PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5127, 29 August 1877, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, August 28. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at the usual hour. REPORTS AND PETITIONS. 'Petitions were presented by the Hons. Col. Brett and Mr. Nurse, several "reports were laid on the table by the Hon. Dr. Pollen, and the Hon. Col. Whitmore brought up the report o£ the select committee on the Wellington City Reserves Act 1872 Amendment Act. NOTICES OF MOTION. Several notices of motion for next sitting day were given by the Hons. Messrs. Hart, Nurse, Pharazyn, Major Richmond, and Sir E. D. Bell. MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE. The Hon. Mr. G. R. JOHNSON obtained leave to move without notice that a message be sent to the House of Representatives asking permission for Mr. Karaitiana Takamoana to attend and give evidence before the select committee of the Legislative Council on public petitions.—The motion was carried. QUESTIONS. In reply to the Hon. Mr. Russell the Hon. Dr. Pollen said that the bon. gentleman would find the information he was asking for relative to the Waipawa County Council in the New Zealand Gazette of Bth December last. The original number was in error. MOTIONS. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN asked for and obtained leave to introduce an Act to amend the Native Reserves Act, 1873.—The Bill was then read a first time, ordered to be printed, and its second reading fixed for Thursday next. The Hon. Mr. NURSE moved, and it was carried, —That the copies of correspondence between the County Council of Wallace and the Commissioner of Crown Lunds, Southland, with reference to certain reserves in the Jacob’s River Hundreds, be laid on the table of the Council. ORDERS OP THE DAY. Several orders of the day were discharged from the order paper to be brought forward again at future dates. LYTTELTON PUBLIC DOMAINS BILL. This Bill passed its second reading, and, on the motion of the Hon. Mr. Buckley, was refereed to the Waste Lands Committee. The Council then (at 3.10 p.m.) on the motion of the Hou. Dr. Pollen, adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. . Tuesday, August 28. The Speaker took the chair at halfpast two o’clock. PETITIONS. A number of petitions were presented to the House and received. WANGANUI GAS BILL. This Bill passed the second reading. NOTICES OP MOTION. Mr. MAOANDREW gave notice that he would move that the name of Mr. Reid be added to the Central Otago Railway Committee. Several other notices of motion were laid upon the table. QUESTIONS. In reply to Mr. Swanson, as to what steps the Government intend to take for giving effect to the report of the Petitions Committee, 1876, on the petition of Messrs. Small and Barlow ? The Hon. Mr. BOWEN stated that the Government were satisfied that Messrs. Small and Barlow were entitled to their expenses, but nothing further. In reply to Mr. Rees, the Hon. Major Atkinson stated he had transmitted to the Agent-General a telegram having reference to the late Financial Statement, which would be laid on the’table of the House. In reply to the following questions;—(l.) Whether the Government are aware that certain officers of the Otago Constabulary have been deprived of the long-service pay granted to them by the Provincial Council of that province ? (2.) Whether such deprivation of pay has been made with the sanction and concurrence of the Government ? (3.) Whether the Government will place on the Estimates a sum sufficient to continue such long-service pay to the officers concerned, including' arrears ! now owing ? ■ The Hon. Major ATKINSON stated that he understood the officers were not deprived of long-service pay.- Their period of service terminated, and they re-enlisted under new regulations. Mr. PYEB stated ,that he would move that a sum be placed upon the Estimates- to meet the question. To a question of Mr. J. E. Brown, —If it he true that the Government have promised to fell the timber on 250 acres of laud at Patea, for the purpose of laying off and selling the land as town lots?—The Hon. Mr. Reid replied in the affirmative, and stated that certain expense had been incurred, and that it would be registered as a first charge against the land. The Hon. Mr. REID laid, upon the table correspondence relative to the survey of lands in the vicinity of the Wairoa. He read an extract from the survey report showing that, from the natural features of the country, the land was not of such a quality as would promote settlement by being cut up into small blocks, desired by the motion of the lion, member for the Thames. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. In pursuance-of resolution passed by the House, Mr. George Jones, printer and publisher of the Oamaru Evening Mail, appeared at the bar bf the House. The SPEAKER said that Mr. George Jones was required to attend at the bar of the House, for having'published in the Oamaru Evening Mail of the 13th August, 1877, a certain article which had been, declared by a motion of the House to be-a breach of privilege. If Mr. Jones had anything to say in reply to that charge the House was prepared to hear him. Mr. Jones read the following statement Mr. Speaker,—,Sir,— In appearing before the bar of this honorable House, charged with having violated a privilege which I understand is meant to protect its members from unjustifiable attack, 1 feel some difficulty in deciding ns to my procedure, your honorable House having already dete mined that I am guilty. As, however, I conceive—and I hope that I may not be wrong—that the extent of my offence in this, as in ordinary oases ef libel, depends, Ist, upon the truth of the matter; and, 2nd, upon the motives of the person committing the offence, I have determined, by the leave of tins honorable House, to state the circumstances which led to the publication of the article. At the outset permit me to s'ate that it is difficult for any ordinary person to discern the fine line that separates legitimate criticism of the action of members of Parliament from what constitutes a breach of privilege, and I therefore hope that this honorable House will take this circumstance into consideration in dealing with my case. I understand .that ray offence consists in attributing to the Hon. tile Attorney-General personal motives in his action in reference to the Native Land Bill, and I shall, therefore, with your permission, as concisely as possible, state what weighed in my mind at the time I published the article. I have no personal feeling against the Hon. the Attorney-General, whom I scarcely know; and I published the article, not from want of the respect that is justly due to this honorable House, but from a sense of my duty as a newspaper proprietor, and with a strong feeling against what I Have for several years viewed as a great evil—the land monopolies of the North Island. I was also actuated by a desire to, in my small way, contribute to the proper government of the country in which my parents suffered the hardships of the early settlers of this district; in which I was born, and in which I hope to see my family grow up. I did not write at random and without what I conceived to be reliable data. I resided in the Waikato District for nearly three years, having established the Waikato Times; and during that period I had most favorable opportunities of gleaning information on the land question. Large numbers of persons of ’moderate capital, desirous of becoming settlers, visited that district In quest of land, but they were unsuccessful; the universally expressed reason being that the land was either in the hands of monopolists, who, looking forward to its future value, asked fancy prices for it, or ft was locked up in a transition state between native and European ownership. It was common rumor that the Hon. the AttorneyGeneral was Interested in certain land transactions in the vicinity of the Waikato District; and as these rumors remained nneontradicted, I, in common with many others, conceived that they were true. Indeed, up to the time of the publication of the article in question, I had never heard tile hon. gentleman’s connection with such transactions disputed, and I thought it indisputable until I read the report of this breach of privilege case. From the first day that I arrived in the Waikato District to the present time I have taken considerable Interest in the native land question, which has, to my mind, been invested more or less in mystery, both unnecessary, and damaging to the best interests of the

colony ; and I could of my own knowledge relate many occurrences which caused me to view with distrust the policy pursued towards the natives, especially by the persons whose names rumor has always associated with that of the Attorney-General in large land purchases. I therefore, previous to obtaining a copy of the Native Land Bill, had strong feelings on the native land question, and when I had studied the Bill my ■suspicions could not but be aroused. I at first criticised Us provisions only, and refrained from personal comment: but when, sir, the Hon. the AttorneyGeneral was almost the i nly one who was found to support the Bill, and it met with such strong and universal opposition in this House on account of the facilities for the acquirement of large blocks of land which it would confer upon speculators, I could not help partaking of the feeling of dislike existing in this honorable House towards the measure. Sir, I will ask your permission to be allowed to quote a few passages from speeches of honorable mem-, bers on this question, in order to show that even in this honorable House the Native Land 818, and those whom it would most benefit if it became law, wore denounced in language almost as strong as any used in the article in question. “Will anyone tell me that a person with small means coming out from England can go into the market and compete for land—that he will fathom all the trickery and chicanery which we know is necessary In order to acquire native land? Will anyone tell me that the small settler can acquire land under this Bill? ■I say that the whole history of the colony shows this, and no one can deny it, that as against the settler of large means—who can employ different means in the way of bribery—the small settler has no chance in the world. This is the universal opinion. Now we find North Island and South Island capitalists at the present moment engaged, as far as they possibly can in preventing the settlement of the west coast of’the North Island: they are acquiring thousands of acres of land in the Murimoto Plains. Will anyone tell me that this is in the interest of settlement, or that under a proper Act this could have been allowed to take place? I have been over that land, and I know that it is at the present