GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 991, 29 August 1877, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Telegbaph.] [pee pbess agency.] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, August 28. The House met at 2.30 p.m. QUESTIONS. Tn reply to Mr Button, Mr McLean said he Government would not be at present usthied in establishing a Post Office at Kokotahi. In reply to Mr Pyke, Major Atkinson said no members of the police had been deprived of the long service pay granted by the Provincial Government of Otago. Those who had not chosen to enlist on fresh terms were given an opportunity to retire on the terms on which they were originally engaged. Replying to Mr Pyke, Major Atkinson said that in the event of any special case of deaf and dumb or blind children, whose parents were unable to pay, being brought under the notice of the Government, arrangements would be made for sending the children to the Victorian Asylum. Replying tu Mr Bees, Mr WJUITAKKit said the Judges were stationed in Wellington under the authority of the Supreme Court Act, and Judge Richmond went to Napier last session by arrangement between the Judges themselves.

In reply to Mr Evans Brown, Mr Keid said the "Government had authorised the expenditure of 10s to 45s per acre in felling timber on thirty acres of land at Patea, ntended for a township. The amount would the first charge against the proceeds of e sale, and under a vote to be taken for ening up unsold Crown lands. LAND AT WAIKOA. Mr Keid laid on the table papers relating to the survey of lands at Wairoa, alluded to by Sir G. Grey on Friday. The reports showed that it was useless, owing to the broken nature and the character of the ground, to survey it in smaller blocks. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. On Mr Whitaker's motion, George Jones was ordered to the bar of the House. He was introduced by the Sergeant-at-Arms. The Spkaker informed him of the reasons for his being required to attend, and asked if he had any explanation to make. Mr Jones rend a statement to the effect that he felt a difficulty, as the House had already declared hhn guilty of a breach of privilege. He would state what was in his mind when publishing the article. He had no feeling against the Attorney-General, but in good faith, in pursuance of his duty as a publicjournalist, and in a desire to end what he had long contended for —-a termination of the system of laud monopoly. He was personally familiar for many years with Native land transactions in Waikato, and had never heard Mr Whitaker's connection with those transactions, especially those of the Turtons, disputed or refuted. On perusing the Native Land Bill his suspicions as to Mr Whitaker's connection with these transactions were increased. He would <|uoto speechesmade in the House on (he Bill i'i justification of this opinion. Mr Teavees asked if this was in order. Mr Sheeuajt taid if the House did not want to be laughed at it should allow Mr Jones to say what he could in justification. II he could show that equally strong language had been used in the House as had been used out of it his offence would be greatly mitigated. The Speaker said he could not interfere. If Mr Jones exceeded reasonable bounds it would be an aggravation of his offence. Mr Jones then proceeded to quote from speeches by Messrs Ballance, Lusk, laiaroa, Bir $. Gre7, and Mx Travere, oa tne Native

Lands Bill. These extracts naturally created a suspicion regarding Mr Whitakcr's motives in pressing on the Bill. A gentleman from Waikato supplied him with particulars which confirmed facts previously known to him, and on this he published the article. He could not with candour pretend to admit that he had, in so publishing what he believed to be true, committed a grave offence. If a journalist believed that a grievous wrong was being committed in the execution of an important public trust, it was his duty to make the facts known. He believed that his statements were correct. It was impossible for him to surrender his convictions, sustained as they were by long experience. He regretted being brought into collision with the House. If the House thought that he had acted with indiscretion, he was prepared to abide its judgment. Mr Jones then withdrew. Mr Whitakek said Mr Jones's explanation was unsatisfactory and, indeed, amounted to an aggravation of the offence. Had Mr Jones apologised, he would have accepted it, but under the circumstances it would be unsatisfactory to pursue the matter further in I that House. It should be tried in a court of law. Either Mr Jones deserved to be in gaol or he (Mr Whitaker) deserved to be turned out of the Hoxise. He moved that Mr Jones's explanation was unsatisfactory and that he be discharged in order that Mr Whitaker might take proceedings against Mr Jones in the Supreme Court for libel. Mr Hislop characterised the action of the Government as cowardly. They had been very bold in calling Mr Jones to the bar. He had come and shown the courage of his opinions and good reason for what he wrote. Now Mr Whitaker wanted to bring him before the jury under the slur of condemnation by the House. He moved as an amendment that Mr Jones be discharged. Mr Hislop referred to statements made by Ministers on a former occasion that this was not an ordinary libel, but on a Minister whose honor was in the keeping of the House. This was true now as then. Mr Jones's charges were no worse against Mr Whitaker than those made by at least two members of the House. Either the House should inquire into the matter or Mr Jones should be discharged without anyinuendo against him. Mr Whitaker said he had worded his motion to show that Mr Jones had not been tried by the House, uot to prejudice the case before a jury. He wished to try the case fairly before the Supreme Court. Mr Joyce thought it would be unprecedented to refer the case to an inferior Court, and to do so would be most unfair to Mr Jones. He might not be able to fight Mr Whitaker in the Supreme Court, bu could meet him fairly before the House or a committee, where the public would pay the expenses. Would the House have given Mr Jones the option of taking the case before another Court ? It would be a piece of tyranny, now that Mr Jones was arraigned here on a serious charge, that Mr Whitaker should be allowed to stop the case and remove it to another Court.

