Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4488, 7 August 1875, Page 2

Sib George Grey raised a question of privilege yesterday, in regard to the letter of the Hon. Mr. Bowen to the Chief Justice published in our last issue. He read the following words from the letter, and denied that he had ever made the statement 'attributed to him : “ Sir, —A statement has been made by Sir George Grey, the member for Auckland City West, in his place in Parliament, that you have given an opinion as to.the power of the General Assembly to abolish the provinces different from that given by you as AttorneyGeneral on the Ist December, 1874, _ and laid on the table of the House this session.” Sir George then repeated his former remarks, to the effect that Mr. AttorneyGeneral Prendergast had given an opinion in which he defined the word “abolish” as meaning to “ alter the boundaries,” citing the case of the original province of Canterbury. He thought it was most unsafe as weH as unfair for a Minister to put words into a member’s mouth which ho never uttered, and send them forth to the country as true. Mr, Bowen said the impression left upon his mind, and on the minds of other members, was that expressed in his letter to the Chief Justice. Even Mr. Fitzherhert was of the same opinion, as he had expressed a wish to have the two opinions printed in parallel columns. A long discussion ensued, in which Mr. Fitzherbert, and other members, took part. During the debate Mr. Buckie suggested that the original notes of the Hansard reporter should be read, as the proof might have been corrected, and certain words omitted or altered. This, however, was inadmissible; and the matter terminated with an expression of regret by Mr. Bowen. We have taken pains, however, to verify the Hansard report by independent evidence. In our issue of the 29th July, the following transcript from our shorthand writer’s notes appeared in the Nuw Zealand Timbs:— “Sir George Grey said the present Chief

Justice gave an opinion on this subject a few years since, in which he said the meaning of the words to abolish a province was simply to alter its boundaries. He would ask the Government would they have the kindness to produce that document also?—Mr. Fitzherbert asked the Ministry would they be good enough to have the document to which the member for City West referred, printed alongside (in parallel columns) the present opinion, upon which Ministers so implicitly and credulously relied.” No one had access to this report, and it is an exact copy of the shorthand notes, wherefore we must conclude that Mr. Bowen and other gentlemen were mistaken. This is not a question of memory but of fact, as Mr. Luckie put it ; and we regret that Mr. Bowen, before writing to the Chief Justice, did not take the precaution of referring to the Hansard report, or ascertaining from Sir George Grey what he really meant. This course would have saved a good deal of time, and avoided the personal feeling which has been evoked by the occurrence.

A correspondent, telegraphing fromGrahamstown last night, says;—“Mr. Adam Porter has left here for Wellington, with a to Parliament, purporting to come from the inhabitants of the Thames. The petition was adopted by a fluke, just at the close of a public meeting called for the purpose Of adopting a memorial to Government regarding the land for settlement. As the resolution adopting the petition was carried as the people were leaving, the Mayor and the chairman were to sign it. The former refused, but the latter (Dr. Kilgour) affixed his signature. Porter subsequently got a number of persons to sign the petition, and has gone South with it himself. The petition refers to Ohinemuri and the subject of miners’ rights, and is directed at James Mackay, in the political interests of a party. The petition is not from the inhabitants of the Thames goldfields. At the meeting at which it was adopted, the Mayor and others refused to entertain it, as the meeting had been called for another purpose.” If we mistake not, Sir George Grey presented some such petition as that described in the foregoing words, in the House of Representatives yesterday.