THE DARGAVILLE-ATKINSON EPISODE.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1069, 6 August 1883, Page 2

THE DARGAVILLE-ATKINSON EPISODE.

Discussion in. the House.

In the House on Friday, Major Atkinson rose to move the resolution he gave notice of on Thursday, for a committee to inquire into the charges made against himself and the Premier by Mr Dargaville. In the interests of public morality he held that immediate inquiry should be made into the charges, which, if true, would render him unfit to sit in the House, and make him a criminal of a very bad class indeed. He had a right to claim this, he thought, as a matter of justice from both sides of the House, Mr Munro seconded. Mr Dargaville thought that Major Atkinson had lost his head to place himself in such a humiliating position. Spleen and vindictiveness were now taking the place of reason with Major Atkinson. No doubt he had spoken warmljq but he had not in any way exceeded the courtesy of debate in saying what he believed to be true about Major Atkinson. He was quite prepared to stand by what he had said. Major Atkinson had framed his own indictment, and named a his own jury, and asked to be tried on it, and by them. Such a thing had never been heard of, and there could only be one result of such a proceeding. The motion raised a false issue. He read from his notes the precise words he had used in his speech, and compared them with the terms of the resolution. He had not accused either Messrs Whitaker and Russell or Major Atkinson of any abuse of their'political position. Mr Whitaker had no political position at the time referred to. He reviewed the whole facts of the loan consolidation proceedings of 1867, for their part in which Messrs Whitaker and Russell, the solicitors to the Bank, had received £IO,OOO for their valuable services. He quoted Dr Featherston’s speech on the subject in 1867, to show that what he had stated was fully justified. The country knew that the Bank of New Zealand kept the Treasurer in office. Did they want a committee to inquire into that? He moved an amendment, That, in . the opinion of the House, the implications contained in the Treasurer’s motion did not arise out of anything said by the honmember for Auckland City West. The Hon. W. Johnston strongly supported the motion, and accused Mr Dargaville not only of slandering the Premier and Treasurer, but libelling the House in the speech he had just made. Mr Joyce urged the withdrawal of the amendment, and letting the motion drop. Mr Holmes thought that the motion should be remodelled, and moved the following amendmentTo omit subsections numbered 1 and 2, and substitute in lieu thereof the following words : (1) Whether the allegations made against the Premier and the Colonial Treasurer, contained in the uncorrected report of the speech of Mr Dargaville; made in this House on Tuesday, the 31st day of July, 1883, in the discussion on “The Property Tax Bill,” imputed any political corruption or personal dishonesty or dishonour to either of those hoh. gentlemen ; (2) Whether these allegations are true. Major Atkinson and Mr Dargaville accepted this, but the latter urged that the Committee should be appointed bj f ballot. Sir George Grey suggested that the debate should be adjourned until the amendment was printed. This was agreed to, and the House rose. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr Turnbull resumed the debate, holding that Mr Dargaville had not gone further than the facts justified, but the statements made did not justifiy the inferences sought to bo drawn from them. The Treasurer was so habitually rude to members on that side of the House that he was glad to see him chastised in the way Mr Dargaville had done it. Mr Fish did not think Mr Dargaville’s words bore out the imputations assumed in the motion. To appoint a Committee would establish a precedent dangerous to freedom of speech in Parliament. He urged that the matter should be allowed to drop, and he objected to the composition of the Committee, especially to Mr Hurst being on it, as his enmity to Mr Dargaville was well known. He strongly condemned the strong terms used by Mr Johnston.

Mr Munro thought it lime that it was established that such,groSs imputations as Mr Dargaville had made could not be made with impunity in that House. Mr Joyce said that Mr Dargaville should place his charges in type outside the House, and allow Majot Atkinson to take his ordinary legal remedy. It was degrading for the House to carry on this discussion. Mr Fergus pointed out that the action of the Government in regard to the New Zealand Native Lands Company’s Bill disproved the alleged influence of the Bank of New Zealand over the Government, The Treasurer was in duty bound for his own honour, that of his party, and that of the House, to have the matter thoroughly inquired into. Mr Pj'ke said that Mr Hohnes’a amendment having been accepted by both sides of the House, this wrangling should be stopped. Either the Treasurer or Mr Dargaville deserved to be expelled from the House. It should be left to the Committee now to arrive at the merits of the case. Mr Montgomery did not think (here should be any committee of enquiry at all. Mr Dargaviile’s words should have been taken down when they were spoken. It was contrary to the Standing Orders to take notice of them now, and the notice would establish a precedent dangerous to the freedom of debate. He moved an amendment to the effect that the words, not having been taken down at the time, could not now, .according to Parliamentary rule, be taken notice of. Mr Moss thought that the action of the Government in regard to the New Zealand Native Land Company’s Bill was a triumphant answer to Mr Dargaviile’s accusation as to their being under Bank influence. Did the Government intend to suspend themselves while they were being tried ? Mr Conolly thought Mr Montgomery’s amendment entirely foreign to the subject. The Standing Orders he quoted referred to words of heat, or abusive and unparliamentary words. The statements of Mr Dargaville were not of this character, but studied accusations of a most serious character. Mr Shepherd thought that the previous question should be carried, and the matter be dropped. Mr Hurst urged the duty of sifting the charges thoroughly, unless Mr Dargaville himself withdrew them. Ho had no personal feeling against Mr Dargaville, but ho would decline to act on the Committee. Messrs Stevens and O’Callaghan supported the motion. Sir George Grey said that he would move that the Committee consist of five members nominated by Mr Dargaville, and five nominated by Major Atkinson.