LIBELLING SIR HENRY PARKES.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 80, 13 December 1884, Page 3

LIBELLING SIR HENRY PARKES.

Mr W. Webb, proprietor of a country newspaper in New South Wales, is presently being prosecuted for publishing a criminal libel concerning Sir Henry Farkes, ex-Premier of the colony. The case was opened at Sydney on the 25th November last, when the defendant filed the following plea of justification, which discloses the nature of the alleged libel : — In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Criminal Jurisdiction, The twentyfourth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four. And the said William Webb, in his proper person, cometh into Court here, and, having heard the said information read, saith that our said Lady the Queen ought not further to prosecute the said William Webb because (1) lie saith that he is not guilty of the supposed offences m the said information alleged. (2) And for a further plea in this behalf the said William Webb saith that our Lady the Queen ought not further to prosecute the said indictment against him because he saith that it is true that after evaidng his creditors for 13 months the said Sir Henry Parkes did return to the colony ; and it is true that the said Sir Henry Parkes did try to put up the North Shore bridge swindle, and that the said Sir Henry Parkes expressed himself as being almost ashamed of this country, which has fed him, and that the said country has winked at crimes for which another man would have been imprisoned ; and it is true that the said Sir Henry Parkes took TV. Renwick into the Ministry for the consideration of £500 ; and that the said William Webb further saith that before and at the time of the publication in the said indictment mentioned it was for the public benefit that the matters therein contained should be published, because he says that the said Sir Henry Parkes was at the time of such publication a member of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, and one desirous of being entrusted with the administration of the Government of the said colony, and as suchmember of Parliament he discussed in public the administration of the said Government by the Ministers then in office, and contended that the said administration had degraded the political institutions of the said colony, and the said Sir Henry Parkes was regarded by many persons as one to whom the administration of the said Government should be committed, and therefore it was necessary for the public interest that the matters in the said alleged libel contained should be publicly known, in order that it might fully appear that the character of the said Sir Henry Parkes was such that he was not deserving of the said public office. And so the said William Webb says he published the said alleged libel as he lawfully might for the causes aforesaid, and this the said William Webb is ready to verify ; wherefore he prays judgment, that by the Court here we may be dismissed and discharged from the said premises in the said indictment above specified.— (Signed) W. Webb, defendant in person. Sir Henry Parkes, examined by Mr Foster, deposed : He had read the article in the Campbelltown " Herald " on September 16. He had held the office of Colonial Secretary for 10 years. He was recently absent from" the colony for about 13 months. He returned on the 29 bh August last. There is no truth whatever in the allegation that he had been evading his creditors for those 13 months. Before leaving the colony he appointed his son and Mr Wm. Neill as his attorneys, with full power to deal with his estate. He gave orders that certain property belonging to him should be sold to meet the demands of his creditors, and with only one qualification, that the property should not be sold at a sacrifice. He not only gave this power of attorney, but he advertised it in both the daily papers. He had read the allegation in reference to the North Shore bridge swindle. He had never "put up" any North Shore bridge swindle. What really took place was this —(but he would like to add by way of preface that he was in favour of a bridge from Sydney to the North Shore)— a gentleman made proposals to the Government to construct a bridge from Sydney to the North Shore with private capital. Communications were made to him verbally in the first instance. Eventually it was reduced to writing. Then he (Sir Henry Parkes) individually had nothing whatever to do with it. The Minister of Works and the Colonial Treasurer were the only members of the Government who were connected with the matter. He knew nothing more of it until it came before the Cabinet. Not on© penny of public money was to be ex-

ponded in the construction. The persons constructing the bridge were to be guaranteed an interest on their outlay at 4 per cent., until such time as the traffic across the bridge amounted to 4 per cent , and the guarantee was then to cease ; but all the conditions of this preliminary agreement were subject to the approval of Parliament. In reference to another allegation, he was not conscious of having committed any crimes for which another man would have been imprisoned, nor did he know what the allegation referred to. With reference to the allegation of taking Dr. Renwick into his Government for the consideration of L5OO, he felt it an outrage to be asked such a question. He had given employment to hundreds of persons, and had never received one farthing of benefit. The office of Minister of Mines became vacant, and the opinion of the Cabinet was in favour of offering the office to Dr. Renwick. This was in the latter part of 1881. He immediately offered the office to Dr. Renwick. Had any intimation of the offer of money been made to him by Dr. Renwick, he certainly would never have had the office. He had no consideration whatever, monetary or otherwise, from Dr. Renwick to offer him the position. When threatened with prosecution unless he apologised, defendant wrote to Sir Henry Parkes's solicitors, stating: "Respectfully I wish to inform you that I shall not, under any circumstances, apologise. When I remember the countless tricks of Sir Henry, and the contemptible manner in which he treated the Empire compositors, I feel that it is my duty as a man to prefer six months in Darlinghurst to apologising to a man whose whole life has been a series of acts of a play that might appropriately be termed 'Humbug.' If proceedings are taken against me, there will be such a washing of dirty linen as only we old printers who have been acquainted with Sir Henry for a generation can attempt. I should be sorry to appear the least disrespectful to you, but in the words of a gentleman who waa born on April 23, 1564, and who I wish had lived in New South Wales for the last thirty years, allow me to conclude—' Lay on, Macduff ; and damn'd be him that first cries, Hold! enough."' In his opening address, counsel for defendant said he was desirous of showing the truth of the statement that the country had winked at crimes of Sir Henry Parkes, for which another man would have been imprisoned. Before the time of Sir Henry Parkes's insolvency he appropriated to his own use trust funds, and this was founded upon Sir Henry Parkes having renewed bills to three persons — Messrs Wiltshire, Deane, and Piddington — that were given him for the purpose of applying the proceeds to retiring the original bills, and that these original bills were not retired. On this ground the certificate was refused, and he submitted that Sir Henry Parkes, under the 19th section Insolvency Act, was liable to be imprisoned for the offence. Again, Sir Henry Parkes before his insolvency gave a certain piece of paper, a cheque, to one Francis McNab for the sum of LI 19 16s 6d due to him. When this bill was presented at the bank it was dishonoured ; and, furthermore, that Sir Henry Parkes had an understanding with his banker that he was only to pay cheques aigned in a particular way. The result of these transactions was that a certificate was refused to Sir Henry Parkes, and this ground was cause for imprisonment. He was prepated to show that one of these persons renewed the bill only on the distinct understanding that the proceeds should be applied for retiring the original bill, and that eventually both he and two other persons had to pay both the original bill and the subsequent bill. Was not this obtaining money under false pretences ? And he therefore maintained that Sir Henry Parkes had committed a crime for which he was liable to imprisonment. The case was concluded on Thursday, Nov. 27th, when the jury, being unable to agree, were locked up all night. On Friday morning the foreman announced that they were decided in the proportion of 10 to 2, and there was no prospect of their agreeing. They were therefore discharged. Defendant was to be placed on his trial again on Monday last, a new jury being empanelled.