moment nearly the only available land in that part of the island fit for settlement. This is the kind of work which has been carried on under the Native Land Act of 1873. The enormous speculators and capitalists employ a great number of native agents, and thus debar the men of lesser means from a fair chance of acquiring any land whatever, ” “ It appears to me that this is a capitalists’ Bill; it is a Bill to enable the native lands of New Zesland to pass Into the hands of a lauded aristocracy ; and I can conceive no worse policy that could be introduced into a country situated as this is than a policy of that kind.” •’ This Bill is called The Native Land Court Bill. I propose to call it another land Bill to take away the land from the Maoris—that is, to plunder them of their land. I have always been a supporter of the Government during previous sessions, but I have never seen such a Bill as this prepared, having effect upon the natives.”' “ If we think that this attempt to make away with the native lands is improper—lf honorable members believe, as X do, that this Native Laud Court Bill is meant to hand over the native lands to rings, to companies—to rob the people ofNew Zealand, both European and native, of that which they ought to have for the benefit of private individuals. If we sincerely entertain a conviction of that kind, we have a right also to determine as to the course we should pursue.” I will conclude these quotations by three extracts from the speeches of Mr. Travers, who says,— ‘ ‘ This Act would have a tendency to create a pauper race of natives, and to compel them to congregate round the head, as it were, of disaffection in the King country, and there to become a danger to the country in consequence of their pauperism. They would look at the land for which they had received cighteenpence or two shillings an acre, and they would threaten the country unless justice were done to them. I do feel with reference to legislation of this kind, that it is fraught with danger; and I cannot say how anxious I feel, as a settler, in regard to this matter. It has a tendency of a dangerous character, and it appears to me to favor speculators, although my hon. friend the Attorney-General has expressed his belief that it does not. That honorable gentleman knows perfectly well what is necessary." Again : “But we have that one monstrous fact before us—a monstrous fact in connection with the colonisation of this country—that 112 people, scarcely forty more persons than are engaged in the work of legislatien in this Chamber, are owners of an extent of laud which is something like a tenth or twelfth of the whole area of the islands of New Zealand.” The hon. member for Wellington City also remarks in speaking of the late Sir Donald McLean, — ’ “ In a little time—or. to paraphrase words of Shakspere, ‘ ere the shoes were old with which they followed his poor body to the grave’—we find all his policy abandoned, all his efforts to bring the legislation of this colony into a condition in which harmony would reign between the races, scattered to the winds for the sake of bringing in a measure the effect of which will he to flood the North Island with landsharks and sharpers, and bring about a wholesale confiscation of the lauds of the Natives—not for any wrong they have done, but a confiscation to be promoted by the coffers of banks and men of large means, who will employ unscmpulous agents, ready to trade upon ■ the weakness of the natives, and reduce them to poverty. If carried out to its ultimate result, such a policy must bring about a condition of things disastrous to the best interests of the country.” Now, sir, such expressions as these would very naturally cause one to wonder what possible motive the hon. gentleman could have in pressing so strenuously such a measure upon the House, and concerning which there seemed to be so strong and so unanimously adverse an opinion. At about this time—the time when the Native Laud Bill debate was at its height—a gentleman from Waikato, resident in the South, who cannot possibly be interested in tlio most remote degree in land purchasing-, and whose information I had every reason to believe was thoroughly reliable, because it corroborated what I had already beard expressed by others, supplied me with certain particulars, and, taking these particulars in connection with what I already • knew of ray own personal knowledge, I published the article contained in the Oamaru Mail of the 13th instant. • Sir, allow me to state that, although I full}- recognise the awkward positiou in which I am now placed in having been declared to have committed an offence against this honorable House, X cannot with any candor—taking my own-knowledge of the matter, corroborated in substmee by the information I received from the person to whom I have alluded, and with the speeches of hon. members, and the universal , denunciation. of the colonial Press before me—pretend to admit that I have comraittd a grave offence in .publishing the article in the Oamaru Mail. I then thought, and I now think, that if a journalist sincerely believes a serious wrong is being done to the colony through the abuse of a great trust, and if the information lie has at his disposal appears to bo so authentic as to closely resemble fact, it is his duty, . through the columns of his paper, to make it known, and that speedily, where the necessity for so doing is