The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5365, 7 June 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 878.

A cun, it has been ordinarily contemptible, becomes eminently tragic when he has got hydrophobia. Citizen George Jones might,have been, allowed to. drop into his original obscurity after having figured at the bar of the House of ;Bepre-; sentatives as a public censor in difficulties, and in the dock of the Supreme Court as defendant in a criminal prosecution for libel. But ho has become an item- of serious, colonial expenditure, a heavy charge'upon the taxpayers of New 1 Zc : I'.cd, and as, with legal tin-kettles tied to his tail, his friends have taken to show him publicly, he may developo into a nuisance. It is already a question who is responsible for Jones. The present’ Government, naturally, we are glad to see, ashamed of the sequela of .the recent State trial, desire to shift the responsibility for Jones to the shoulders ■ of < the- late ■Ministry. Now it appoars to usdhat a large majority of the representatives of the people of • this colony in Parliament, regarding Jones and the like of him as. a social evil, made an effort to suppress him summarily ; that in this effort the leading men of all parties joined; and that the responsibility which could fairly, bo. made to rest upon any Government, as such, under the circumstances, ; would be--the responsibility, for having failed loyally to carry out the directions* > given -by 'the House in this, as in any other similar .ease;. ; ■ •’’•wi r -

A reference to the pages of Hansard, .will prove what we have stated. Tho Jones libel was first brought to the notice of the House by Mr. '"Whitaker on tho 10th August. Having read- the article complained of from tho “ Oamaru Mail,” _ and commented 'on it, and having do-' dared that, the whole of .it was falso and none of it true, he moved,—-“Thatthe “■article is a breach of privilege on the “ part of the printer and proprietor'of “ the paper.” Whereupon a discussion arose, during the course, of which tho following opinion*, are reported a* having been expressed by lion, gentlemen Mr. Stout said: “My own opinion is that, “ the libel is a gross one, and ought not' “ to have boon published.” Mr. Bees, surprised, probably, and in, .a judical frame of mind unusuaf, with him, said: “I think this article is‘a gross “libel on tho Attorney-fSoaeral. and on “ the Government. I'believe, therefore, “ that it is a breach of privilege, and * 1 that the House -should'take steps to “ pumtb (be qgeadey.” Tbe bfe.

Fox said: “I shall 1 certainly vote for “ this being a breach of privilege, and, “with the hon. member for Auckland “ City East, I think that- necessarily ‘l carries with it ulterior action.” The Hon. Mr. Gisborne said ; “ ( I think this “article.is a gross breach-of the privi- “ leges'of the House. ■***•* It “ should be followed up by 1 making an “ example' of; the offender.” After a general deprecation of wrath.and a blessing of both sides by Mr. Thomson, the motion was agreed to : without division.Mr. ‘Whittaker then said :—“T now take the next step by moving,—That Hr. George Jones, the printer and publisher of the Oamaru Evening Mail, ha summoned to ,appear, at. the bar of the House;*- In making this motion,' ! desire to say thatj have no persoual feeling whatever in: the, matter. So far as my own feelings are concerned, I should have taken no notice of the matter ,at all; but, though I make; the motion, I leave, it- entirely in the hands of the House. „ I leave it in the hands of the House to say how far it should go in vindicating my own character, the character of .the Ministry, and the character of the House.” Mr. Wakefield said : “ I desire to second the motion of the hon. gentleman. Having heard the article read, and having had an opportunity of reading it myself, I feel convinced that it is a decided breach of ths privileges of this House. I would be the very first to come forward to induce the House to protect the honorable!gentleman from such ah attack, and I therefore desire to second the motion, if.l trust the j House- will deal with the offender in such a way as to set at rest for some jtime attacks oh, the! honorable motives of members of this House. I desire to say this, because when I last spoke I had not heard the article in such a manner as to understand it, and we were all’in a* state of uncertainty ; but I now feel that the hon. gentleman has taken the right course, and I shall cordially support him.”;

