignorance of the circumstances which were occurring. That the Committee did report that session was a circumstance over which, of course, I had no control. And here let me apologize to Mr. Bell, my able counsel, for writing a letter on the business while the case was proceeding without consulting him. I will now add, without following Sir W. Buller's evil example of publishing private letters, that I received a letter from Mr. Studholme acknowledging mine, and stating that he had handed it to Dr. Buller for him to read. I also received one from Dr. Buller, stating that Mr. Studholme had handed my letter to him, and that he would not write anything until he had seen the evidence produced before the Committee, when he would write a statement to be placed before the House of Eepresentatives. This course he has taken, and my letter, which he did not receive until after Parliament had risen, could have affected his conduct in no way whatever. His attempt to suggest that he was prejudiced by it is particularly disingenuous. I will now explain why I wrote the letter. Early in the proceedings Sir E. Stout, in reply to a question from Mr. Bell, lay counsel, made a statement which, in substance, was satisfactory to me, though not in manner. As far as I was concerned the case might then have ended. The case, however, went on, and Sir E. Stout cross-examined me with a stringency that caused my amazement. In my long experience in the public service I have always observed that satisfactory explanations by public servants of alleged improprieties were always received by the superior authorities with pleasure, but that did not appear to be the rule in my case. I sought for a solution of this remarkable persistence. Sir B. Stout was in no way ill-disposed to me, as far as I knew. In fact, during the previous session I had transacted some business with him very agreeably, and we had formed an acquaintance which might have ripened into friendship. It then struck me that there must be some reason for the trial he was making me undergo outside anything connected with myself, and Mr. Studholme's lease occurred to me as the object of attack. I then looked at the Bill which had been referred to the Committee, of which I had theretofore only read the preamble, and I found that the Bill would utterly destroy the leases. The provision is as follows: "If on any investigation of title to said lands Natives shall be found to be owners of such land who are identical with any Natives who have heretofore been decalred owners and have demised such lands .... any such demise shall be and -shall be deemed to have been from the date of such demise good and effectual demises of the estate and interest of any Natives being identical as aforesaid." The original owners were five or seven (I think), and the new owners would be, if the Taupo people were found to be entitled, very numerous —if the recent Courts can indicate an opinion, many hundreds ; so that, out of a great number of people, Mr. Studholme's lease would be good against five or seven. This, of course, meant its absolute destruction. Mr. Studholme, it appeared, had spent large sums of money on the place, and the result must have been most disastrous, possibly ruinous, to him. As he was an innocent and honourable purchaser, I thought this provision very unjust. Mr. Studholme was in England, and so was Dr. Buller, his solicitor in the transaction, and he could not possibly appear personally to defend his interest. It appeared to me very injudicious to attempt a defence in writing, in entire ignorance of the circumstances disclosed, or of the evidence which had been given. At that time it was thought by us that the Committee would not report that session, but would leave the matter as it was until Mr. Studholme could be heard. One of the other lessees was in Wellington, and appeared before the Committee, and gave important evidence. It was under these circumstances, and feeling strongly the disastrous effects of the Bill on Mr. Studholme's interests, that I wrote the letter. My reference to Sir E. Stout's well-known opinions on Native rights and wrongs clearly indicates what I had in my mind. And I have not the slightest doubt that my object was well understood by Mr. Studholme, and by Sir W. Buller, too. That I was right in my view of the injustice of the clause is shown by the fact that it was altered subsequently by Parliament, and the leases are now good for the remainder of the term, the rents being divided with the new owners (if any). That the Committee reported in the absence of Sir W. Buller is doubtless to his disadvantage, but I cannot doubt that it will be reconstituted, if it is wished for, when Dr. Buller can appear before it, with all the advantage of knowing beforehand everything that has been said. This is the position I desired to secure, and it is a fair one. I think, now, that I have explained why I wrote the letter and what I intended to achieve by it. As to Sir W. Buller's complaint that I charged him with " falsehood " I have little to say. I