IN THE HOUSE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1578, 23 October 1912, Page 8

IN THE HOUSE.

THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT. WARM DISCUSSION. MOTION OF CHNSURE CARRIED. Mr. .T. 3. Hine (Stratford) Chairman of tho Public Accounts Committee presented the amended report of the Public Ac-counts-Committee. The text of the report is as follows:— "I havo been directed to report that' the Public Accounts Committee has reconsidered tho report presented on tho 21st inst. and referred back to it, and has directed 1110 to further report that the Right Hon. Sir J. G. Ward again refused to withdraw the words that it was 'a downright pieco of impertinence.' " Ho moved that it lie upon tho table of the House, together with tho official record of the evidence taken. Ho stated that tho notes of evidenco were uncorrected proofs. He had offered to show them to Sir Joseph Ward, but he had said he did not want to seo them. Sir Joseph Ward (Awarua) said ho would like to inform tho House what had taken place that morning. Tho report of the committee had been referred back to the committee by the order of tho House, but tho chairman had refused to allow that report to be discussed. Ho (Sir Joseph Ward) had. raised a question of procedure, and tho chairman had ruled him out of order.. Tho. chairman made a request that he should withdraw the words, and this lie declined to do. He had always understood that a direction of the House that the report of a committee which was referred back for reconsideration, ought to receive consideration. He did not. know whether anything of the kind had occurred previously in th» history of this Parliament. Before the matter referred back was discussed the chairman insisted upon the words being withdrawn. Different members of tho committee were also ruled out of order, even when they sought to discuss mistakes in the minutes of the proceedings of the committee. Every memlipr of the committee who attempted to speak was "ruled with a rod of iron"— ruled out of order. He had never known of a committee in which so much was dpno by the chairman to prevent freedom of utterance. The:,rccord of tho proceedings was also at fault, and it should have been the duty of tho chairman to see that thero was] absolute exactitude in a case of this sort. He said ho had no personal qunrreU.with the chairman of tho committee; lie had acted entirely as a public lhan.]' He was sorry fhat no'attempt had been made to.sotlie this difference, about the occurrenco of which nobody could be more sorry than he was himself. But the attitude of the chairman had been hostile, and the opposite of conciliatory, .and calculated to cause more friction than existed before. He asked the Speaker "whether it was in the power of the chairman of.a committee, when a report was T reforred back to it'by the House, to prevent members .of tho committee from giving..effect to.what tho . House' . directed. >. The ■ direction of the House was - that ' the committee should reconsider the matter, and the action'of the chairman prevented tho committee from giving any consideration at all to the report. ' That report had r.ot bean considered yet. ' Only One Consideration. Mr. Speaker: It is not in my province or duty to decide or rule upon-rr-llr. Allen intervened with the remark: I understand that you ore asked to rule upon a point of order, as to whether, tho chairman allowed thd report :to be considered. I would like to put-before'yoii this consideration: that thero is only one consideration that can be put before the committee, whether the lion, gentleman should withdraw tho words or not.

Mr. Isitt ksked what was the purpose of sending back tho report to the committee

Mr. Allen: To-give the lion, gcntlaman an opportunity of withdrawing. -Mr. Hiuc: Every time I ruled I pointed out that the committee had power to challenge my ruling, and'send the matter back to the House. Not one- member took advantage ot this opportunity. Mr..Speaker: It is tho invariable practice when (he House is in Committee or in tho conduct of its business by a Select Committee for tho chairman to decide all points that may bo raised. Tho Speaker; has no power to givo a ruling on the action of tho chairman.unless that committee, by resolution, asks the House to do so. As far os I can understand from what.has been said by the member for Awarua and the chdirnv.ui of the committee, mo such resolution was come to. Therefore it is no part of my duty to give an opinion on tho ruling ot. the chairman.' The' ruling of tho chairman is final and conclusive. "An Extraordinary Position." Sir Joseph Ward (Awarua) said that he interpreted the action, of tho. chairman in refusing to allow tho resolution of tho House to come before the committee for 'consideration was a defiance of the order ot the House. He wished to drrect attention to the fact that there had been no 'evidence before tho House in reference, to the matter causing tho trouble. A most extraordinary procedure had been followed in presenting the. report without evidence. It was true that the chairman had in tho House quoted from an extract of the evidence, but this was admitted to be incomplete, and it did not contain the statement to which he took exception. This proof of evidence I 'had never been submitted to him for perusal. He had not the remotest idea of what was co'ntained in his evidence, which he understood was to bo presented to'- Parliament in a special report. . It was an extraordinary position that.ho was in, and it was without precedent jit his experience. Alleged evidence would bo presented shortly for incorporation in "Hansard," which might, for all ho know, contain any number of mistakes. And this' in face of the fact that the official shorthand recorder had admitted that his notes were not absolutely complete.

