SEDDON-TAYLOR CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1399, 9 March 1905, Page 3

SEDDON-TAYLOR CASE.

f MB JOBLIN IN REPLY TO MB [. CLAYTON. (T& the-Editor Gisborne Times.) •r.Sir, —Your issue of the 3rd inst reached ae this evening containing Mr Clayton’s letter. It is difficult to deal with, sore difficult- than- to pick'out fat sheep com a flock of brokon-moathed calls ; but e shall have soma attention, (a) He avers hat I have “ missed the point ”in his first attalf-, but he does not tell yon what his oint was; (b) then he charges me with lisquotation, but fairs to indicate what ae misquotation was ; (c) why he conidernd cho settlement of the dispute “ a appy one ”; (d) he refers to the “ Bill of lights.” On each of these points I will ay a few words, (a) There were many □ints in his first letter, but the chief one ?as, the solicitation of pecuniary aid for <lr Taylor on the baseless plea that liberty f speech had been and was being im- ■ erilled in this colony, (b) The charge of nisquotation—this ! entirely deny. The jnlyyj|rounds l ean conceive for the oharge s this : On opening the Times, containing my first letter, in the presence of your

■ own correspondent,” in the third para;raph I observed Mr Clayton’s quoted yoras, 11 Is it not to the public interest that he competence or incompetence-of any ifficial or public-man should be proved by tie past publio career ?” I'pointed out mnpediately to your correspondent that of ,the two first words had been fjsSf ’bed, and “Is it not ” became “It is

the error to the comT*’,',. urf bnt it may have resultod from .ii* dvertence on my part. I felt some vogSet, as it detracted from the force of toy reasoning, and in proportion strengthened Mr Clayton. His letter will he found in the Times of February 21st. I replied in the Times of March Ist. By reference, interested can verify, my statement. Nest comes o—that is, why Mr Clayton considered the settlement of the dispute “a happy one?” Because, he tolls us, Captain Seddon’s legal action “,£703 not successful.” Here, then, I have misrepresented Mr Clayton, but unwittingly. Nine out of ten people hereabouts ascribe the “ happy settlement ” to other icau3es ; to wit, Ist, because each litigant •limi manfully alleged that he had, under iofluooca of misconception and mis- ! pprobonaion, erred, and acted in a way ■ /bich he dow regretted ; 2nd, because the. v legation had been terminated and tbo ] ptorruptions to the resumption of ordii.jary. follow foeliog removed. MrUlayton's f! logiefal position in the ma ter is as failai cions as was that of bis arithmetic in ' his ■ first letter. As tho case waa removed from ;• tho court, no legal decision wa3 recorded. *-Had. such a, decision been pronounced,

und«ot no circumstances could the settlement finally reached have besn a “ happy V one,” since one at least of the litigants j must have greatly sufiored. (d) The “ Bill o£ Bights” was introduced by 'Mr Clayton ■j in first letter, and he described it as t nest in importance to Magna Charfca, and eulogised the freedom of speech at that period prevailing, what “our fathers fought 'and bled for,” contrasting it with “the 1 insidious attempts to stifle criticism and freeSnm of speech now prevailing. As - an indication that at that period . limitations to such freedom existed, I mentioned the circumstance that Nonconformists could not lawfully oddre33 a congregation excoediog five in numbor. Mr Clayton deems tho remark “ irrelevant,” but I demur to bis tuling. In bis first letter he said: “ Legislators are not by their greatnes- debarred from being human, and whSj'ra more natural than that.a discussion or criticism originating in the House - should bo discussed in its precincts ?” Certainly discussion nnder such, circnm- .: stances would bo reasonable enough, if thereby no established rule were violated. The quotation purporting to be from the Bill of Bights that the freedom of speech ; and debate and proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament is | not* frro from ambiguity, which hinges | upon the definition of the sense attaching to the word “ Parliament ” as hore used. Until this is made clear, the significance of.MJie quoted term ‘•'precincts” cannot •\ well be gauged. The quiet assumption |i that a man in becoming a representative ji* becomss great is amnsing, for one who is If; menta’ly and morally little will not become lesxjso by becoming a, number of either <; House or Counoil, but his deficiencies will v in such places be much more conspicuous. Oonlrariwiso, when a man endowed with the attributes of greatness reaches these I aHitpcls 3 he cannot thereby be inherently 7 belittled, however scurrilously assailed by the envious and unf; scrupulous. Illustrations to this effect abound in the history of the Now Zealand Parliament, yielding due consideration tbilhe existence of Bellamy’s and its con(jjSJjity to the congregations of legislators, 4 iimight with more reason be anticipated that "soma expansion of the legislator’s physical rather than that of his mental t or .moral configuration might ensue. Xwill now terminate this lobter by saying i l } that the motives he by inuendo ascribes tc I me are as dirty as tboy are mendacious. I I have been 44 years in Now Zealand ft'r during that period I have nevei sought, directly or indirectly, any persona favor from Government, Couoty Council or Boad Board, and never before had sucl imputation£anegcd.-I Nuhakahf u ‘ "V-lt 3rd, 1905.