Dear Sir, Since Messrs Hendry and Commissiong evidently have missed the point, I repeat again that which has been printed several times elsewhere.

1. The "agreement'' or undertaking to hold further constitutional conferences was given at the 1966 Conference, not in 1979 as mistakenly asserted by Mr.

Commissiong (1979 being the conference Mr. Hendry attended; hence Mr. Hendry's own inability to remember). So, yes, there is indeed an "agreement''. The text of the undertaking has been supplied to the Press before, but here it is again: "An assurance was given that the Secretary of State would not advise the making of any Order in Council to revoke or amend the new Constitution without consulting the Bermuda Government, on the understanding that the Bermuda Government would give reasonable notice of the changes which were proposed to both Houses of the Legislature; and that; if the Secretary of State considered the proposed changes to be of a major nature, he would call another representative conference.'' (Report of the Bermuda Constitutional Conference 1966 Cmnd 3174, para 17) 2. The 1979 conference operated as a matter of law as a repetition of the 1966 undertaking, by virtue of the fact of the 1979 conference having itself been called. Mr. Hendry is searching his memory in vain for words of repetition.

There was an act of repetition. He would do better to consult the law books, if he has any.

3. Whilst I am flattered to be thought "creative'', it was not I who made the assertion that the people of Bermuda have a cause of action against the British based on a legitimate expectation that a conference will be called.

Rather, it was Richard Gordon QC and Anthony Bradley, Esq., England's leading public affairs lawyers. They have issued a 24 page joint opinion confirming Bermudians may have a good case to seek judicial review. If any local lawyer feels up to taking them on, please do.

4. I never said the 1966 undertaking could be directly enforced. I said the failure to follow it exposed the Foreign Secretary to judicial review.

5. Mr. Commissiong is rather naive about the recent FCO visit to Bermuda. It was no more than a dud public relations stunt brought about partly under pressure on the FCO from Lovells, our law firm in London, who have been monitoring events in Bermuda since November last year.

6. The Association is not affiliated with any political party or class of persons, but draws its members from across the board. Its purpose is not to frustrate the legitimate mandate of Government, but to secure due process and avoid the establishment of a bad precedent.

WARREN CABRAL Secretary Association for Due Process & The Constitution Warren Cabral Rolfe Commissiong