House of Representatives.

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 812, 30 August 1877, Page 2

House of Representatives.

Tubsday, Aug.2Bfch. GrEOBGB JONES, Junior, BEFOftE THIS BAR. This afternoon before the House, proceeded to the orders o( the day, Mr Whittaker moved that. George Jonea, Junr, be ordered to attend at Ihe bar. He was introduced by the Sergeantat Arms. TheSPEAKEU informed him of the reasons for bis being required to attend, and asked if he hai any explanation <o make ? Mr Jouea read a statement to the effrsc that he felt a di&Wty, »b the House had il ready declared hina g nity of a bre eh of prinlege. He would state what »s in Ins mind when puaiiduing the article. He had no feeling against the AtorneyGeneral but wrote m good faith/ m pursuanca of his duty :as a publis journalist, and m a desire to aid what he had long contended for — a termination of the ays tan. of lanl monopoly. He was personally fatniii r fir miny years' with na ive l»nd traa sections m vVaikato, and liad never heard Sir vVhitaker's connection with those transactions, especially those of the Turtnn's, disputed ort refuted. On perusing the Native Land Bill his suspicious t»s to Mr Whitaker'a connection with theatransactions were increa-ied. ■ MrJu.es then proceeded to quote from the speeches of Mr JBaliance, Mr Lusk, Sir George Grey, and Mr Travers, on tae Native Land Bill. These extra ts n iturally created suspicion regarding Mr Whitaker a motives m ' pressing on the bill. A gentleman from Waikato supplied him with particulars, which confirmed the facts previously kno*n to nim, and on this be published the article He could not with candour pret^n 1 to admit that he bad, m so publishing what he believed to be true, com nitted a gr ive offence. If a journalist believed that a grievous wrong had been committed m execution of an important public trust, it was his duty tomaka the faces known, tie believed that bis statement a were correct. It was impossible for him to surrender his oonviotions, sustained as they were by long experience. tie regretted being broug t ioto cjII aion with the House ; and if the House thought he had acted with indiscretion, he was prepared to abide its Judgment. Mr Jones then withdraw. Mr Will rAKEK said Mr Jones's explanation was unsatisfactory, and, md tuiount d to an aggravation of ttn offence. Had Mr Jones apologised, be would hive ■iccepted it ; but under the circumstances, it w mid be unsatiifactory to pursue t ie matter further m that House. It s>i >uld be tried iv a Court of law no*. Bitiier VI Jones deserved to 40 to gaol, or he, iMr Wkitike.-,) deserve * to be turned ou: of the tfousa. tie moved, "That Mr Jones's explanation nras unsatisfajtory, •*nd thit he bd dwehtr^jd, m or«ler tn t Frederick •Vhitik'*- might take proceedings against Mr Jones m the Supreme Court for libel." Mr HLSLO? characterised the action >f the Government as cowardl . They hail been very bold m calling vtr Joaea to the bar He had come, and shown 'he courage of bis opinions, and gjod reason for what he wrote. Now Mr Wuitake*- wanted to bring him before a jury under the slur of condemnation by the House, tie wouid move as an amendment, " Tha< Mr Jones be discharged." Mr WHITAKfaJR said'he had worded his motion to show that Mr Jones had •xot been tried by the Souse, nor to prejudice the case b* r ore a jury. He wish d to try the case fairly before the Supreme Oouro. Mr JOYCE tbonght it would be unprecedented to refer the case to an inferior Court, and to do so would be most, unfair to Mr Jones. Mr GJSBOttNtfthgught \fr Whisker's motion very uns iiis act^ry. The libel was on him as a m 'inter of the i louse, and the Hous ? should deal with i. MrJoo'S iad uot apologised tor or justified his statements. He would propose a further amendment . m the latter direction. Mr TR AVERS thought Mr Whitaker's motion and Mr His lop's amendment tioth nnaatiafaotory, and supported Mr Gisborne's proposal. The SPEAIIKR said m. his -opinion a more gross libel bad never been committed on any legislature. The charges jvere ot almost specific nature against a member of the House, who was aoous^d of the enormous offence of using his position for paisonal advantage, to the detriment of the inhabitants of the colony, especially the native rave. Four ways of dealing wich the case were open. One was to examine the culprit at the bar, m committee of the whole, or to refer- the matter to a Select Committee ; and the third course was as Mr (iisborne proposed, to direct the Attorney-General to prosecute m a Court of law. An inquiry at the bar of the House or m com* wittoe would scarcely be satisfactory, and ;t Mr Joues were made the *u:>J4Ct of « *tat» proaeouciou by the L«gi«Ja»uro, irablic symi»athy would oertaiuiy be on hia siile. This womd be a grave error. Mr Jones firmly but reap ctfuily declined co apologue or explaia away hia stapeneuts, and had on the oontrary emuna--ised them. Thio being so, Mr Whieaker hid undertaken to pros^oute him personally m the ordinary way, and be .thought the resolution propos <d by Mr Whit*ktir a p-opar out?, aud not oalculated to piejuiica anyoue. It aim dy said, let fredenck Wuitaker and George Jones fi^it it out where truth could best be iicited and evidence taken. The words objected to fl-ere sjto^ly imieaded to pr«-