Ori the '2Bth of August Mr. Tones appeared at the bar of the House of Representatives, and there, at the suggestion, as it was said, of .certain legal t members, read a defence which, in the opinion of the House, did not improve his position. Thou Mr. Whitaker said: “ The House,-1 think, must come to the conclusion that the conduct of Mr. Jones is .altogether iunsatisfactory—unsatisfactory, at 'ail events, to myself. ; So -far from - affording the apology which he has had the opportunity, of making, he has, so far as 1 understand what he has read, very much aggravated the offence complained of. Then comes the ■ question, What is the proper course.of procedure in such a case ? What is the next step to take ? The proceedings should either be taken In this House, or they should be taken in a Court of law. It appears to me, under all the circumstances, that .it would ,be very qnaatisfaotoryindeed for this House lo go into tile question that Mr. Jones has raised in his statement. If the House goes into committee of the whole to consider the matter, 1 or if it appoints a\oom< raittee io inquire into and report, nothing satisfactory either to Mr. Jones or to myself will be done before the end of the session. There appears to me to be but one; proper; course to adopt; and that is that Mr. Jones should be disaharged from custody, and that I should bo afforded an opportunity of taking proceedings in the Supreme Court, whore Mr. Jones will have ample opportunity df producing- whatever evidence he can produce to verify his libel. I shall be examined on oath, and then the .whole case can be satisfactorily disposed .of. It, seems ;to me that that’is' the' only proper course that can he taken. If Mr. J ones had - stated that he hid found, upon inquiry, that the statements made; in his newspaper wore incorrect,' and had offered an apology, I should l have wished to go no further with the.matter. I have ho revengeful feelings, but I do feel this, that either Mr. Jones ought to be placed in gaol dr I should be turned out of this Parliament. That is the issue. It is an issue that ought to be tried by the Supreme Court, and itiis by the Supreme Court that I desire it to be tried,® With that view I shall move,— That Mr. George-’Jones having attended the bar of this House in pursuance of an order to that effect, and having made a'statement, and such statement, being, unsatisfactory to th e Complainant; 1 Frederick Whitaker; Resolved, That the said order. be discharged, with a view to proceedings being taken by Frederick Whitaker against George .lones’for an alleged libel published in.the Oamaru Mail of the 13th August, 1877.” .., -.r,

Mr. Hisi-oi* having,made some observations which may be shortly described «by ±ho - word ‘ ‘ nasty ” —used in a political; senser-moyed as an amendment that all the words after the word _“ stata“meht”down to the word “Whitaker,” and ill the words after the word ‘ ‘ dia- “ charged ’’ down to the end of the resolution, should bo omitted. Mr. Hislop’s amended'resolution would then road thus —“That l Mr. Georoe Jones having at- “ tended at the bar of this “House, and ‘ ‘ having made a statement, Resolved, that H thei said ordgr be discharged, - j,. I After a long discussion, in the* course of which Mr.: Speaker; took occasion to say, “ I express my opinion that, a more ‘‘.grojis libel never was uttered against * ‘ any Legislature, :or any _ member of a s*.Legislature,”—the question “that the “ words of Mr, Whitaker’s motion;"pro-, “ posed to be omitted, stand part of the “ question,” was put and negatived; The' question, “That the motion, as amended;' “ by i Mr! Hislop’s amendment, ' be' “agreed to,” being then put, the Hon. Mr. j Fox moved that the following words be added;-—“ And'that this House “does ’ not 'desire to' proceed further ‘‘'in ;the matter of privilege; in order “ that it may in no way prejudice either “ party f ih’'the 'ordinary' Courtsof Law “should Mr. Whitaker desire to take “ legal proceedings.” After some discussion Mr. Fox had leave to withdraw his amendment, and the, {lon. Mr. Gisborne moved that all the words after “that” in the original motion be omi tted, in orderito insert the following: “That the “ Attorney-General be instructed to 'pro- “ seen to Gboroe Jones, according to law; “ for libel on a! member of this House in “ his place in Parliament. To this Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Rees objected. The former gentleman, after Mr. Histop’s amendment was negatived, moved “ that “the j whole, question be referred for enquiry to a committee of the whole “ House.” This amendment was also negatived., On the motion that Mr. Gisborne’s amendment be agreed to, Mr. Hisujp said : ~y y . ~; , r “ I beg to propose aii addition to the motion before the House—namely, ‘ And in the event of the verdict upon any trial being for the defendant, or ; shottld the jury disagree, all costs incurred on behalf of the defendant shall be defrayed by the Government as between attorney and client.’ If Mr. Jones is to be prosecuted at the expense of the country,, it is only fair that, in the event of the verdict being for him, or the trial being abortive, the costs incurred by him should be paid by the, country. He ought to -be placed on something like . an equal footing, with the prosecutor.’! Mr, )WHiTAkEk - “The law is that the pro: aecutor has to pay costs if,he fails.”. . ; Mr. Hislop—“ The hon. gentleman knows very well that . there' are. other costs that he would not have to pay, such as those between the attorney and bis client.' ' Besides, he knows that in criminal cases costs do , not follow ; and I have no doubt a criminal case will be the one taken, as it would be more Soothing to the feelings of the person affected by the article. In fact, there would be a great many 'difficulties in'the way of thedefendant procuring witnesses, unless some guarantee were given to him that, in case of its being proved- that he was pons dons of only having done right in publishing that article, the costs of the trial would be paid, I hope the Attor- ■ ney-General will see the justice of placing the 1 defendant in this position.” . Mr. Whitaker— “l make no objection.” The motion as amended having-been put,' wan carried by a majority of ten, the ayes being ;39, the noes 29. The decision of the House was communicated ~to, . Mr. Jones'by the Speaker as follows: 'Mr, George Jones, it is my duty to inform you of the decision the Honse has arrived at in your, ; case. -It is follows : —“ That the Attorney-General'be instructed to'prosecute Mr. Georgo' Jones according to law for a libel on . a member of .this House in .his place in Parliament; and, in the event of the verdict upon the “ trial being for the defendant, or should the jury disagree, all. costs,.incurred on behalf of the defendant should be defrayed by tho' Government - as “ between’ attorney ‘and client.”, V°u are released from further attendance, Mr. George Jones. Now, we believe that, after reading this •Uteaieat of fact*, “ every right think-

