that the £400 due by me was part of the Road
Board balance, was also made from the autho-
rity of the Treasurer. The probability is, that
had I paid the money when I ought to have
done so, the Road Board balance would never
have been touched, on my account at last.

8. Q. The Provincial Treasurer's letter of
   the 20th September 1860 contains the un-
   qualified charge that you held the deficient
   public balance of £1073 15s. 4d. in your
   hands: will you explain why (when the Pro-
   vincial Treasurer thus publicly accused you)
   you did not at once suspend him from office,
   and bring his conduct under the consideration
   of the Executive?

A. The letter referred to, which contains
the positive assertion that £1073 15s 4d. was
in my hands, was written by Mr. M'Glashan
in a fit of indignation on his first perusing the
Auditors' Report. Knowing, as I did, the
peculiar temperament of the man, and the real
circumstances of the case, I put the letter in
my pocket for a couple of days, until the
writer should have time to cool down to his
right reason. I then took the letter to Mr.
M'Glashan; and, pointing out the paragraph
in question, asked him if he intended that to
be his official answer to a letter which I shall
then address to him, to the effect that I would
would explain the various topics alluded to in
the Auditors' Report, (at this time I had not
asked for Mr. M'Glashan's explanation), hav-
ing handed him the Auditors' Report upon
the street, without note or comment, for his
perusal. Mr. M'Glashan shook his head, and
said it was not intended as his official answer,
and that it had better be withdrawn. He
remarked also that he had not been called
upon to give an official explanation, and that
when so called on, his explanation of that part
of the Report would be "the payment at the
South." The letter was accordingly with-
drawn, and the first I saw or heard of it was a
copy given in by Mr. M'Glashan in his answer
before the Select Committee. Had Mr.
M'Glashan publicly made any such statement,
or even held to it privately, I most certainly
would have suspended him, and reported to
the Executive.

9. Q. In reference to your observation on
   Question No. 20 of Mr. M'Glashan's examina-
   tion, you are requested to state why (when
   you had been the means for years past, as you
   have stated, of maintaining the Provincial
   Treasurer in his office by making up his de-
   ficiency) did you not protect the Public Chest
   by issuing instructions for the whole of the
   public monies in his charge being verified
   quarterly by a Board of Survey,—seeing, as
   you remark, that he would be likely to use
   the Road money and Education balance rather
   than allow his deficiencies to be exposed?

A. On several occasions when I assisted
Mr. M'Glashan, I was unable to find the whole
sum required from my own funds, and applied
to Mr. Edward M'Glashan (the two brothers
not being on speaking terms at the time) to
assist me to make up the difference, which I
did, the amount being afterwards refunded by
Mr. John M'Glashan, through me. Mr. E.
M'Glashan, as surety to the Government for
his brother, was very much concerned about
the state of matters revealed by me. The
consequence was that the two brothers got
reconciled; the result, as I understand, being
that (Mr. E. M'Glashan having come into
considerable funds) the Provincial Treasurer's

209

account was put all right. Such was my im-
pression on assuming office. It is possible that
that my impression not been that now stated,
I might have taken the step indicated by the
Auditor-General, with a view to protect the
Public Chest; although, at the same time, my
regard for Mr. M'Glashan, with a very large
and helpless family dependent upon him for
support,—my sense of his zealous and labo-
rious services in Britain towards the interest
of the Province, as the Secretary of the Otago
Association, might have, and probably would
have, prompted me to have protected and
shielded him from ruin, even at a sacrifice of
a strict sense of duty,—the more especially as
I firmly believed that his professions to me of
the most poignant regret at having been so
far led as to tamper with the public money,
were genuine and sincere; so much so, that I
felt assured of these monies being perfectly
safe in his hands for the future. I had not
the slightest doubt when I took office and ap-
pointed Mr. Morris, as my Auditor, that the
balance would be correctly verified at the
Audit. I admit that when prior to the June
Audit Mr. M'Glashan revealed to me the state
of affairs, I ought to have taken action on the
matter. So far I am to blame. My only ex-
cuse is that stated above.

10. Q. On the 11th March, 1860, the Pro-
    vincial Treasurer sent you £600 in cash.
    Respecting this loan I recall to your recollec-
    tion the following facts:—You have stated in
    your letter to the Governor that you had for
    years been finding the means of making up the
    Provincial Treasurer's deficiencies. In the
    month of June you assisted him with a loan
    of £500, for which you took his acceptance.
    For this accommodation you stated to the
    Manager of the Union Bank that you held as
    collateral security for sale belonging to
    the Provincial Treasurer,—thus showing the
    pecuniary difficulties in which the Treasurer
    was placed. The acceptance was discounted
    at the Bank, but was not retired when due.
    It was renewed, and paid on the 11th February,
    four days after maturity. At that date you
    owed the Provincial Treasurer £486 13s. 4d.
    Could you on the 10th March following rea-
    sonably suppose that the Provincial Treasurer,
    under these circumstances could, at a moment's
    notice and at the public offices, lend you £600
    in cash out of his private funds.

But further it is found that, apparently, on
the day on which the money was advanced,
and at a time when he held considerable
balance of Education funds in his hands, your
warrant for £600 for Education purposes was
issued to the Provincial Treasurer.

The whole of these facts are against the
conclusion which you seek to enforce, that
the £600 was advanced from private
funds.

Have you any explanations to offer?

A. I was not aware that the Provincial
Treasurer held a considerable balance, or any
balance at all, of Education funds in his hands
on 10th March, when he applied for £600 on
account. Had I been so aware, the warrant
would not have been given. The Treasurer,
whenever he required money on account of
Education sent a slip of paper into my room
stating that the sum named thereon was re-
quired by him as Treasurer of Education
Board, and, as a matter of course, I invariably
signed the warrant without further inquiry
(as Mr. Logan, my clerk, can testify). The
fact of his having advanced to me a sum on