urgent. When I published the article 1 believed the statements contained therein to be correct; and, without wishing to bo disrespectful to anyone, this honorable House cannot hut see that it is impossible for a man to at once surrender bis convictions, when, as in my case, they are brought about by the experience of years. Sir, X have only to repeat that I am exceedingly sorry that, in' executing what I considered to be ray duty, I have been brought into collision with this House; and should this honorable House, in its wisdom;’and on due inquiry, conclude that I have acted with indiscretion, I am prepared to submit to its judgment. The Hon. Mr. WHITAKER said that the House must, surely be of the opinion that the explanation offered by Mr. Jones was exceedingly unsatisfactory. At all events it was to him (Mr. Whitaker). So far from anything in the way of an apology being offered, Mr. Jones had aggravated the remarks contained in the article he had published. Such being the case, the question that presented itself was, what should be the next course to pursue. Proceedings could be taken either in the House or in the Courts of Law. It would be very unsatisfactory for the House to go on with the question now raised by Mr. Jones. A select committee appointed to enquire, into the matter might last until the end of the session, and be neither satisfactory to him nor to Mr. Jones. It appeared to him (Mr. Whitaker) that the only proper course to adopt now T was for Mr. Jones to be discharged from custody, and he (Mr. Whitaker) would have proceedings instituted against him in the Supreme Court. That would allow both parties every facility for collecting evidence, and the whole question could be there disposed of. This was the only satisfactory course that appeared to his (Mr. Whitaker’s) mind under the circumstances. Had Mr. J ones when he came to the bar of the House apologised for what he had published, no such alternative as the Courts of Law would be resorted to. He (Mr. Whitaker) would then have continued the case no further. As it now stood either Mr. Jones deserved to be on the hill there (alluding to the gaol), or he (Mr. Whitaker) was unworthy of being a member of that House. The case could be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court. He moved to the following effect, —That Mr. George Jones having appeared at the bar of the House and made the statement he did, he be discharged, with the view of allowing proceedings to be taken against him for an alleged libel published in the Oamaru Evening Mail of August 13, 1877. Mr. HISLOP protested against the action of hon. members. It appeared that because Mr. Jones did not retract the statements he had published, the bon. Attorney-General wisbedto have the matter brought before a jury. He thought the motion put forward by the Attorney-General was neither creditable to him as the Attorney-General of the present Government nor as a member of the Bar. He thought Mr. Jones should be discharged by the House without any innuendo cast upon him such as that contained in the latter portion of the motion of the hon. the Attorney-General.- He would therefore move as an amendment that all the words after “ discharged” be struck out of the motion. The Hon. Mr. WHITAKER-wished to say a few words in explanation. The reason that he inserted the latter part of the motion was in order to have placed on record in the House

that Mr. George Jones had not been tried by the House, as it might be said hereafter that Mr. Jones was brought before the House and tried, which might debar him (Mr. Whitaker) from taking further action. _ ' Mr. JOYCE said he would be exceedingly sorry if the House, after having taken the case in hand, should dismiss it in the way proposed. He thought that in trying the present question of privilege it was being.tried before the highest tribunal in the colony. To relegate it to' a lower Court would be unprecedented. In common fairness to Mr. Jones it would not be just to refer the case from Parliament to the Supreme Court. Nor might he (Mr. Jones) be prepared to incur the pecuniary expense qt a lawsuit. .By having the question adjudicated upon by the Parliament both sides would have their evidence obtained at the public expense. It would be entirely a one-sided arrangement if the Attorney-General was permitted the option of referring the matter to the Court. What would the House say if Mr. Jones, after having been tried, said, “I’m not satisfied with the decision of the Parliament. I demand to be allowed to get my case tried in the Supreme Court.” Mr. Jones would not be accorded that opportunity. It was absolute tyranny to remove the investigation of the case to another tribunal. He apprehended that, under the circumstances, if Mr. J ones was discharged by the Hovise, it would debar further action elsewhere. If not, the Parliament of Hew Zealand was not what they had been led to suppose it to be, the highest Court in the colony/ The Hon. Mr. GISBORNE thought the motion of the hon. the Attorney-General very unsatisfactory. Mr. J ones was summoned by the House to give an explanation or defence of an alleged libel. He made a statement, but in no way justified his action, or in any ’ way apologised. He (Mr. Gisborne) then read an extract showing that in other cases of offences committed against the honor and conduct of the House the Attorney-General had been ordered to prosecute the offenders according to law. In offences not strictly concerning the House the Attorney-General was instructed to prosecute, and the practice of the House of Commons was substantially the same. He contended that in the case of a gross breach of privilege being committed, it was the duty of the House to adjudicate upon the offence and award fitting punishment, or direct the Attor-ney-General to prosecute the offender according to law. He would therefore move, as an amendment, that the Attorney-General be directed to proceed against Mr. George Jones in the Supreme Court by action for libel. Mr. SHARP wished to know what power the House had to inflict punishment in the event of finding Mr. Jones, guilty of the breach •of privilege for which he appeared before the bar of the House. i

