Untitled

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume I, Issue 13, 26 September 1861, Page 3

To the Editor of the Hawke's Hay Times. Sir, — I beg to enclose a copy of a letter addressed by me to Mr. Stallbrd, on 29th August, and his reply, dated 11th September, both of which I shall feel obliged by your making public. Your most obedient servant, T. H. Fitzgerald. Napier, Sept. 23rd, 1861. Napier, Aug. 29th, 1831. E. W. Stafford, Esq., Auckland. Dear Sir, —I beg to call your attention to a portion of a leading article in the Hawke's Bay Times of to-day, in which you are impressed as a witness to the truth of a statement made during a late debate in the House of Representatives by Dr. Featherston, to the effect that I had avowed myself, when a member of that house, being at the same time Superintendent of the Province of Hawke’s Bay, as “ a menial puppet of the Council,” and as “ having pledged myself to a land jobbing corruption.” As I think there must be some mistake on the part of the reporters in giving what you said, I would ask the favor of a reply at your earliest convenience. Yours truly, T. H. Fitzgerald. Auckland, 11th Septr., 1861. Dear Sir, —In reply to your letter of the 29th ultimo, I beg to state that you were correct in supposing that there was some mistake on the part of the reporter’s in ascribing to me certain words, as used during a speech of Dr. Featherston’s, in the debates on the Bill to repeal the New Provinces Act, which appeared to confirm Dr. Featherston’s statement that you had avowed yourself “ to have been a puppet of the Hawke’s Bay Council, and as pledged to support a land jobbing corruption.” _ I never heard you make such an avowal, either in or out of the House of Representatives. "What I did say, during Dr. Featherston s speech, was to the effect that you had in that. House expressed your disapproval of the mode of election of Superintendents under the New Provinces Act. The reports of the debates and divisions, during the late session, on the Bill for repealing that Act were so incorrect that, on the 13th August, I culled the attention of the House to their incorrectness. You will find this reported in the New Zealander of the 14th, and Southern Cross of the 16th August. I enclose an extract from the latter paper on the subject. My own speech in the debates in question was, for some reason, not reported at all. You are aware of the difficulty of hearing accurately what was said at times in the House of Representatives, especially in the reporter s gallery. This difficulty has been much increased, owing to the enlargement of the room before the late session, and prevented many members from being perfectly heard or understood. Ton are at liberty to make any use you may think fit of this letter. I am, dear sir. Very faithfully yours, E. W. Stafford. T. H. Fitzgerald, Esq., &c., &c., Napier. eetorters’ inaccuracies. Mr. Stafford said, before the house proceeded to the other business on the order paper, lie wished to call their attention to very serious errors in the reports of the IScio Zealander. (Hear, hear.) The general correctness of the reports in the New Zealander they must all gratefully acknowledge, and great credit was due to the reporting staff on that paper for the care and trouble that had been taken by them to give correct reports of the proceedings of the house: but lie must take exception to the last two or three publications, which had been as remarkable for their incorrectness as the previous publications were for their correctness. (J? e ? r ) , more especially alluded to the New Zealander of last Saturday, the 10th, in which several important mistakes are made. He did so more particularly, as in their leading article of that day the attention of the public was called to the report of the debates on a certain bill, as evidencing a change of opinion on the part of some hon. members, those reports being as incorrect as it they had been made so on purpose. (Hear.) He did not say that this had been "dona on purpose ; but he noticed the fact simply because public attention had been called to these reports in the leading article, and certainly the reports of

the debate, as given in the publication in question did support the statement in the leading article that there had been considerable c?i'anges°of opinion on the part of himself and others. In the first place, he found that a very long and able speech, made by the member for the city of Wellington (Dr. Featherston), had been divided between himself and the hon. member for New Plymouth (Mr. C, W. Kichmond). (Hear, and laughter.) Now, he had no desire (and he thought he might also speak for his hon. friend the member for New Plymouth) to take credit for the speeches of the hon. member for Wellington ; and more especially as, on the occasion referred to, that hon. gentleman spoke in opposition to their sentiments, he having made a long attack on the late superintendent and the provincial government of Hawke’s Bay, besides touching on other matters in which he (Mr, Stafford) did not concur. lie, therefore, protested against the attention of the public being called to this misreport as evidence of any change in his opinions in regard to the New Provinces Act. (Hear.) In addition to that, the report, with reference to the division, were as inaccurate as it was possible to make them. (Hear.} He (I r. Stafford) was made to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Cheviot, which he had supported ; and other hon. members also complained ol being made to vote in a contrary way to that in which they actually voted. (Hear.) The fact was, the report was reversed. (Laughter.) What was stated to be a division upon a particular amendment was not any such division. He had been represented in the report as voting for the amendment of the hon member for Omata for suspending the New Provinces Act, against which he had given his' voice, the real fact being that that amendment never went to a division at all but was negatived upon the voices. (Hear). The three divisions on the New Provinces Act Amendment bill were all wrongly reported, the first division being taken on the motion that the bill be now read a second time, which was negatived by 26 to 21, he (Mr. Stafford) having voted in the majority, although this division was given in the JSew Zealander as having been taken on the amendment of the hon. member for Cheviot. In addition to that, the hon. gentleman at the head of the government had also reason to complain of an incorrect report on a most important matter, on which he (Mr. Stafford) had put a question to the lion, gentleman in regard to the Loan Act of last session. (Hear.) He understood the hon. Colonial Secretary’s answer to be directly opposite to what was reported as his reply, to the question as to whether the Union Bank of Australia was to take up the unsubscribed balance of the loan of £150.000, under the act of 1860.

Mr. Fox said lie thought that was so important a misreport that lie had sent a corrected report of his answer to the hon. gentleman’s question to the Xew Zealander but it had not yet appeared.

Mr. Stafford remarked that no publication had since taken place. But the errors were not confined to the 'New Provinces Act, for upon the Audit Bill he was made to support the amendment of the lion, member for the ilutt, against which ho had voted. r i hose were four occasions, of mere than ordinary importance, on which both himself and friends were made to vote exactly contrary to the way in which they did vote. He might also mention that he found on one or tw r o occasions lately, that the speech of one hon. gentleman alono was given, and the remainder of the debate thus summarised, —“ six or seven hon. members also spoke upon the question,” without stating which way they had spoken. lie knew it was impossible to give at length every debate that took place in the house, but he submitted that when one speech was given other speeches in reply should be reported ; and be suggested that for the future it would be better to omit all rather than insert one speech only and omit the rest. Either omit all, or insert all. (Hear and laughter.)