GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2081, 5 August 1890, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

HOCT3E OF EEPREBENTAITVES. The House met at 2. 30 p.m. on Friday,

UE HUTCHISON'S CHARGES

Messrs Bell and Stafford were ushered into the House by the Sergeaat-at-Arms, and Mr Bell addressed the House at great length on behalf of the Bank of New Zealand in reference to the production of the banks books, -re the charges of the member for Waitotara. He said that he appeared with Mr Stafford as counsel on behalf of the Bank of New Zealand to answer the report of the Committee appointed to enquire into the charges of the member for Waitotara. With regard to the delay in the production of certain records of the bank which that committee had required the bank to produce before it, referring at the outset to the summons he said that it required the bank to produce its books containing original and all other entries of the balance of three members of the present Government who were named.. No question was raised by the bank either directly or indirectly as to the right of the Committee to call for documents, but with regard to private accounts of the bank, the bank had been advised that, having regard to the pledge of secrecy which its officers have taken, and having iegard to the duty which the law imposes upon them not to divulge the confidence of its clients unless by the proper authority, it ought not to produce the records containing the private accounts. Counsel quoted authorities to show that such a demand as this would not be made by an order by a Judge were the matter before a court of civil judicature. He submitted that Parliament, following the rule laid down for the guidance of courts, would not go beyond the bounds which Judges had set as the limit to their own jurisdiction.

At the conclusion of his address Mr Bell and Mr Stafford retired from the chamber.

Mr Withy, Chairman of the Hutchison Committee, moved on behalf of the Committee, the following resolution : —" That Mr John Murray and Mr Bicbard Potter Begg do attend before the Select Committee on the accusations of the member for Waitotara, and bring with them such of their banking books or documents aa the said Committee has already ordered to be produced, or may hereafter require." He explained that the motion was a formal one. If the Committee reduced its demand at all, Mr Hutchison might have reason to say that they had cut off his chances of making good his case. Besides, they might, when the inquiry had advanced to a certain stage, find it impossible to complete the investigation for want of the books, and so be unable to report this session. The Committee would bow to the decision of the House, which must, however, share with the Committee the responsibility for whate*er action was decided upon.

Mr Macarthur moved to t»dd to the motion the words •" provided that the bank shall only be compelled to disclose books, accounts, and other papers and information, of a private nature on the Committee reporting to the Eouse that, as alleged in the speech of the member for Waitotara, public funds have been improperly used and raised by Ministers to the advantage of the Bank of New Zealand and the detriment of the colony." No business man would say that the charges against the Government went further than that of administering the public funds wrongly. If that were shown it would be time enough to try and prove the existence of the relations of debtor and creditor between the bank and Ministers, and to enquire as to whether the dealing with the public funds resulted from anything further than ignorance or carelessness* Mr Ballance said that the Committee assumed from the first that the evidence required from Mr Hutchison should be placed before them, and it did so without dissent. He was much surprised to hear Mr Macarthur pasting a reflection on the Committee as if it had purposely delayed the proceedings. If there had been any delay at all it was owing to the desire ot the Committee to investigate the I whole question thoroughly, and to afford the fullest justice. The whole substance of Mr Bell's special speech itemed to what the bank had realty objected to was that the accounts of perep-ns who had no jnterest j$ a)} jn the case should be produced before tfo§ Committee! He contended that the House could jugt as well decide as the Committee whether the public accounts of the colony had been properly administered. Tbe only question for the Committee to consider was the private accounts of Ministers. jßu|; the Committee were now asked i

to abrogate that function by the amendment before the House. Mr Bryce considered that Mr Ballance had strayed from the real point at issue. He had argued that because a Minister had overdrawn his account he was therefore to be subject to accusation, but he (Mr Bryce) ventured to assert that such a statement' would not find favor anywhere except in the hon. gentleman's mind. The Committee had now sat for three weeks, and they had not yet bad the Hansard report of the; speech in which Mr Hutchison made his charges before them. There was no cause whatever for the delay, 'and he submitted therefore that Mr Macarthur's amendment was the only way now for the Committee to pursue the enquiry. Mr Seddon refuted the charge that unnecessary delay had occurred. AUatding to Mr Bell's address, he said that .when Mr Bell was before the Committee he seemed to be appearing on behalf of Ministers rather than of the bank. Mr Hislop: " That's not true." The Speaker said that the expression must be withdrawn. Mr Hislop at once withdrew the words. Mr Seddon charged the Minister of Education with having be9n disrespectful to the Chairman of the Committee, at that day's proceedings. Mr Hislop said that the remark was untrue. The Speaker insisted on the withdrawal of the remark. Mr Hislop withdrew the words. Mr Seddon said that he did not see. : why Ministers should not consent to. their accounts being produced before the Committee, as the present case was one in which there should be no delicacy. The House adjourned at 5.80 p.m. The House resumed at 730 p.m. Mr Downie Stewart resumed the debate, and submitted that it was the duty of the Committee to elicit from Mr Hutchison the evidence on which he made his charges against the Government. Would the member for i Wanganui,or any other member, on* general charge that he had been guilty of maladministration of the fands of the colony, submit to have his private affairs investigated before a Committee until there was some proof of the '■. charges made ? With respect to Mr Bell's speech he thought he had established the bank's case completely. Mr Percival regarded the whole proceedings connected with this Committee a succession of blunders, and now they were asked to commit another blunder by voting for ,Mr Macarthur's amendment. Sir John Hall contended that clearly the Committee must first determine whether a case had been made out by Mr Hutchison before the evidence asked for should be produced. There was never a statement more devoid of foundation than that Ministers were trying to burk this enquiry-.

