THE MEIKLE ACQUITTAL BILL

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8862, 23 October 1907, Page 5

THE MEIKLE ACQUITTAL BILL

By Telegraph—Press Association. WELLINGTON, Tuesday. In the House, this afternoon, in moving the second reading of the Meikle Acquittal Bill, the Premier read the report of the Royal Commission in which it said that had the proceedings been a re-trial of the complainant they would have felt it necessary to direct his acquittal. The Bill proposed to remove from the records the record that Mr Meikle was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment by providing that judgment should be reversed. Afterthe Bill had passed its second reading, hi proposed to ask the House to set up a special committee to enquire what compensation, if any, should be paid to Meikle. The case was, he said, an unusual one, and one of great importance and for that reason he put on record the finding of the Commission so that it might be included in Hansard. Mr W. F. Massey said he did not intend to deal at length with the Bill, "because he sympathised with it. The right thing had been done in introducing the Bill. Mr Meikle should obtain some compensation for his imprisonment for an offence of which he was not guilty. Mr James Allen f aid it seemed absurd that Mr Meikle had to go through the process of appealing to the Government and Parliament in order to absolve himself from the offence recorded against his name. He wondered that the Government had not brought down a general Bill so that any other person who might be placed in the same unfortunate position should be able to take advantage of that general measure. Mr A. R. Barclay, whilst agreeing with the expressions of Mr Allen, did not think they should elevate Meikle to the position of a martyr. Mr F. M. B. Fisher contended that there was a strong prejudice amongst members of the House against Mr Meikle. Mr A. Dillon: "That is an insult to hon. members." Mr Fisher reiterated his remarks, contending that it was impossible to get an impartial tribunal in the House. He was opposed to the matter being referred to a select committee. Mr G. Laurenson expressed his indignation and resentment at the remarks expressed by Mr Fisher. He had heard nothing during his time in the House but expressionsof sympathy towards Mr Meikle. He contended that Parliamentary committees were as impartial as any committee that could be found outside the House. Mr F. W. Lang said he thought it was a pity that Mr Meikle had not been compensate 1 when the case first came before the House. Mr A. W. Hogg indignantly resented Mr Fisher's remarks, which he contended were an insult to the electors who sent members to represent them. M J. T. M. Hornsby considered that Mr Fisher had not iead the evidence laid before the Commission, but that he had been guided by the compilers of a pamphlet entitled "Cleared At Last," which made a most unjustifiable attack on the judiciary of this country, and which he characterised as a most outrageous attack on our judges. He contended that Mr Meikle had been largely made use of for political purposes in his peregrinations through the country, and had been assisted to that end.

Mr W. Herries regretted that a personal tone had entered into the debate. He took exception to the inference that funds had been supplied to Mtikle for political purposes by the OpposiMon. Mr Massey indignantly resented Mr Hornsby's remarks and added that Mr Hornsby would withdraw the remark if he were a gentleman. Subsequently Mr MaSsey withdrew the latter remark on the Speaker's request. Mr W. H. P. Barber contended that Mr Fisher had by his remarks during the debate done more harm to John Meikle than anything else. Mr A. L. D. Fraser contended that the Bill was a result of an agitation from persons who had previously sat in the House, but whose constituents did not want them any longer as thenrepresentatives. He added that if Mr, Hornsby's remarks applied to these presons he was right, but if he applied them to the Opposition members he was wrong. He intended to vote against the Bill. He did nut think the question of compensation could be considered by members at this stage.

Mr J. G. W. Aitken expressed his intention to support th« Bill, and deprecated Mr Hornsby's remarks. Mr Hornsby, as a personal explanation, reiterated his remarks that Mr Meikle had been encouraged by funds and otherwise to peregrinate through the colony for political purposes, not by the Opposition members sitting on the benches but by the Opposition party. Mr James Allen: "I deny it." Mr A. E. Remington regretted that the Government had brought in the Bill. He quoted from the evidence of the Commission with the object of showing that Mr Meikle was not entitled to the consideration proposed in the Bill. To test the feelings of the House, he moved that the Bill be read this day sixmonths. Mr F. Laury seconded the motion, which was negatived by 45 to 10. Thci following voted for the amendment:—Messrs Flatman, A. L. D. Fraser, Hornsby, Laury, Lethbridge, Lewis, R. McKenzie, Parata, Remington, and Ross. The Premier then replied. He regretted that the Royal Commission had not been able to give a definite opinion as to the amount of compensation that Mr Mcilkle was entitled to. As it had not done so, the Government was giving effect to the proposals of the Commission that the conviction of Mr Meikle be reversed, and that Parliament should fb: the compensation to be paid. For that reason he proposed to refer the subject to a select committee, and he had absolute faith in the impartiality of a Parliamentary select committee. The second reading was agreed to by 42 to 12.