Mr. TRAYERS disagreed with the motion of the Hon. the Attorney-General’and also with the original amendment. The only course he thought the House could follow and maintain its own dignity was to adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Totara. It was not with any partizan spirit that; this matter had been brought before the House. ' The SPEAKER said he intended addressing the House, and would express bis opinion upon what he considered the grossest libel ever published against any Ministry. - It contained specific charges, naming an individual member of that House, naming him by his office, naming him by name, alleging offences he had committed, enormous in extent. The, article indicated the very topography of the land in question, and summed up the whole by stating that he (Mr. Whitaker) had used in a corrupt way the powers of his high office of Attorney-General; that he had tried in that House to inflict upon the country a law that was intended to promote his own personal aggrandisement. The charges themselves were of a most specified character, and it now became the question how was it proposed to deal with the matter. There were two ways which under corresponding circumstances had been adopted. One by examining the person brought before the bar of the House by putting questions in order to elicit the truth, or to refer the matter to a select committee. The other course, indicated by an hon. member who suggested that the Attorney-General .should prosecute the offender, was also sometimes followed. He (the Speaker) 1 /proposed to give his opinion as to the course the House had best adopt in order to vindicate itself. The course of appointing a select committee was no doubt one not unfrequently .adopted. With reference to the course proposed of protecting the honor of the House by directing the hon. the Attorney-General to institute proceedings for libel in the Supreme Court, that was open to very grave objections. He thought that such a course would serve to incline public opinion to sympathise with Mr. Jones, inasmuch as the English feeling of fairplay would naturally operate upon what might appear the weaker side, and perhaps interfere with the carriage of justice. That he thought would be a grave error. But, on the other hand, was anything attained by summoning Mr. Jones to appear at the bar of the House. He bad not only replied in very respectful terms, but he had most firmly declined to explain away or retract the statements he had made. On the contrary, he had emphasised them in as complete a manner as he possibly could. Here, said Sir W. Fitzherbert, he came to the proposal of the hon. the Attorney-General and the amendment thereto. The Attorney-General had proposed to take upon himself the prosecution of Mr. Jones. The Attorney-General, in the motion before the House, introduced words that did not seem to him \the Speaker) relevant, in order to prevent any technical objection whereby the Hon. Mr. Whitaker might be nonsuited in an inferior Court. He thought that Mr. George Jones and the Hon. Frederick Whitaker should fight the matter out themselves. He was therefore clearly of the opinion that the course proposed in the motion was one in every way most desirable and most likely to obtain the ends of justice. With regard to the statement made by Mr. Jones, that he was already condemned by the House, he (the Speaker) would state that every consideration was shown to him. When the House issued the order for Mr. Jones’ appearance at the bar ha (the Speaker) took care that all possiblo courtesy should be shown to Mr. Jones. That consideration was extended so far as to free him from incurring any expense in the way of travelling. Since his arrival the same attention towards Mr. Jones had been continued. The House adjudged Mr. Jones guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House. He appeared, and was asked for his defence. Under all the circumstances, it could not be said that Mr. Jones had been prejudged by the Court that summoned him to appear. Mr. BEES contended that Mr. Jones was summoned to the bar of the House to answer, not the charge of libel, but for having committed a breach of the privileges of the House. What the House had to deal with was whether the explanation given by Mr. Jones was satisfactory to the House, and not whether the explanation given was satisfactory to a single member. The House should instruct Mr. Whitaker to prosecute Mr. Jones. The House must either take the burden upon its own shoulders or wash its hands of the matter altogether. Any defence set up by Mr. Jones could not affect subsequent action in a Supreme Court.