Mr. Herdman: What has this to do with it? The question is whether ycu used the words or not.

Sir Joseph Ward: Fortunately, you are not my judge. He went on to say that the interjection was an unfair presentation of tho case. Other aspects of tho matter must como up later oh. More members of the committee had been, called to order in the proceedings of the committee that morning than he had ever known to be called to order on any committee. No doubt tho members of the committee had been more often called to order that morning than at any time in their previous experience of public life. Mr. Hanan on "Party Spirit." Mr. Hanan contended that the proceedings at the committee that morning were not such as would justify the House in adopting the report now before it. It had seemed to him that day that the committee was denied that freedom of speech and freedom to deal with Lee report in the exhaustive way which was desired by tho House when it sent the report back. The chairman's demand that Sir Joseph Ward should withdraw his remark before tho committee considered the report from the House was rot in accordance with British fair play. Surely, Sir Joseph Ward was entitled to contend that he had received some provocation. The House must consider what gave riso to the remark complained of. He invited tho Prime Minister, Minister for Finance, Mr. Herries, and others to vote as they did when a claim such as he was now advancing was put forward on behalf of Captain Russell by Mr. Hcobie M'Kcnzip.

Mr. Malcolm: Was it affirmed by the House?

Mr. Hanan: You can look it up for yourself. I liavo not had time. He continued to quote from "Hansard" on the subject of the debate lie had referred to, when Captain Russell (then Leader of the Opposition) was charged with an offence agaiust the rules of tho House. The ease had not been properly considered by the committee that morning, and freedom of speech had been denied. Mr. Craigie, Mr. Myers, and "your humble servant" had been successively gagged and silenced. People outside knew that the cominitteo was a party committee, that the temper of party was there, that tlm chairman was put (hero with the party spirit within) him. When this matter was discussed in the House, the chairman (Mr. Hine) used the word "diabolical," and said that there would be a ."ding-dong gu." Consideration had to be given to the tone in which a remark was addre.-sed to a man. What had Uk"n lilac that, day mi th" tvirt of the Chairman was in striking contrast to

