H.—29

14

ground for adding to them. Attendant Arundel's statement that the fish was unfit for human consumption was untrue, and I regretted lie was not at the meeting : That in quarrelling over the fish and throwing the dish out of the window, especially before the patients, they were acting like savages rather than civilised men, and such behaviour would not be tolerated: Further, that I could scarcely conceive that the cutting of the tablecloth had been done unintentionally ; and that in any case they had failed to carry out their duty in not reporting it. A number of remarks were made by attendant Impey, among others one insinuating that a statement of mine in regard to a certain viand having been supplied to them frequently was untrue, at least he had never soen or heard of such viands having been supplied to the attendants. Though a number of the attendants have since professed that Impey was acting as their agent, not one of them traversed his statement, and subsequent reference to the store department revealed the fact that three times in May, and twice in June, the particular viand (tripe and onions) was supplied to them. Another statement made by Impey was that they did not see on their own tables such joints as were supplied to the matron and clerks. The meeting was adjourned, and I met the attendants about half an hour later, after having consulted the clerk and matron in regard to some points which had been raised. There was one matter and one only in which I made an error—viz., in asserting on the clerk's authority that the meat had been given to them in a definite rotation of joints, and this to my mind affords the clearest indication of the want of broad foundations for most of the other statements made by the men. I had no sooner spoken than three attendants who had previously been silent (Impey, Arundel, and Clark having been the only speakers) stood up excitedly, and attendant Buckley asked whether I wished to call them liars. I may observe that this was the only occasion on which the term liar was used, and then by an attendant. I pointed out that, as they had been silent, there had been no reason to suppose that they agreed with Impey, but that now several of them had spoken I felt confident some mistake had been made. The cook and matron were sent for, and the issue appears in a statement of mine which you took down yesterday with Arundel's evidence. During the next few days Mr. Stewart reported to me that several of the attendants had told him that, some of them were getting up a round-robin, and that they wanted me to apologize. Judging from this, and from the demeanour of several of the attendants, that the matter could not rest where it was, I took the first train to town on the Monday morning, and, accompanied by one of the official visitors, the Hon. George McLean, waited on the Deputy Inspector, Mr. Chapman, and asked if he would come out and look into the matter, because I felt that from the insolent demeanour and language of attendants Arundel, Impey, and Clark it would be better to have some independent person of authoritative position to examine into the merits of the case. Mr. Chapman could not leave his business, and Mr. McLean at great personal inconvenience consented to come, after my urging upon him the desirability of getting the matter settled. In the afternoon I received a note from Impey asking, on behalf of the attendants, my presence at a meeting. Mr. McLean saw the three charge-attendants individually, and then went to the meeting. After explaining that Mr. McLean had been asked to attend in his official capacity, and making a statement of the facts of the case, I intended to leave the room, in order that the attendants might have no possible excuse or constraint in speaking their minds; but was asked by Impey to stay and hear a report which he had made. This report, which was handed to you yesterday, is such a tissue of misstatements, and is so insolent and improper in its whole tone, that it needs no comment. I again turned to leave the room, when Impey said he wished to hand me a document from the attendants. I was not present at the rest of the meeting. Mr. McLean informed me afterwards that attendant Impey.'s attitude was utterly defiant and unreasonable, and said that he ought to leave the Service at once. He could say nothing regarding Arundel and Clark, because they had kept silence. Several of the attendants stood up and suggested that the matter should be dropped. P. Teuby King.

Statement handed in by Mr. Impey, and read at a meeting of the staff. The object of this meeting is to ask the doctor to remove the stigma which he has unjustly thrust upon us, and to retract those statements in which he accuses us of being " liars and conspirators " —accusations which we say are untrue, and we are prepared to substantiate the proofs previously adduced. How the doctor has arrived at the illiberal conclusions which he has done, can unless he chooses to enlighten us, only remain a matter oficonjecture. He has stated that the discontent that was emanated from a very small section of malcontents who had not been long in the service, and not from the majority of the attendants, or from those who had been here a length of time. To that assertion I gave a decided denial, stating that the oldest members of the staff were as emphatic and as persistent in their denunciations as were those recently appointed to that body ; and further, that the whole body of attendants dining in the hall were perfectly unanimous in the complaint, without even one exception. The doctor, replying to this fact, characterizes it as a deliberate lie, he having proof that such was not the case ; but when asked to submit the name of any individual, declined—l presume through being unable so to do. Our complaints were of a very mild nature, simply protesting at the mismanagement of the diet, and the arbitrary measures adopted by the doctor in cancelling articles of diet, which, although not actually on the dietary scale, had been received and recognised as part of such, together with the false, harsh, and cruel epithets with which he characterized our conduct as malicious and infamous, comparing us to and telling us that we are savages, and as such he would have no hesitation or compunction in treating us ; and I particularly wish to draw attention to this remark, for it is an utterance unworthy of a man and unbecoming a gentleman. By such unjust slander, is it any wonder that our innocence resents at the indignities so unsparingly levied upon our respectability. Firstly, in reference to the complaint as first told to him, he says he was told before coming into the hall by those who inter-