The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1889. THE MEMBER FOR GLADSTONE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1929, 13 August 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1889. THE MEMBER FOR GLADSTONE.

Since Mr Rhodes’ election to Parliament he has always voted consistently with the ultra-Conservative section of the House. We have not hitherto found fault with him for doing so. Realising that he was elected as a strong, unflinching Conservative, and that possibly he was voting according to his conscience, we have refrained from criticising his actions, even when we differed from him. Ho has, however, given a vote recently with which we honestly believe very few of his constituents would agree. Conservatives and Liberals alike, no matter what their differences on the details of a policy may be, love justice and fair play. British justice has become proverbial, and Britons invariably insist on having it, no matter at what cost. Mr Rhodes, however, m his vote on the Ward-Hislop affair, shows that his sense of justice is not highly developed. We regret this. It is bad enough to be represented in Parliament by a most thorough-going Conservative, but when in addition to that we find our representative unable to distinguish between right and wrong the matter becomes painful. In the Ward-Hislop case he voted for screening Mr Hislop from the consequences of his disgraceful conduct. All that was asked for was a committee to inquire into the case, and Mr Rhodes voted against allowing an inquiry to be made. If Mr Hislop had nothing to fear, why should he object to an inquiry ? If there was anything to hide why did Mr Rhodes give his vote to hide a disgraceful transaction? Prom Mr Hislop’a own statement it is plain that we have received a very one-sided version of the story, and Mr Rhodes has given bis vote to prevent the truth becoming known. Mr Rhodes has thus given his vote to screen a deliberate attempt to corrupt the fountains of justice, the gravest offence of which a Minister could be guilty. Mr Hialop’s only defence is that he did not interfere with the course of justice. He admitted in his speech, when driven into a corner by Mr Larnach, that Judge Ward ordered the error in Christie’s warrant of committal to b® rectified when he found it was improperly made out, and that he (Mr Hislop) warned the clerk of the court that Judge Ward’s order would not protect him. He did “ not interfere with the course of justice,” but he interfered with the orders given by a judge to the clerk of bis court. Then he admitted that he sent telegrams to the Crown Prosecutor at Dunedin with regard to the release of Christie from gaol, hut these telegrams are not produced. Was this not interfering with the course of justice ? It is true he did not interfere until Christie was sentenced, but his conduct was then so bad that if tolerated it was calculated to demoralise the bench. Let us suppose, for instance, that any Resident Magistrate was called upon to adjudicate in the case of one of Mr Hislop’s friends, and that he saw Mr Hislop in the court, what would be the first thought that would flash across his mind? He would say to himself, “ This is a friend of Mr Hislop. He can appeint himself Minister of Justice, Governor, and Government whenever he likes with impunity. Bombas tes Furiosa Fergus will uphold his actions whether right or wrong. He might get me into trouble as he did Judge Ward. The prisoner is discharged without a stain on his character.” Now we ask is that not the effect likely to be produced by such scandalous conduct as that of Mr Hislop? What did Mr Hislop do: He attended the court during a part of the hearing of the case. The moment Christie was sentenced he got himself appointed Minister of Justice on the spot, and proceeded to demand from Judge Ward his reasons for having convicted him. He next warned the clerk of the court that to obey the Judge’s orders would not protect him. He next sent telegrams to the Crown Prosecutor of Dnnedin, but we do not know what they contained, His explanation is people in Oamaru demanded of I - '' ’’-jatiee done. No dopbt it him to see j c. --—He said : « J j happened in this waj Her am the almighty Hislop—one ox. _ Majesty’s Ministers. Give me a petition ; I will set him free.” And they did. If the prisoner had been anyone else no one would have ever heard of it. His spiteful meanness came out in another way afterwards When he found the correspondence' was going before Parliament he attached to it a very long and acrimonious memorandum, in which he speaks of the Judge as Mr Ward. Fancy the meanness of the fellow in

thus attempting to make little of the I Judge by not giving him his title. | To this memorandum Judge Ward has 1 had no opportunity of replying — another gross injustice —and it is disgraceful conduct like that Mr Rhodes has voted to sustain. Thirtynine other Conservative members voted as Mr Rhodes did, thirty-six members voted to appoint a committee to elicit the truth, and six members, including Mr Scobie Mackenzie, walked out of the House. These members had the sense of decency and justice developed in them. They would not vote against the Government, and they felt their conduct so disgraceful that for shame’s sake they could not vote for them. No such considerations influenced Mr Rhodes. He voted straight to prevent the truth with regard to Mr Hislop becoming known. In this respect he has acted in a manner that must meet with the disapproval of every decent man. He has voted to cloak a disgraceful, scandalous act, and in doing so has put himself in the position of being a party to it. We, of course, neyer had any confidence in Mr Rhodes as a politician, but we looked upon him as a very respectable man, who would never descend to anything mean, or unworthy. He has, now lost our respect; and really deserves to lose the respect and confidence of every honest man in the district. All that was asked for was a committee to inquire into the Ward-Hislop case. To anyone that would appear only a just and fair and honorable thing. Mr Rhodes voted against the appointment of the committee, and thus showed that he was opposed to what is just and fair and honorable. His vote was discreditable to himself and to the district he represents.

THE GOVERNMENT. Haebt Atkinson has, so to speak, the House of Representatives by the wool, In the first session he get an Act passed reducing the number of members to 70, and now if an election were to take place 21 of the present House could, under no circumstances, go back The result is that now Sir Harry has only to threaten a dissolution to make a majority of members as obedient to his behests as so many puppets. This is the first result of a reduction of members. We have a Ministry in whom neither the House nor the country has any confidence, yet the members are afraid to turn them out of office for fear that it would lead to a dissolution, and consequently to the political extinguishment of 21 of them. This is the disgraceful state of the House at present. We have a corrupt Ministry that can do nothing, and a House that can do less, consequently nothing has been done. An excited and panic-stricken country elected brainless young footballers and cricketers to Parliament, and here is the result.