what usually took place on the part of a, Chairman of a Committee. Until the House ascertained what took place that, day, it could not adopt the report. stead of holding out the ohvo brancM to Sir Jo=eph Ward, .Mr. Hine had takoniup; an attitude that was independent, indiK ferent, and arrogant. ~. • Mr. J. Craigie (Timaru) said that- ho had gone to the Committee) in tho hopo of pouring oil on troubled waters, but had not succeeded. He considered thatjif tho Chairman of the Committeo had boon more conciliatory another report might have been presented to the House. Mr. Hine Upheld. The Hon. Jas. Allen said that tho Committee had done its level best to settlo the matter. When tho report came to the House lie was himself very anxious that the matter might be referred back to the Committee so that a solution of tho difficulty might bo found if possible. An Opposition member: A little tact would have done it. Mr. Mien: There was a lack of (act on both sides, not only on one side. Ho went on to describe the discussion which had taken place at tho Committee that morning about tho accuracy or otherwise of the minutes. He was aware that some members on tho other side of tho House had a very strong feeling against tho member for Stratford. Mr. Craigie: I have no feeling against Mr. Allen: I do not say the member for Timaru has, but other members on that side of the House have. Opposition members: It is not so. Mr. Allen: It is all very well to say that it is not so; I know that it is so. Wnv is it so '■> I know the member for Stratford. " I know that he is a very strong man in many ways, and has done some strong things. I believe that the member for Stratford kept himself in check upon that Committee in a most remarkable wav, and that admission I know has been made by a member of the Committee. It has been admitted by a member on that side of the House that the member for Stratford has kept himself in control in a remarkable way on the Committee. Air. Allen continued that the chairman, after correcting the minutes, signed them and then called upon the member for Awarua to withdraw the words, ho had u*ed: "A downright pieco of impertinence." The member'for Awarua refused. Mr. Hanan bad said that the member for Stratford should have said that he dirt not intend any words he had spoken to Sir' Joseph Ward to be taken offensively. What use would have been made ot it it Mr. Hine had done so? Mr. Fisher: Like asking tho Speaker to Mr. isitt: People would havo thought \ moro highly of him. ' j Mr. Mien: • I know a bit more about, politics than that. The honourable' gentleman should havo withdrawn tho words, and then the member for Stratford, if he had anything to say, could have said it. The Right Thing to Do. But, ho continued, it could not be upheld for a moment that it was a right thing for the right honourable gentleman to refuse to withdraw the words. If the chairman did anything wrong it was open to any memberof the Committee to challenge the ruling of tho chairman, but no ouo exercised that right. Now, right or wrong, the chairman must be upheld until this question was settled, and then afterwards the Committeo and the House might decide whether the chairman was right or wrong. He did not think the other side were treating tho chairman quite fairly. Possibly they had some object in view; it was indeed perfectly plain to him that there was an object in directing an attack—an unfair attack--on the chairman. Mr. Hine had been scrupulously fair, and he had 'restrained himself admirably in the face of'provocation. There had been complaint about the evidence, but in. his opinion neither the Committeo nor' tho House had any right to refer to the evidence. The words which were at fault were admitted, and tho only question to be considered was , whether the honourable gentleman would withdraw them. Ho hoped tho right honourable, gentleman would even yet withdraw the words, for the sako of tho House, of the ; committee, and of every other committee in'tho House. It would be conserving his own dignity and the dignity of the House to do so. To withdraw now. would not bo tho act of a went man; it. would rather bo tho act of a man of . strong character. . , : ; Mr. Russell: Why shouldn't tho chairman withdraw? Mr; Allen's reply was an ejaculation of disgust. Unfairness Alleged. Mr. J. Colvin (Buller) said tho press reports of the meetings of the committeo showed that the chairman had shown lack of tact, and that his rule had been very high-handed. Sir Joseph Ward was before the committeo practically on his trial, and he did not receive fair, treatment. Mr. Allen: His honour was not attacked. Mr. Colvin said that different men must bo allowed to be, their-own judges as to what affected their honour.' ...'..'• ■,' Mr. A. H. Hindruarsh (Wellington South) said it seemed to ; him that the member : for Awarua was before the committeo at one moment an expert witness, and at the next moment an ordinary witness as to facts. He was asked to express his opinion, and ho could not give a. direct answer. Ho could riot refuse to answer either, because it would bo published to the world that Sir Joseph Ward could not give an opinion on this matter, and his reputation would suffer. In order to answer the question adequately, he had to give a qualified opinion, and he was not allowed to do that. Ho could have followed no other course than ho did. A question was put which was not pertinent, and therefore it must have been impertinent. (Laughter.) Sir Joseph Ward was placed by the chairman's ruling in a very unfair position. The ruling of the chairman was not pertinent, therefore it was impertinent. (Laughter.) "Under tho same circumstances, ho would say that a chairman had been guilty not only of impertinence, but of Gratuitous impertinence. It might be the duty of a man to speak vigorously in defence of his reputation. He said to tho Government party that it did not politically pay to do things savouring of injustice, and things were being done that savoured of injustice. Ho suggested that each of the parties to the disputo should give way. A UniversalOesiro. Mr. W. C. Buchanan (Wairarapa) said that all in the House wore at one in a desiro to sco this dispute ended. There was only one point on which the member for Awarua could havo a shadow of justification for using tho words he had used. The word "straight" had been dwelt upon, as conveying inferentially that he had not given his evidence honestly and straightly. He had understood that Sir Joseph Ward had insisted upon answering a question relating to the finances in October or November by referring to the end of the year. . Thereupon the chairman of the committee, perhaps not using the very best language that could bo used, made use of the word "straight."