Mr Gisuobnk thought Mr Whitaker's motion very unsatisfactory. The libel was on him as a member of the House, and the House should deal with it. Mr Jones had not apologised for or justified his statements. The House, after further enquiry, should proeecd to punish Mr Jones, or, after the House of Commons precedent, order the Attorncy-G-eneral to prosecute him in a Court of law. He would propose a further amendment in the latter direction.

Mr Sua up asked what power the House had to inflict any punishment ? Mr Tea VERS thought Mr Whitaker's motion and Mr Hislop's amendment both unsatisfactory. He supported Mr Gisborne's proposal. The House should, through the Attorney-General, vindicate its privileges, which were infringed in the person of one of the Ministers.

The Speaker said, in his opinion, a more gross libel had never been committed on any legislature. The charges were of the most specific nature against a member of the Hotise, who was accused of an enormous offence in using his position for personal advantage to the detriment of the inhabitants of the colony, especially the Native race. Four ways of dealing with the case were open. One was to examine the culprit at the bar in Committee of the whole, or to refer the matter to a Select Committee. The third course was, as Mr Gisbornc proposed, to direct the Attorney-General to prosecute in a Court of Law. An inquiry at the bar of the House or in committee woidd scarcely be satisfactory, and if Mr Jones were made the subject of a. State prosecution by the Legislature, public sympathy would certainly be on Mr Jones's side. This would be a grave error. Mr Jones had firmly but respectfully declined to apologise, or explain away his statements. He hail on contrary emphasised them. This being so, Hon. Mr Whitaker had undertaken to prosecute him personally in the ordinary way, and he thought the resolution proposed hy Mr Whitaker a, proper, one, and not calculated to prejudice anyone. It simply sa i c i Greorge Jones fight it out." Then the truth could best be elicited, and evidence would be taken. The words objected to were simply intended to prevent any technical objections being raised to prevent this being done. It was not the case, as stated by Mr Jones, that his case had been already decided by the House. He, as Speaker, had consulted Mr Jones's convenience in every way, and had supplied him with means to come to Wellington. Mr Jones had not been condemned, but simply summoned to appear at the bar to explain. Mr Eees said Mr Jones was not charged with libel which could be tried in a Court of law, but with a breach of privilege—absolutely distinct offences, in no way clashing with each other. Mr Jones was at present charged with an offence against the House, not against Mr Whitaker, and the question was whether the House was satisfied, not whether MrWhitaker was. Either the House must deal with the case or discharge Mr Jones. Mr Whitaker's resolution was calculated to bring the House into contempt in the public mind. If Mr Whitaker wanted to go into a, Court of Law personally, he should have done so without troubling the House. Mr Macandkkw thouglitthc whole position unsatisfactory. Mr Whitaker simply asked the House to shirk its responsibility. 11 should depend on its own privilege, aud not reiegafct; it to the Supreme Court. Mr Fox regretted the tone of MrHislop's remarks, as unbecoming from so inexperienced and young a member. It was an act of clemency on the part of Mr Whitaker to afford Mr Jones an opportunity to come to the bar and express regret at being, as evidently was the case, made a tool of by some unknown person, or to have avowed readiness to defend his statements. He had done neither. The libel was not like the speeches, in that House. Ttiey