Mr. MAOANDREW thought the position of affairs very unsatisfactory. He considered that the House itself should deal with the question of breach of privilege raised. The Hon. Mr.,FOX felt a certain amount of diffidence with reference to the course 'he ought to take on the present occasion. There was no doubt the question as it then stood before the House was most unsatisfactory. There was no doubt of that. The hon, member for Auckland City East was at a loss to understand why the author of this libel should be brought to the bar of the House if the House was not prepared to go to legitimate limits. It was an act of clemency on the part of the Attorney-General to afford Mr. Jones an opportunity of apologising in a manly and gentlemanly way to the House, and express his regret. The question was what to be done with Mr. J ones now that the House had him in their possession. He was worse than •a white elephant. What was the character of the libel ? It was not merely strong languageused of hon. members in that House with

regard to land sharking, or of any action with respect to the Native Rand Court, It was a deliberate story brought up in chapter and verse detailing alleged acts of the Hon. the Attorney-General, which, if true, would place him in the highest degree of criminality. Such, indeed, was the character of the libel, in general terms it charged Mr. Whitaker with, in former times giving encoux-agement to land sharking in its most extended form. It stated deliberately that the Attorney-General was the prospective purchaser of 300,000 acres of land, and that to facilitate his coming into that estate he (the Hon. Attorney-General) introduced the late Native Land Bill. He (Mr. Fox) never heard of a more baseless, audacious justification than that put forward by Mr. Jones,. Mr, Jones said that some years when living in the . Waikato, “ the air was full of rumors." We know what rumors are circulated in small communities. He (Mr. Fox) referred to a French writer, who, criticising the sporting, habits of the English, said that they, when they rise of a morning, say “ Let’s go out and kill something. It was much the same with country editors, who finding the time hanging heavily on their hands, would say, “Let’s go out and libel somebody. Haven’t you heard so and so ? Whitaker has been engaged in great land transactions at the Thames or somewhere else. Rumored that he is in negotiation for 300,000 acres at Poverty Bay.” This would quite suffice for the rumor, and would serve perhaps for a rumor that a country editor himself might have originated at Alexandra, or somewhere else. He (Mr. Fox) did not think there was any other course to be pursued than appealing to a Court of Law. He preferred the course suggested by the Hon. Mr. Whitaker. Mr. BUTTON said the House having decl ired the writer of a certain article guilty of a breach of privilege, the House therefore must deal with Mr. Jones, or send him to a tribunal that would try him. The House itself, he thought, must deal with the case. There were two courses that might be followed, having been adopted by Parliament on former occasions. : How was this case to be taken before a Court of Law ? The course proposed by the hon, member for Totara seemed the best mode to be adopted by the House. He was opposed to both the motion and original amendment, and thought the House could not do better than support the amendment of the hon. member for Totara.

Mr. HISLOP thought that the question should be disposed of by the House. Mr. DE Li AUTO OR did not-see how the case could now be submitted to a Court of Law after the remarks that had fallen from the Speaker. Mr. HODGKINSON was of the opinion that if the Attorney-General intended prosecuting Mr. Jones he should have fixed upon that course before, and not have the question of privilege raised at all. Mr. THOMSON said that there were five different courses suggested for the House to act upon. There was the motion of the hon. the Attorney-General,-the amendment proposed by the Hon. Mr. Gisborne, also a suggestion that the matter should be relegated to a select committee or a committee of the whole House, His own opinion was that it was a case that could be very well adjourned. Mr. MURRAY-AYNSLEY rose and said that to adjourn the debate would be an act of injustice to Mr. Jones, who was now a prisoner in .the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. WOOD thought that Mr. Jones should have a further opportunity of furnishing an explanation to the House, if he (Mx Jones) desired so to do. The Hon. Mr. STAFFORD said the whole question was in a most unsatisfactory position. The House having decided that its privileges were invaded demanded the presence of the' person so. offending. Mr.. Jones appeared at the bar of the House, and the statement he made there was absolutely an aggravation of the charge for which he had been summoned, as there was not a single word of apology Gian attempt to withdraw a syllable. - An attempt at justification was endeavored. But now that Mr. Jones had appeared at the bar of the House in due course, the- House turned round and practically said we have nothing further to do with you. The House might just as well admit that it had made a very great mistake in pursuing the course it had with regard to Mr. Jones. He (Mr. Stafford) was not prepared to vote for the motion of the Hon. Mr. Whitaker or the amendment of the hon. member for Waitaki. The suggestion of the hon, member for Totara, or that of the hon; mera T ber for Clutha, if followed, would be more ia accordance with the dignity of the House. He thought it was desirable that before the House should come to any conclusion upon the question it should have before it Mr. Joaesl statement in print. The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS said in two or three hours the necessary printing could be done. Mr. SHRIM3KI supported the adjournment of the debate. The House adjourned at 5.20. On the House’resuming at half-past seven, the Speaker intimated that Mr. Jones’ explanation was in the hands of the printer, and would be printed within half an hour ; and on the motion of the Hon. Major Atkinson, the House adjourned till 8 o’clock, in order that members might be provided with copies of the explanation. At a few minutes past 8 o’clock the > House resumed, and the Speaker stated the motion for adjournment. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN hoped that the debate would not be adjourned, as in the interests of that representative Chamber it was necessary that a decision should be immediately arrived at. He agreed with the Attor-ney-General that the matter should be decided not by the House or a select committee, but that it should be relegated to the Supreme Court. Mr. MAOANDREW said the House required time for consideration, members having only just been placed in possession of Mr. Jones’ statement. Mr. SHEEHAN, referring to Mr. Bowen’s expressed anxiety as to the charge hanging over Mr. Jones' head, said that gentleman was pretty comfortable. The House was a little while ago thirsting for Mr. Jones, and now they had got him they did not know apparently what to do with him. As to the merits of the case, he submitted that if Mr. Jones were to be discharged it should be unconditionally and without comment by the House. If the House meant to take action they should not go outside the House, and Mr. Whitaxer could take action in the Supreme Court for the vindication of his character, and the two inquiries could proceed concurrently. He advocated that the matter should be referred to a select committee of the House, by whom Mr. Whitaker would receive as much justice as he could possibly expect to obtain from a Court of Law. He wished to clear himself of any imputations of aiding and abetting Mr, Jones, who he believed had got hold of the wrong end of the stick ; and he believed firmly that the idea was equally groundless—that the libel applied to the Hon. Mr. Whitaker's sou. But it was a fact that certain speculators had been negotiating for the acquirement of certain land in the Waikato, and that those negotiations were not completed owing to the murder of a European by the natives. Reverting again to the immediate question before the House, he said Mr. Whitaker might if he chose take the case- to a Court of Law; but at the same time he should, if opportunity offered, move that the question be referred to a select committee of the House. Mr. f&’OUT remarked that his prediction when first speaking on the question of privilege had been verified, for those members who were most anxious to have Mr. Jones brought before the bar of the House were the most anxious to get rid of him under existing circumstances. There were only two courses open to the House—either Mr. Jones'should be at once discharged, or the question should be referred to a select committee, as had been suggested by the hon member for Rodney. The question and amendment were then put. The amendment was lost on the voices. The Hon. Mr. FOX thought the amendment of the hon. member for Totora would have the effect of prejudicing the cause of the Attorney-General by creating a feeling of

sympathy for Mr. Jones, who might be considered to occupy the position of a persecuted individual,' :Oh the other hand, i ie were simply discharged the effect might ■ e equally prejudicial to the Attorney-General. Therefore he would move an amendment which he thought would not be open to either objection, namely,—That after the word discharged ” the following words be added : “ But the House does not desire to take any further proceedings in the matter, in order that it may not affect the position of either party in the ordinary Courts of Law, should the Attorney-General desire to take legal proceedings.” , , .. The Hon. Mr. GISBORNE objected to the addition of the words suggested by the hon. member for Wanganui, believing as he did that the House should either discharge-the prisoner without comment. or proceed to vindicate its own privileges. He believed further that the Attorney-General would have a better opportunity of obtaining complete justice at the hands of a jury of his own countrymen than by any other means. Should, however, the prisoner not be discharged unconditionally there was, as suggested by Mr. Stout, only one other course open to them —to appoint a committee of the House to enquire into the matter. The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS pointed out the absence of any doubt as to the libellous nature of the statements contained in the article which appeared in the Oamani Mail, and/submitted that as Mr. Jones must be aware of the fact he should have made a complete withdrawal of every statement contained in the article. Such being the case he thought it was the duty of the House to at once to inflict upon the prisoner some punishment. ~ , Mr. JOYCE said the House would be shirking its duty did it send the question for settlement to the Supreme Court. He argued that the matter should be referred to a select committee. Mr. W. WOOD drew the attention of Mr. Reynolds to the fact that Mr. Jones, being in custody, had no opportunity of withdrawing his, statement.