Government members: Ho did not. Mr. Russell: Ho said ho did. Mr. Hine: I did not, Mr. Russell: I have it here in The Dominion that he said it.

Mr. Buchanan: I may bo quite in error. I am not positive as to whether the sequence was as I have put it to the House, but I submit to Sir Joseph Ward that he ought not to take tho word "straight" in an offensive sense. The use of that word gave no justification for the use of tho unparliamentary words used by Sir J. Ward. TJie provocation alleged by men on the other sido of the Houso was no provocation. He was endeavouring to take a judicial view of the situation. He hoped that tho member for Awarua would withdraw tho words. A settlement of tho matter would bo lo the honour of himself and of the House.

Mr. Russell quoted from the latter part of The Dominion report of the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee on Friday last, a statement by the chairman (then reviewing his own previous utterance) that he had asked Sir J-.seph Ward to give a straight answer. Mr. Lee: How is the original question reported in that paper. Mr. Russell: So far aj the original question is concerned the word straight does not occur.

Government members: Ah! and laughtor.

Mr. Busscll said that the member for Stratford should know best what his own statement was. It was clear that there had been irritation, and that as the result of that irritation Sir Joseph Ward made a remark which was nut of order. If the hoii. mi'inber for Stratford was prepared to say that ho regretted that what h» iwii! had' t»»n Htkon as « reflection by Sir JosMia Ward* '

, Government members: No! Put it the .other way. Mr. Russell said that if his suggestion were, adopted the incident would bo closed in a creditable manner.

Mr. G. Witty (Kiecarton) said it was a great pity tho "Committee could not settle the dill'ercnco. He understood that Sir Joseph Ward was willing to withdraw if the Chairman did likewise, and he (Mr. Witt-v) was sorrv the Chairman had not met him half-way. Jf the Chairman had been tactful, and had had a littlo more experience, the troublo would never have occurred. And it was not fair for the Minister for Finance to plead with the member for Awarua to withdraw; ho should rather have pleaded with the other side. Sir Joseph Ward hnd (held the highest, positions he could hold—. Mr. Buick: He ought to have more sense.

