or unworthy of belief, having in view Mr. Seth's previous record. The only mitigation in this expression of disbelief in my statement is the suggestion that my memory must have been at fault.
In paragraph 4 of the letter under reply, Your Excellency has misinterpreted my use of the expression "side issue". I have not accused Mr. Seth of falsehood as a "side issue". I said that the question whether he has made a false statement or not is a "side issue", the obvious meaning of which is that it is not the primary issue under discussion which is far more important. Nor have I ever requested that this question should be submitted to the Secretary of State. The reference of this question to the Secretary of State was made by Your Excellency: (see paragraph 2 of Your Excellency's letter of 12th March.)
In the same paragraph of the letter under reply Your Excellency declines to communicate my letter to Mr. Seth, because in Your Excellency's view it is not "fitting that the Governor should be made the intermediary of such a communication in such circumstances". My request was made because my letter dealt with a matter which had formed the subject of a communication between the Colonial Secretary and Mr. Seth, and the rules of official correspondence obviously required that my letter