The Nelson Evening Mail. MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 1878.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 187, 5 August 1878, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 1878.

Mr. Hursthouse's alleged misconduct in reference to the Taranaki triumphal arch, having been published far and wide, it is only fair to that gentleman that equal publicity should be given to his contradiction of it in the House of Representatives, where, we find from our Wellington exchanges, quite a lively discussion took place on the subject on Thursday last, when Mr Hursthouse moved for the production of the police reporc referring to the attempt to destroy the arch, together with all correspondence thereon. Having stated that on the occasion of the Premier's visit a reception committee was appointed at New Plymouth, who determined on erecting an arch, he went on to say:— On the night prior to the arrival of the Ministerial party an attempt was made to destroy the arch. It was represented that he (Mr Hursthouse), his brother, and the brother of the late Premier, had taken part in the attempt to destroy the arch, but he deaired to give such a report the most flat and entire contradiction. (Hear hear). H e (Mr Hursthouse) did not wish to take any part in the reception of the Ministerial party. He took care to absent himself, and the fact was that he was miles from Taranaki at the time the attempt to destroy the arch was made. He felt very much aggrieved th.at

h j?,, name bee^ h^" l U P to ridicule throughout New Zealand, and even in the Australian colonies, the Ministerial papers having commented on the matter, and **~ whole thing had been - , ; . , ""? for thp * «V H «e . ft political skit - purpose of bringing dlsef ed it bit those who .were hat supported trf the iireseht MlMsfcrJr. A l\tetaVy friend .ojc the fester of -Justice had becn.'^lpw^, to copy tfas reH? r ' S f $ c P Qhce * hd sfe^ " broadcast over the colohy, while those who were aggrieved were refused to be allowed to see the report. The whole affair seemed to have been got up for the simple reason tbat.eertafrt tfersoilg Cliiaiself i.ncUt d^d^, « politically opposed to tEe i ls'6vern i ment now, in qffice. Personally £?.C J «Hurst^ouse)di.d npt 'care-wVio was Premier r Major itkih^n s bt .S'.'r George v? r LT V » It P- a and not men that ho rjpptoCQ or supported. He opposed the measures of the present Government, and had given expression to his views in the House, but because he was a political ppponent of tneirs was no reapoa why the Government should baV'e acted in this matter as they had clone. He now proceeded on his constitutional right of asking that the report previously refused by the Government be laid ou the table, and in all probability those who circulated the report that he (Mr Hursthouse) had taken part in the attempt to pull down the triumphal arch would have to anawer for it in a civil actionMr Sheehan laid the report on the table, stated that Mr Hursthouse was not present at the destruction of the arch, and denied that he had given a copy of the report to a inetary friend of his own. He did not know how it was Obtained^ but there were persistent person belouging to the press, and as far as it was possible for them to get information they would obtain it. No doubt the name of the hon. member was wrongfully included in the list of names, and he had sustained an injury for which he was entitled to some moderate reparation. But there was no necessity to be too thin-skinned about the matter. He (Mr Sheohan) was satisfied in his own mind that the hon. member was not concerned in the attempt to pull down the triumphal arch. The public peace was not endangered by it, and he believed that in another half century the matter would be forgotten. (A laugh).— Mr Brown thought the police officer who made such a mistake as to include the name of one who was not present should be severely reprimanded.— Sir Robert Douglas and Mr Sutton thought the whole tale had been concocted because Mr Hursthouse was a political opponent of the Ministry.— Mr Stout denied this, and stated that it was nothing more than an unintentional mistake on, the part of the police.— Mr Hursthouse, in reply, challenged the Government to take proceedings against him; and said that if it could be shown that he had anything to do with the pulling down of the arch he would be most willing to put in his twelve months in gaol. (Laughter) He must say that he felt very much aggrieved in this matter, and at the action which had been taken by the Government when they were asked by the parties aggrieved to be supplied with a copy of the report.