Mr. Witty took exception to tho remark, and "excused Sir Joseph Ward on the ground that ho had had provocation. He trusted the matter would be settled amioably "in a fair and square way." Ho would vote against a motion condemning Sir Joseph Ward if such were moved. Tho Incident Analysed. Mr. F. P. Leo (Oamaru), a membei of the Committee, said that a great deal of the matter debated in tho Houso was beside tho question. The House had no right to investigate what happened in tho Committee room, but it had a right to inquire whether Sir Joseph Ward was justified in making tho remark lie did. Sir Joseph Ward was a member of the Committee, but ho elected to become, and lie becamo for the nonce, a witness before the Committee, and as such had to obey the Chairman. Sir Joseph Ward took no exception to the questions. It appeared that the Chairman interjected a remark: "Answer tho question, or refuse to answer." Tho Chairman was evidently of opinion that tho question had not then been answered. Even assuming that the word "straight" was used, it was not offensive. But 'all the records of shorthand reporters seemed to show that the word "straight" was not used before tho unparliamentary expression used by Sir Joseph Ward. It was used afterwards, and he contended that as it.was used it was an apt and perfectly proper expression. This was the position then: Tho'chairman interjected tho remark, "Answer the question or refuse to answer it." Was this a just ground for using such an expression as the member for Awarua had used? Even if he felt resentful, had felt that-the interjection was not a right one, he had his constitutional remedy. He could have had the words taken down and reported to the House. But he bad chosen a wrong course. Tho question was whether the House was going to allow a witness to use offensive expressions to a chairman becauso he disapproves of the chairman s method of expressing himself. If the Houso did that it would close the door to all order in committees. It was absolutely necessary that the Tights of tho chairman in' committee'should be uphold. One did not complain about a member making a slip; anyone was likely to make a slip. One was at a loss to understand a member refusing to do what was done in the House repeatedly, and done without loss of dignity-to withdraw the. remarks. Mr. Isltt's-Ideas. • Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christcliurch North], professed to admire Mr. Lee's legal mind and calm temperament, but he wished there had not been so much of Shylock about him—"l . want my bond. If . this incident were to have a disastrous termination, it would be becauso ■ certain members persisted in magnifying red-tape, and sacrificing common sense. He accused tho Minister for Finance and-other members of'the Government party, of bias, cunscipus or unconscious. He was charitable enough to say, however, that ho believed the Minister for..Finance was. struggling so far as his disposition would allow him, to be fair. One must take into consideration the relative positions of tho two men. (Cries of "Oh, oh.") Mr. Wilson: Stick up for the weak chap. Mr. Isitt said that if the chairman had been examined by the .Right Honourable Sir Joseph "Ward,, and Sir Joseph Ward had interpolated in that fashion' it \yould, have been bad enough, but when a man;' who,. whatever his excellence might be, • ha<l"' notHho'kimwledge 'of 'financial affairs; that"the'"ii'i'emb'e , r'"fo'r' Awarlia had. "But when a mere novice in politics interpolated a remark to a man who was m-ac-tically on his trial, in that offensive fashion, it was only natural that tho honourable momber spoken to should resent it. Mr. Isitt expressed regret at tho amount of time that had been wasted over this matter. Although the member for Awarua was tho aggrieved party ho (Mr. Isitt) would bo delighted if Sir Joseph Ward got np and said that he would withdraw. On any ground other that that of red tape tho man who spoko first would Jib considered tho man in tho wrong, "but' if tlreir man won't withdraw, I hope our man will," concluded Mr. Isitt., . • ' ' ■ Concentrated Irritation. Mr. E. Newman (liangitikei) said that, tho lion, member had just made one of those speeches which for concentrated irritation were hard to beat.' . Mr. Isitt: Wherein? ' ' Mr. Newman:-Does the hon. gentleman deny Jlr. Isitt: Absolutely. Mr. Newman: Does the hon. gentleman deny that he reflected on tho Minister for Finance? Mr. Isit: Absolutely, I deny it. Mr. Newman: Then look up your Hansard proof. The Hon. E. H. Rhodes (to Mr. Isitt): You were sneering at our sido all the time. Mr. Newman continued that Mr. Isitt had spoken from hearsay about mntters of which he had no first-hand knowledge. Mr. Newman went on to urge Sir Joseph I Ward to withdraw the words which Mr. Speaker had declared to bo'unparliamentary. By doing so, ho would be preserving his own dignity and the dignity of the House. Mr. J. V. Brown (Napier) said that the House had been "at it" in this discussion for about five and three-quarter hours, and the longer it went on tho worso it seemed to get. He asked the member for Stratford to say whether lio had used the expression straight in ' an offensive way. Mr. Hine said that he would take his opportunity when he replied. Sir. Brown said that ho would say no more. Ho was sure that when the member for Stratford came to reply he would say that he had not used the expression offensively. An Interesting Time. Dr. A. K. Newman (Wellington East) said that in this debate, begun on the previous day, and continued on that day, all sorts of abuso had been cast at tho member for Stratford in accordance with tho precept: "No case, aluso the other side. At tho committee that morning they had had a most interesting time. The member for Auckland East—members would remember the speech he had made on the previous evening—got up (at the committee meeting) and said that the member for Stratford was one of the fairest chairmen he lmd.cvor met. Mr. Hanan had spoken of party being brought into tho matter. "I saw a party, too," continued Dr. Newman. "Besides himself thoro were the members for Awartia nnd Auckland East. The member for Timaru kept an impartial attitude, but there was a happy family or party of three. The rest of us were iiot u party, and wore anxious to do'.right." (Opposition laughter.) It next appeared, Dr. Newman continued, that the pleasant manner of the party towards the chairman was intended to smooth him over and open an easy way of retreat lo the member for Awarua. Ho had thought this matter over in cold blood, and believed that Parliamentary Government would be impossible if such words as had been used by tho member j for Awarua wore permitted. The membur for Stratford had dono nothing wrong. "The Olive Branch." Mr. A. M. Myers (Auckland East) said he rose lo reply to the member for Wellington East. He would like to clear up the statement that at the committee meeting that morning he had mado out the member for Stratford to bo a fair chairman. He had endeavoured to carry out Vhe wish- of the House, and ho held out the olivo branch. But he had hardly got on his legs when he was stopped peremptorily. He agreed that the words used by the member for Awarua. were unparliamentary, but he agreed also with tho member for Christcliurch North, that the measure •nf provocation ought to be taken into account. The member tor Awarua had been accused of wrongfully squandering public money all over the country; he was practically on his trial, and lie bid net been tactfully treated by thr ~ member foi- Stratford.

