Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Question of Privilege In House of Commons.

DISMISSAL OF nOOD. . The question of privilege raised under the special report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Hours of Railway Servants has not been understood from the cablegrams on the subject. It appears that John Hood, a stationmaster in the employ of the Cambrian Railway Company, who had given evidence before the Select Committee, was dismissed "in consequence of charges arising out of his evidence." It was stated, during the debate, by Mr Mihain, M.P., a member of the Committee, that Hood 11 had signed a pay sheet in the name of another man, and had given evidence which he knew not to be true in regard to a railway accident." It was for the misconduct, Which he admitted, that he was dismissed, and not for giving evidence damaging to his employers. An apology by the Directors was read tb the House, disclaiming any intention to deter any servant from giving evidence, and expressing unqualified regret for having unintentionally infringed any of the privileges of the House of Commons. Hi 1 Michael Hicks-Beach, as Chairman of the Select Committee, moved a resolution to the effect that the House was of opinion that the Directors had committed a breach of the privileges' of the House in their action towards Hood, anji that they should be called in and admonished by the Speaker.

Many Radical members argued that the apology was not sufficient, and that the House ought to insist upon the reinstatement of Hood. Mr Gladstone declined to support his " supporteas." He unhesitatingly expressed the opinion that if 'the House went further than an admonition by the Speaker, and interfered between the directors". and an em ploye whom the directors did hob believo to be trustworthy, it would incur a tremendous responsibility. Indeed, in bis opinion, the apology made was of itself all that need •be required. The original motion was as we know earned by BQ9 "tp : .7oi (thus leaving the Radicals a ! cotitomptible minority.)

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH18920528.2.19

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, 28 May 1892, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
338

Question of Privilege In House of Commons. Manawatu Herald, 28 May 1892, Page 3

Question of Privilege In House of Commons. Manawatu Herald, 28 May 1892, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert