7

H.—22

off, and have taken them all away with you. I had hoped that this printing might have been done in preparation for Parliament; but this cannot have been the case, as you ordered the distribution of the type as soon as you had obtained the number of copies you required, and the type was distributed accordingly. All this was done secretly without the knowledge of any of your colleagues, and only became known to me accidentally ; and since then I have seen that Mr. Skerrett, the counsel acting for Mr. Gilmer and against the Crown, cross-examined Mr. Jackman upon confidential matters which appear in those papers. This coincidence is singular and unfortunate, considering your friendship for Mr. Gilmer. After I discovered that you were printing official papers, with official and ministerial minutes, for your own use, and apparently for distribution, without my knowledge, I felt that it would be a public scandal for you to remain a day longer than could be helped a Minister of the Crown. 6 and 7. You give a list of eight subjects which you term the larger questions upon which you at various times have differed from the Cabinet. This is the first time I have had the slightest intimation from you that you had any serious difference with the Cabinet or myself upon any of these questions. It is quite true that in the Cabinet discussions upon each of these and other important questions you expressed your own personal views, as did all the other members of the Cabinet; but you apparently, after full discussion, willingly submitted to the decision of Cabinet, and have never given me the least intimation that you were dissatisfied with the decision arrived at. I will deal with these eight large questions seriatim. (1.) I know that you were in favour of the appointment of an English expert, as were most of the Cabinet; but I understood you to willingly accept its decision, and you certainly never said a word to me of the objections you now state you felt, nor one single word about what you call the peculiar treatment of Mr. Eec; nor have I even now the slightest idea of what you mean. (2.) It is true that you were in favour of the appointment of another gentleman than the one finally appointed as Judge, but after the appointment was made you never said anything to me at any time to make me think for a moment that you had not acquiesced in the decisions of the Cabinet, as an ordinary matter in which you were in a minority. (3.) I had no idea until the receipt of your letter that you thought an Engineer-in-Chief should not be appointed. I thought we were all agreed that some such appointment was necessary. If this was your opinion, you have failed altogether in conveying it to me. If you mean by this paragraph that you differed from the Cabinet as to the person to be appointed, then your language is very unfortunate. As a matter of fact the question has been several times before Cabinet, but has always been postponed ; and no final decision has even yet been come to. (4.) and (5.) Here, as your own words show, your disagreement was with "certain Ministers," and not with the Cabinet. (6.) I am at a loss to understand what you mean about differing from the Cabinet upon the necessity for proposing a modification of the property-tax, as the only discussion— and this was initiated by me—the Cabinet has had upon the question resulted in the decision that a modification of the tax was desirable in some particulars, and I undertook to have a Bill prepared to give effect to that decision. When you joined my Cabinet you never said a word as to your objection to the property-tax, nor as to any modification you desired, nor have you ever taken any opportunity to discuss with me the modification you thought necessary. (7.) How you differed from the Cabinet in respect to the Te Kooti expedition I do not know. You informed me upon my return from Gisborne that you approved of the action I had taken, and that the resolution arrived at by Cabinet (to which I had referred an important point as to my action) met with your entire approval, and you took credit in talking to me for having supported my action throughout ; and, as the Cabinet did the same, I fail to understand how you differed from the Cabinet on this question. (8.) With regard to my public utterances : if you disapproved of anything that I said, I think that as a colleague you should have come to me and talked the matter over. You have never even hinted to me that you disapproved of any of my utterances. I am unable, of course, from this paragraph to gather on what points you differ from me. My declaration with regard to the land-nationalisation was simply the expression of an opinion. lam of opinion that the ownership of land in the not very near future will be national; but, although I hold this view, I have always said that I have no right in any way to force it upon the public; that I had, therefore, supported the policy of leaving the free choice of a title to the settler desiring the land, and that the policy of the Government was to give every one the free choice of the title which would suit him best in his own opinion, either freehold for cash, deferred payment, or perpetual leasehold, and that that was the system I intend to support ; and that the Government had amended the Land Act of 1885 to give effect to that policy. With regard to what you term "pauper farms," I am of opinion that some such organization as that proposed by Mr. Mills has become absolutely necessary—that is to say, that the work of persons who are unable to support themselves can be better utilised upon land, than by stonebreaking in the towns, or upon roads or railways. When this matter was discussed in Cabinet and agreed to, and Mr. Hislop directed to prepare a Bill, you did not dissent, nor did you then or at any other time give any of us reason to believe that you differed from the conclusion thus arrived at. I think that upon such a question as this, if