Mr. BUNNY would refer the matter to a select committee, whereby they would discover the individual v,- ho bad given all the information upon which the libel was founded. Mr. TRAVERS pointed to the fact that the whole of those statements had received a most emphatic denial, and, Mr. Jones being acquainted with this, it was his duty when brought before the House to have accepted that denial and offered a full and ample apology. Moreover, the House was hound to accept,the denial of the Hon. Mr. Whitaker, whose honor was in the custody of the House, and should be held sacred; and the House would be doing itself injustice, and doing an injustice to the Supreme Court of New Zealand, if they attempted to deal with the matter here, as both parties would have an opportunity which could not be obtained before a select committee. The excuse of poverty went for nothing. If men were poor they should be more careful; moieover, he felt no doubt that there was power behind Mr. Jones in this matter, from which he would receive assistance if he were put to any heavy expense through the verdict of a jury composed of his fellowcountrymen. Mr. Jones should have had the manliness to acknowledge his offence; and further he had had the impertinence to quote the speeches cf members of the House in support of a charge made against a member of the House. He should support any motion which would have the effect of meting out some fit punishment to the prisoner. Mr. STOUT combated the arguments set forth by Mr. Travers (incidentally mentioning in the first place that the last speech of the hon. gentleman ran directly in the teeth of what he had said in first speaking to the question). By adopting the course suggested by him the House would not be consulting'its own dignity,, and- they would simply be placing Mr. Jones in the position which any criminal in the laud might command: he could summon his witnesses to attend, and obtain the aid of counsel in his cause; ■ The Hon. Mr. FOX withdrew his amendment. Mr. GISBORNE moved, as a further amendment,—That the Attorney-General beinstructed to prosecute the prisoner Jones according to law for a libel upon a member of this House. Mr. REES, objected to the, amendment moved by Mr. Gisborne. , It was monstrous, he contended, that the country should be asked to provide the funds for the prosecution by a member of the House of any man for libel. It would be elevatiug Mr. Jones in one sense, and in another it would be giving him a just cause of complaint against that House, and indeed the whole colony. He wondered how a:pioposal to pay his (Mr. Rees’) expenses would be received. Say that he was libelled by a journal in this city which was supposed to be under Government influence, and of which two members of the House were managing directors, he wondered whether those directors, Messrs. Hunter and Johnston, would vote for his expenses being paid by the colony in any action he might take against the said journal. He did not believe they would do so, even though the Colonial Treasurer asked them to. He thought it was a great mistake to make this a national matter. Mr. LUSK took the same view as expressed by the last speaker. Mr. MONTGOMERY favored Mr. Sheehan’s suggestion. The Hon. Mr. Gisborne’s amendment having become the substantive motion, Mr. SHEEHAN moved his amendment upon it, that the whole matter be : referred for inquiry to a select committee. : The question—That the words to be omitted stand part of the question—having been put,, a division was taken,’ the result being—Ayes, 41 ; noes, 24. , Mr. Gisborue’s motion therefore remained the question before the House. Mr. BUNNY at this point rose to a point of order, saying that Captain Morris had told him before this division was taken that he ought not to vote, as it was a Government question. Mr. BARFF, referring to the point of order raised, protested against such attempts at intimidation as had been evinced, and said the Government were fast losing the confidence ef the House and country by the course they were adopting. Mr. MURRAY having spoken, Mr. THOMSON moved this addition to the motion of Mr. Gisborne, —Provided that the expense of the action shall not be a charge upon the colony. • j The question was put, and a division was called for by Major Atkinson. Mr. BUNNY asked if this was to be considered a Government question. The Hon. Major ATKINSON said the Government intended voting against the addition of the words. Mr. BUNNY said then he should take that to mean that it was a Government question, and should walk out; and he did walk out accordingly. The division was then taken on the question that the words proposed to be added be so added. Result Noes, 39 ; ayes, 27. The amendment was therefore lost by a majority of 12. Mr. HISLOP moved, as an addition to the original motion, that in the event of the trial going against the defendant, or should the jury disagree, the costs be paid by the colony. He moved this in order to put the parties on something like an equal footing. The Hon. Major ATKINSON moved that the words “ or should the jury disagree” be struck out, but the motion was lost. The motion, as amended by the addition of the words proposed by Mr. Hislop, was then put, and on the Speaker declaring the noes to have it, a division was called for by Major Atkinson and taken, the result being—For the motion as amended, 39 ; against it, 29. The Hon. Mr. WHITAKER then moved, and it was carried, that Mr. George Jones be discharged from further attendance at the bar of the House. Mr. George Jones was then called before the bar of the House, and informed by the Speaker of the decision which the House had arrived at in reference to his case. Mr. Jones then retired. MB. BARTON’S PETITION. Mr. SHEEHAN’S motion, —That the House

" go into committee of the whole to consider the petition of George Elliott Barton, arid to examine into the truth of the statements made •therein and - decide upon the same—was postponed till half-past seven to-day (Wednesday). The House-adjourned at 12,20.