Mr. Allen: How was ho not tactful? Mr. Myers: The way. ho said it. Ho thought, continued Mr. Myers, Mr. Hirie would suffer no loss of dignity by saying no did not mean his remark offensively. Mr Alien: What about the first step? Lot the member for Awarua withdrew first.

Mr. Myers did not agree that this was the proper courso to pursue. Ho appealed to thn Leader of the House to move ii resolution that no further action bo taken. All the circumstances had been discussed, and no one's dignity need suffer by that resolution.

Mr. G. W. Forbes (Huninui) said the rase was tho fruit of tho parly system. Mr. Hine ought not to have Ikcii mado chairman of a Public Accounts Committee, and for him to "put in his oar" lietwecn the Minister for Finance and tho ox-l'nmo Minister waß "an act of unprovoked rudeness."

Mr. Allen: You havo not Tight to say that. '

ci .1 Forl)es that the member for Stratford was not a proper person to bo chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and the Prime Minister knew it. Mr. Massey: I don't. You should not say that. Mr. Forbes repeated that tho member for Stratford was not a proper person to bo chairman, and that ho had been guilty of rudeness. Tho Chairman Defended. , Mr. G. V Pearoo (Patca) said that he had had a longer experience of chairmanship than the member for Hurunui. Ho had sat under tho member for Stratford, and considered him a verv fair and just chairman'." His manner might be rather abrupt, but ho (Mr. Pearce) was certainly of opinion that it was the duty of a chairman to get answers from witnesses. He could not see that in this case there had been any rudeness prior to the statement by tho member lor Awarua. Ho would.be surprised if anyone would voto on party lines on a question of this sort. (Opposition laughter.) If words such as Sir Joseph Ward had used .wero to bo allowed, Parliament would give place to chnos.

Mr. Isitt: You will be surprised then. Mr. Pearce: Yes, probably, by the member for Christchureh North, from tho way ho talks. Concluding, Mr. Poarc© 'said that tho reason Mr. Hino had called members to order'at the meeting that morning was that they were casting reflections upon tho chairman; Not ono of tl|ese members would havo attempted anything of tho kind in'the House. Ho quite upheld tho rulings of tho member lor Stratford in e'verv case. ...