were general charges in reference to land, but specific charges against Mr Whitaker, if proved, would render Mr Whitaker unfit to sit in the House, and subject him to impeachment. He never heard a more unsatisfactory statement than Mr JoncVs. It was a childish and unmanly defence, based on mere rumors, probably originated by Mr Jones himself. The House had no means equal to a Court of Law to investigate such a case. He supported Mr Whitakcr's motion. If the Supreme Court found Mr Jones guilty he would really be punished, while, if the House proceeded with the case, he could only be detained in custody till the end of the session, and then be released, defying the House. Mr Button objected to Mr Whitaker's resolution, that it did not deal with the question of privilege. The House was bound to protect its own honor. It could not hand this over to Frederick Whitaker as a private individual, to vindicate before any Court. He objected also to Mr Hislop's proposal, which would be equal to marching up a hill and then down again. It would be unsatisfactory to all parties to try the case before the whole House or a committee. The only proper course was to order the Attorney-General as such to prosecute the case in the Supreme Court. Both parties would then meet on an equal footing; or, if anything, sympathy would be on the side of Jones.

Mr Tole thought Mr Jones had apologised. On the original occasion Mr Whitaker had expressly stated that he would leave the matter in the hands of the House, and not interfere further in it himself. The House should dispose of the question at once. Mr Delatoub said Mr Jones had said, if the House, after full enquiry, decided he was wrong, he would submit to its judgment. If this enquiry were granted Mr Jones would probably be prepared to justify his statement. Member after member had actually condemned a man whom they now proposed to send before another tribunal for trial. The matter was so mixed that it was desirable to adjourn it. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

Major Atkinson opposed the adjournment. He thought the House had taken a wise and moderate course, and now the best thing was to give Mr Jones an opportunity of vindicating himself in a court of law, as he had not taken the opportunity to do so before the House. For the House to order the Attorney-General to prosecute might defeat the ends of justice by creating sympathy for Mr Jones. Dr. Hodgkinson said the case before the House was one of privilege, not libel. Mr Jones not having apologised was still guilty of a breach of privilege, and the House would stultify itself unless it vindicated its own privileges and those of every member. It could not delegate this duty to any private member.

Mr Thomson thought the House had made a great mistake in calling Mr Jones to the bar. It did not know what to do with him. He supported the adjournment. If the case were to be judicially investigated either by the House, a committee, or a Court, the less said on the subject now the better. Mr Mtjei£AY-AynsT;HY thought adjournment would be an injustice to Mr Jones. Mr Wood (Mataiira) thought the House should deal with the question itself. Mr Jones had not yet been asked what evidence he had. Equally strong statements to Mr Jones's had been made in the House by members on both sides. He opposed sending Mr Jones before a Coiirt of Law branded as a libeller. It would be a most unfair course. Mr Stafkoej) said the affair was in a most unsatisfactory condition. The House summoned Jones for a breach of its privileges, and now the House was asked to do nothing because Mr Whitaker chose to take action elsewhere. The House was thus placed in an improper position. What Mr Whitaker proposed was to vindicate his own character, not the privileges of the House. Suppose Mr Whitaker had not been in a pecuniary position to commence such an action. Mr Jones had not apologised, substantiated, or withdrawn the statements. Mr G-isborne's motion was preferable to Mr Whitaker's. To pass the latter would be to admit that the House had made a great mistake in summoning Mr Jones, and it would be laughed at. He would like each member to have a copy of the article and Mr Jones's statement before a decision was come to.

The Si'-KAKKK said he would have the documents printed. Mr Sheimski said if the House had taken more time to consider its action in the first instance, it wordd have avoided the diiliculty and have saved valuable time.

The debate was interrupted by the dinner hour.