THE Grey River Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1872.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1338, 12 November 1872, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1872.

Brief comment has already been made in these columns upon the recently received report of the Parliamentary Committee who made inquiry into circumstances which the name of the member for the Grey Valley was prominently associated, and which wero brought under the notice of the House by the Hon. the Speaker,. Mr Bell. It concluded with the promise that, if possible, we should endeavor to give a resume of tho evidence upon which the report is based, but it did not require many leadings of that evidence to discover that tho promise was one which, for mere clerical considerations, would be "more honored i' the breach than the observance." The evidence of even independent witnesses as to expressions, cr the meaning of expressions, used in conversations described on the one side as casual and meaningless and on the other side as serious and entered upon with a purpose, cannot be very easily summarised without losing much of its true effect. Still less can the testimony of the principals in such cases as that between Mr Harrison and Mr Holt be sufficiently condensed for such columns as ours, without some possible injustice being done to one of the parties, or a very incomplete idea being formed as to the apparent approaches made on one side, and the resentment shown on the other side when the true character of these approaches was discovered, or supposed to be discovered. To properly appreciate the circumstances from beginning to end — as they, arose, as they progressed, and as they concluded — a perusal of the report and evidence in their entirety is essential, or, to illustrate any particular features of political tactics, extracts complete in themselves might be made, and opportunity for doing this may occur at another time. Meantime we , make some short reference to the resolutions which the Committee avowedly came to " upon the evidence, " these resolutions having only hitherto been published in abbreviated telegraphic form, and unaccompanied by any details exhibiting the personnel and the proceedings of the Committee. Looking first at Ihe constitution of the Committee, at the interest which a majority of them took — perhaps, very properly-^-in the purpose of their appointment, and the spirit which apparently dictated some of the questions put during the course of the inquiry, it would by no means have astonished us to have found that thero had been imparted to the resolutions a tone unfavorable to Mr Harrison. The Committee cousistedof eleven members, six of whom were strong supporters of the Stafford Government, one of the six being a Minister, and by that one, Mr Gillies, the majority of the motions were proposed, though all he proposed were not affirmed. To the other members there is due the demerit of • not' being in their places at several of

the sittings, so far as we can see by the records, nor do they seem to have taken any very active part in the inquiry. The first resolution, which was moved by f Mr Gillies, was " That, in the opinion of ' this Committee, no proposals derogatory to the character or position of any member of the House were made by or by authority of Mr Brogden," and this was agreed to without a dissenting division. Mr Gillies went a step further, and a step too far, when he next moved " That the charges made by Mr Harrison against Mr Holt have not been substantiated." On this Mr Fox moved as an amendment, " That, notwithstanding some discrepancies in the evidence of Mr Harrison, the evidence of Mr Holt is not sufficient to satisfy this Committee that the charges made by Mr Harrison were without foundation or substantially untrue ; while Mr Holt's admission, and the evidence of Mr Tribe, go to prove that there were circumstances in the case which justified the inquiry for which the Committee was appointed." Both the amendment and the original resolution were withdrawn by the leave of the Committee, and that which became the resolution of the Committee was a subsequent motion proposed by Mr Audrow : — " That the evidence taken before the Committee, while it raises a suspicion of an unhealthy state of things, is not sufficient to establish proof of violation of the privileges of the House by Mr Holt." All that we learn from the records is that " a discussion ensued thereon," and finally it " passed in the affirmative." The motion conveying an expression of " regret that Mr Harrison should have made such charges, founded on a private conversation," was another of Mr Gillies's propositions, but it was not only not unanimously agreed to by the Committee when proposed, but led to that division to which reference has already been made, aud which, taken when five of the members were absent, resulted as follows : — For the resolution, Messrs Gillies, G. P. Parker, Rolleston, and Sir Cracroft Wilson ; against the resolution, Mr Sheehan and Mr Fox. The absent members of Committee were — Messrs M'Lean, Andrews, O'Rorke, and Pearce. Upon this resolution of the Committee much stress has been laid by those who, in their ignorance, have intense veneration for tho dictum of a Select Committee of the House of Representatives, but the record of this division will probably disillusionise them as to the amount of "re;ret" which has been felt as to Mr Harrison's proceedings. As put by the Wellington correspondent of the Southern Cross, the resolution is of " compai'atively little consideration or. weight," since it was only thus carried, and because " after all, it is, firstly, a | mere matter of opinion, and is dead against the advico of the Speaker himself, whose view of the subiect as to the question of privacy was broadly stated to the House, and generally accepted by it." Following. Mr Gillies's motion, Mr Parker persistently attempted to carry another which abandoned the proper subject of inquiry, and reflected on Mr Harrison's " straightforwardness," but at the first meeting a motion for adjournment was carried against it, and on the second occasion it was " with the consent of tho Committee, withdrawn." These are the dry details of the Committee's proceedings towards the conclusion of their inquiry, and when arriving at the decision to which they came — their " equivocal " decision as we ventured to call it — their " indefinite" decision as it has been called by contemporaries. Putting their report to one side for what it is worth, the evidence may be reserved as a fund to be drawn upon for information and homily when opportunity offers.