Mr Hutchison said he wished emphatically to deny the statement that he had obstructed the proceedings of the Committee. He had formulated his charges three weeks ago and had not been allowed to approach the • Committee's doors since. The amendmen fc proposed by Mr Macarthur was moved in Committee that day and negatived by the casting yote of the chairman on the ground that it was most improper at the present stage. The Government, therefore, were now. about to contest a motion brought up by their own committee, and would use their majority to make it a thorough party questiou. Had he had the opportunity, he could have stated te .the Committee that the Governmenthad assisted the Bank of New Zealand in many ways; that the AttorneyGeneral as president of the bank, and chairman of the directors had been under heavy obligations to the bank,' lie could also have shown that the Premier was under a heavy guarantee to the bank for another person, and that the Native Minister was under a heavy obligation to the bank. Even if they had since been discharged he could prove tha*; they had previously existed. After a lengthy discussion Mr; Hislop said that what Mr Hutchison asked for was a Committee to enquire into the dealings of the coloay with the bank for the past few years, and he defied anyone to point out a single line in Mr Hutchison's speech to indicate any other person as being connected with the bank except Sir IV Whitaker, but in the charge formulated to the Committee the hon. gentleman had taken the essence out of the speech he originally delivered in the House,, and he . had shown altogether a wanf of appreciation of the gravity of the charges he had made.Mr Hutchison had further abused his privileges by makiug an altogether new charge as to the personal indebtedness of fcfir H. Atkinson and Mr Mitchelson. He challenged the hon. gentleman to abandon his privileges as a member of the House, and not take advantage of any technicality, but allow the Government to meet his charges in another place. The Government had given him every opportunity of proving his charges, but he had shown no inclination or.. desire to have the matter investigated. Mr Marchant supported $6 a,n}en4me||fc

Captain Buasell said that if there was any blame bestowed at all in the matter it was on the inefficient committee, which totally failed to grasp the situation, to the statement that Mr Bell appeared more for the Ministry for the hank a he (Mr

Bell) had written stating that he never'held any communication with Sir F. Whitaker, Sir H Atkinson, or Mr Mitchelson on the subject of Mr Hutchison's charges. After further discussion, Mr Macarthur's amendment was carried by 30 to 21, and the motion as amended was then agreed to on the voices. Mr Ballance said that as the powers of the committee had been restricted, And a new order of reference made, and after the abuse which had been leaped.upon the committee and the eenVmre passed by the House, he could no longer take part in the committee's deliberations. Sir H. Atkinson had agreed upon an order of reference which they considered fair to both sides, and he must protest against the new order of things, which had been Bet up, and he asked to be relieved of 1 further attendance on the committee. Messrs Larnach and Seddon and Dr Fitcbett also signified their intention of taking no further part in the proceedings of the committee after the action taken by the House and the comment of the Ministers. The House rose at 2.45.' The following is the division list on Mr Mcarthur's amendment: — For (30) : Allan, Anderson, Arthur, j Bruce, Carroll, Cowan, Fergus. Ful-1 ton, Hall, Hamlin, Harkness, Hislop, | Hobbs, Humphreys, Izard, Lawry, Macartbur, McKenzie (Mount Ida), McKenzie (Clutha), McGregor, Mitchelson, Moat, Monk, Richardson G. E. (Mataura), Russell,. Samuel, Stewart, W. D. (Dunqdin west), Taipua, ..Thompson (Marsden), Tbomp- j ■on (Auckland north). ~>,-.• 'Against (21): Ballance, Barron, Duncan, Feldwiek, Fisher, Fish,] Fitchett, Goldie, Grey, Guinness, Hutchison, Withy, Kerr, Larnach, McKenzie (Waihemo).v Perceval, Reeves (Inangahua), Saunders, Seddon, Taylor, Terrall. Pairs. —For the amendment: Atkinson, Seymour, Valentine, Wilson, Mills, Pyke, Whyte, Ross, Tanner, Marchant, Buchanan, Dodson, Menteath, O'Connor, Hodgkinson, Bryce, Rhodes; Newman, Ormorid, Beetnam, Peacock. Against the amendment: Joyce, Smith, Loughrey, Lance, Jones, Buxton, Kelly, Richardson (Kaiapoi), . Moss, Blake, Taiwhanga, Fraser, Steward, Parata, Brown j Walker, Reeves, W. P., Ward, Gadman, Grimmond.