Mi*. 11. G." "Ell'(Christdmrch South) quoted from llansnrd with intent to showthat'prominent members of the Government party had-changed front in regard to episodes like that under review. Mr. H. M'Callum (Wairau) said tho member for Stratford was being let off very easily for having flouted tho instruction of tho Houso by his actions at the committee that morning. The matter had been referred back in order that it might be discussed again, and ho had refused to allow it to be discussed again. The member for Awarua had only done' himself justice in vehemontly denying an accusation of either prevaricating or lying. He hoped that Sir Joseph" Ward would not withdraw anything, and that the members of tho Liberal party would support him. The Minister for Finance must take the blame for what he had brought about. Every truo Liberal would stand by Sir Joseph Ward, and vote with him on this occasion. There were times when loyalty was of. more importance than any paltry rules. 'Mr. Buick asked .whether-tho hon. gentleman was entitled- to refer to the Standing Orders of the House. > A Matter of Taste, .Mr. Speaker: I cannot call the' hon. member to-order. It is a.matter of taste. .. -, Mr. A-. Harris (Waiteniata) suggested that the member for Awarua and tho .member for Stratford should go out to Bellamy's and have a cup of tea together. Probably they would come back with a better opinion of one another, and the storm in a teacup would bo ended. If this matter, cqme to a.vote—he sincere;lyihope k d!i - f.' ;^vpjjldiiibt- 11 Jip' would vote' to 'uphold' tho'ruling'of Mr. Speaker. -' - TII9 .jH,ojn ißshcr said that '$1! iipo'll 3lr. Hine which was entirely unwarranted, and to,' far as he knew was unprecedented. The member for Hurunni and the member for Christchurch North had contended that Sir Joseph Ward's seniority entitled.him to more respect than other members. As a fact, this was not Mr. Hine's first Parliament. Ho did not remember that tho member for Hurunui had raised any objection when new members were mado chairmen of committees. Mr. Forbes: Name one. Mr. Fisher: Mr. Craigio. He becamo chairman of a committee a fortnight or three weeks after he entered tho House. Tho member for Christchurch South and other members had referred to the Captain Knssell incident. What happened on that occasion was'that the party on the other side of the House divided tho House, mid censured" one of tho mildest and-most.inoffensive members who had ever entered it'.'' There' was no getting away from the fact that'tho ruling of tho chair had been : questioned. Ho had nove'r heard it suggested'in any similar case that the chair'should apologise. The only way out in this case was for Sir Joseph' Ward to withdra\v his words. Mr. Isitt- denied that ho had assigned any superiority 1 to Sir Joseph Ward. ■ All that he had said was' that it would have been a bad thing for a senior to address a junior in this way, and that it was a worso thing for a junior to so address a senior. Mr. W. D. S. Macdonald (Bay of Plenty) said that ho was one of those who believed that tho whole difficulty now existing was duo to the injudicious interrogation of the member, for Stratford. Ho know of no other case in which a. chairman had assumed the 1 functions of counsel for the prosecution. Tho inquiry for which tho committee was engaged had been ordered with an idea of casting discredit upon.- Sir Joseph Ward. Mr. Massey. That is not so. Mr. Macdonald: Why was the inquiry ordered?

Mr. Massey: At the request of 6omo of your friends on that side. Mr, Macdonald said it seemed to him that the discussion had availed not at all to settle the matter.in dispute. Mr. H. Atmoro (Nelson) said the question had been approached largely from the party standpoint, which precluded the question being dealt with on its merits. Th« Government had committed tho initial blunder in putting in a position requiring tho most tactful man, tho most tactless man in the House. Ho considered that the member for Awarua was doing tho right thing, and no disgrace would attach to him if a vote of censure were passed. The member for Stratford had an angular method of thinking, and an angular method of speaking,' so that he provoked more-antagonism than any other member in the House. Mr. Hine in Reply. Mr. J. B. Hine, in reply, said ho hoped anything he might say would not bo considered by the other sido as an irritant. There had. been au attempt to shift the error from where it belonged. Tho member for Awarua had disobeyed tho ruling of the Choir, and this could not bo tolerated by tho House. If, for example, Lc himself were to refuse to olwy Mr Speaker's order to withdraw ho would assuredly ba brought to book. It was a mis-stateiuent to say thnt tho report as sent back was not considered by the committee. But before anything was done ho insisted that tho member for Awarua must withdraw tho remark. (Laughter from the Opposition benches.) Mr. Kll: That settles it. Mr. Hine said thatit did settle tho business. The fact that Sir Joseph Ward was virtually on his trial was no justification for the words. Nothing in his manner could bo considered offensive An hon. member: Did you mean it offensively? Mr. Hine: I say there was nothing in my conduct that could bo considered offensive.

Mr. Myers: Did you mean it offensive-

lyh • Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! Mr. Hine, continuing, said the honourable gentlemen on the committed had their remedy by moving a motion in committee referring the case to the House, but no such resolution was even suggested. He had given hon. members every opportunity to challenge his ruling, but they had not done so, because they know and ho know that his ruling was right. ■ Mr. Hanan: No.

Mr. Mine: Why did you not challenge

Concluding, Mr. Hine repeated that members of the committee who hod ciiti.cised his rulings in the House had avoided

taking the true test by taking the opinion of tho Speaker. He invited Sir Joseph AVard to do the honourable thing. If he did so he (Mr. Hine) would not be. backward in doing the proper thing. Sir J. Ward said that the hon. gentleman had suggested four times that ho should do the honourable thing. What did he mean by that? He contended that if tho hon. gentleman thought he had been offensive ho did not know, what' tho term meant.