that the charge is not normally established by proof of charge one- and I submit that charge has not been proved-
accused in the second place of wilful and habitual disobedience of orders in neglecting, "despite of repeated warnings" to send in the monthly Returns showing state of Public works.
I have already answered this charge. The returns were not sent in, it is true, but they were not among regular Departmental forms, and were ordered solely for His Excellency's information. They were never called for after his departure and my conduct had, at least, the sanction, tacitly, of the Executive. I would specially note the words of the charge- "despite of repeated warnings".
The Committee of enquiry, Extract B, find expressly that the Lieutenant Governor did not call on me to comply with the order of His Excellency. I disregarded this point.
The third charge, in so far as it is supposed to be bound up with charge two, has already been answered but as I