“ ing or unprejudiced man ” will be of opinion that the prosecution of citizen ■ George Jones was not brought about by 1 the action of the late Government, but that it was undertaken by the AttorneyGeneral, npon an order of the House of Representatives, carried by a large majority ; - and carried, -as - to;- the form, , in opposition to the wishes of Mr. Whitaker himself, who desired to he permitted to defend himsolt, as an individual; in his own way ; and that if it were; as it certainly was, the duty of responsible Ministers, to carry out, loyally, the diieotions of the House of Representatives, and to secure the legal punishment of •an offender againat- its privileges whoso fault was admitted upon all hands, thepreaent Ministers have failed in that duty; but they have not failed to exercise such influence as they could in the opposite direction, and to exorcise it successfully, as it now appears. It is very curious to noto the difference of the,opinion of Mr. Rees, in Parliament and briefless, and of Sir. Rees with » fee and refresher of - seven hundred and fifty guineas for spectacles. Unprejudiced and surprised, as we saw in the, first instance," he was of opinion that citizen Jones was a gross libeller, and ,he said so like a man ; seen through the spectacles, citizen Jones appeared as a patriot of the first water, and Mr. Rees forgetting his first admission, said what his brief required with all the effrontery of the -Mvooate; The attempt at pleading justification at the trial having failed, the case was so managed that the only question, technically, remaining for the jury to decide was, not whether the article incriminated was a libel, for that was admitted by the line of defence, but whether or not the article in the Oamaru “ Moil” which was in-their hands, with Mr. Jones’s name in the imprint, had or had -not been published by Mr. Jones. After listening impatiently, to Mr. Rees’s “gassing” in Court, and without even the form of -hearing any evidence for the defence, the Dunedin special jury must have concluded that no publication'had been made, .as they found Mr. Jones not guilty. We gather .from the defence of -Messrs. Rees and Hislor’s little Bill which Minis-, ters have just-promulgated in their paper, that notwithstanding the difficulties l in which the Treasury.haa lately been, and the necessity imposed upon the Governmentbf suspending the execution of IrapOTtaat public works and of retrenching in many small ways, money has been promptly found to ' satisfy tho lawyer’s - claims‘for the defence of Mr. Jones, amounting to more than two thousand pounds. We hope that this is not true; we hope that tho representatives of .the. people ■ will ’be allowed - an opportunity of saying, when.; a vote is asked , for this bill of costs, whether they think that such a charge should be borne by the tax-- ' payers of N ew; Zealand, : and whether in | this matter the action of the Government , has been such as satisfied the conditions of the trust imposed upon them by the order of the House of Representatives. Pro- ; bablythe meshes of the Disqualification ! Act may not be found too large to prevent the escape of the sharks who-would take of,the broad,of the little children! of, this colony--withoutihe consent of their representatives in Parliament; ’ 5 ■'’■