A.—s

14

176. Are you sure it was not on the next day ? —I am almost certain, because the whole thing seemed to pass within an hour. 177. Was it given to you again to lay on Mr. Cadman's table again ?—No. 178. You have never seen it since, except in the hands of Mr. Seddon's messenger ?—That is so. 179. What is the name of Mr. Seddon's messenger?—Charles Burgess. 180. Is there anything else you can think of ?—No. 181. Was there a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, 4th April—the date on which Sir Patrick returned to the office ?—I really could not say, but I think there was. James Sandbrook re-examined. 182. The Commissioner.] In going over your evidence there is one point to which I wish to draw your attention. I have it in my notes that you stated as follows: "I saw the envelope containing the letters tied up, and in the hands of C. Burgess, Mr. Seddon's messenger. He told me he had got it from Sir Patrick Buckley, with orders to look after it carefully until the arrival of Mr. Seddon in Wellington." Now, to the best of your knowledge and belief, when did you see what you believed to be the letters in question in the hands of Burgess ?—I believe now that it was on the sth. I have been puzzled all along about that date, because of the letters having appeared in the paper the night before. 183. At what time of the day was it?—lt must have been after 2 o'clock, I should think— after lunch hour. James Sandbrook re-examined. 184. The Commissioner.] Had you any conversation with Sir Patrick Buckley on the morning of the sth April relative to this letter ? —Yes. 185. What was the nature of the conversation?—Sir Patrick called me in a little after he opened his usual private letters, and asked me where I got that letter. I said I got it at his office with other letters. That is all I remember. 186. Do you recollect if you put the letter on his table separately on the morning of the 4th?— Ido not recollect it. I may have done so, but, having so many letters, it is impossible to think. 187. Do you recollect having told Sir Patrick Buckley on the morning of the sth April that you got it in the corridor ? —I may have done so, but Ido not recollect it. 188. Did you tell Sir Patrick that you got it from his firm's office, and that you left it on his table ?—I said I thought I had left it with other letters, as usual. But it is so long ago. lam supposing that was the letter franked by Mr. Andrews. 189. Would Sir Patrick Buckley's recollection of the matter be right—namely, that you took it in to him on the morning of the 4th April, about fifteen minutes after you had delivered the ordinary letters, and that you delivered it to him separately on that morning; or are there any means by which you could account for the fact that the letter was not on the table where you left it on Monday or Tuesday?—No ; not the slightest. I put a lot of letters together, and I would not shift them except to dust the table, or something like that. I would not look at each one. 190. You never took the letter out of the office after having once put it there ?—No ; certainly not. 191. Can you account in any way for its disappearance—if it did disappear —and its returning again through your hands ?—Of course anybody might take it out of the office if they chose. The doors are open in the daytime, and I am down town sometimes in the day. 192. If a person took it out of the office, read it, and left it on the table in the corridor, you, seeing a letter lying on the table addressed to your chief, what would you naturally do with it ?—I would naturally take it to him, of course, expecting somebody had left it there for that purpose. 193. Supposing it did leave the office after you first put it there, can you say how it did leave? —No; I cannot say that. Of course, Mr. Pollen's and Mr. Govett's doors are open all day. 194. If you found a letter addressed to Sir Patrick Buckley, marked " Confidential," and franked by Mr. Andrews, lying on the table in the corridor, and evidently having come through the post, would it strike you as an unusual way for a letter to come ? —lt would. 195. Would that be more liable to fix it on your mind ?—Unless I saw it with the other letters I would wonder where it came from. 196. Would the fact that a letter had come in that way fix it on your memory ?—lt would. - 197. And you have no recollection of receiving a letter in that particular way ? —No. If there were other letters on the table, I should think they came by the usual post. 198. I understood from your evidence on a former occasion that to the best of your knowledge the letter was addressed to the Premier, and you were instructed to lay it on his table, and that you did so; about five minutes afterwards you brought it back again, and gave it to Sir Patrick Buckley ; that he wrote across the corner of the envelope " For Mr. Cadman," or something to that effect; that you took the letter in that manner, and left it on Mr. Cadman's table. Do you think that the addressing of the envelope to the Premier, and the taking of it back again and delivering it to Mr. Cadman, occurred on the same day ? —I think so. Yes. 199. Do you [think the letter you left on Mr. Cadman's table was addressed to the Premier, with Mr. Cadman's name on the corner?—l imagine so, because I do not think Sir Patrick had time to put it in another envelope. I think he gave it to me quickly. I would not swear to it, but I imagine so. James Sandbrook re-examined. 200. The Commissioner.] Do you recognise this book [produced] ? —Yes; it is the book kept in the messengers' room for entering letters for delivery in town. 201. Amongst the entries under date 4th April, 1894, do you notice a letter addressed " Evening Post," and one for Mr. W. H. Atack ?—Yes.