No. 4

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Despatch No. 73 of the
23rd May, reporting that with the unanimous approval of the Executive
Council, and in accordance with the almost unanimous resolutions of the
Legislative Council, you had suspended Mr. S. Basil Humphreys from the
exercise of his office as a member of the latter body in consequence
from the abusive language alleged to have been used by him at a public
meeting held in Victoria.

It is always much to be regretted when language unnecessarily
strong and liable to be misconstrued is used at meetings with reference
to the public men or institutions of a Colony, and Mr. Humphreys
cannot have failed after reflection to perceive that he behaved very
improperly in holding up the Chief Commissioner of Crown lands, and the
Council of which he was a member to the contempt of an excited
assemblage.

On the whole, however I am disposed to think that the apology
tendered by Mr. Humphreys explaining as it did that he intended no
reflection upon the honesty of the Chief Commissioners nor any
disrespect to the Council itself, but merely dissatisfaction at its
non-representative constitution, was such as the Council might have
accepted without any derogation from its dignity. It appears in fact to
me that there is no substantial difference between the apology dictated
by Council and that tendered by Mr. Humphreys except that the former
required Mr. Humphreys to declare that he had not intended to impute any
improper misconduct whatever to the Chief Commissioner, or any one
connected with the Lands and Works office. With regard to this point it
is unnecessary for me to observe that if Mr. Humphreys desired to
express any dissatisfaction with the manner in which the business of that
Department was conducted, the proper course would have been for him to
do so in his place in the Council. As however as he was ready to
declare that he made no charge against the character of the Chief
Commissioner, it was perhaps requiring more than an opponent of the
Government could concede, when he was asked to state that he had no
intention of expressing dissatisfaction with the manner in which that
Gentleman's Department was administered. It is indeed obvious that Mr.
Humphreys believed (I trust quite wrongly that the administration of the
Crown Lands Office was open to censure, and he therefore could not be
expected to express confidence in it.

In making these observations I do not desire to be understood as
justifying in any degree Mr. Humphreys' conduct at the meeting, which I
strongly reprobate, but looking to the length of time during which Mr.
Humphreys would have been under suspension, and hoping that the
Legislative Council may now be prepared to accept an apology which in
their first moments of indignation they deemed inadequate I think that
the requirements of the case would be met if the Resolution of the
Council were recinded [rescinded] upon Mr. Humphreys presenting himself
before the Council and making an apology of the nature of that which he
had previously offered.

It would be very satisfactory to me if both parties could agree in
this [blank] but otherwise I should not be prepared to
withhold my confirmation of a decision recommended by so large a
majority of the Council.