vent any technical objection - being raked to prevent- this, being done. It was nob the case, as stated by Mr Jones, that tnis case had already been deoided by the House, tfß«.A* Speaker, bad consulted Mr Jooe3'B convenienca m ev«ry way, a^d supplied him with means to come to Wellington. Mr. Jones hsl not been condpuje/J,, but was simply summoued to appear at the bar- to explain. £Mr EEES said Mr J 9 ne« was not charged with a. libel wbioh could be tried m^Oourt of law, but with breach of privilege -absolutely distinct offences, m n 9 v wa y clashing with each other. Mr Jones was at present oharg«d with an offence against the House, not against Mr Whitaker. .. Mr MAO ANDREW thought the whole position unsatisfactory. Mr FOX said the libel was not like speeches m that Souse, where general oharges were made m reference to land-aha-king, but specific charges against Mr Whitaker whioh, if proved, would render .Mr Whitaker unfit to sit m the Honse and, subject to impeachment. He never heard, a more unsatisfactory statement Mr Jones's childish and unmannerly defence, based on mere rumours, probably originated by Jones himjelf Tne H'»u-je had no moans equal to a Court of law to invejtuace sucb oase. He supported Mr Whitaker's motion. If the Supr.mt* Com t found Mr Tones guilty, he would r ally be punched, while if the Bouse proceeded with the case he could only he detained In custo ly till the ►nri of the aesßjon, and then be re.easud, defying the House. Mr BUTTON objected to Mr Whiaker's resolution that it did not deal with the question of privileee. Mr TOLK thought the bouse ■honld dispose of the questiou at once. Mr DB LAUTUUR said the matter was so mixed that it was desirable to aljouna it, and he w mid move the adjourumunt of the debate. Mr ATKINSON opposed the adjournment. Mr HODGHVSOtf said th* caae before the House was one of privilege, not of libel. Mr THOMPSON thought the Honse made a great mistake m -ailing Mr Jones to the bar. It did not now know whan to do with him. He suppmed the adjournment. Mr _ MQRRAY-AYNSLEY thought, the <idjouraiaeut would oe *n •njiHtioe to Mr Jone». Mr WOOD (Mataura) thought f,ha House should deal wuh the question ir.self. Mr Jone3 -had not been asked what evidence he bad. Equally strong statements ta Mr Jones's had been made m the House by members on both sides. He opposed sending Mr Jones before a Oourt of law brande I as » libeller, whioh would be a most unfair course. Mr STAFFORD aaid ih-j affair wa« m a most unsatisfactory con iiti >n. Ihe House had summoned Mr Junes Tor bre ich of privilege, and now tot* 'louse wa* isked to do nothing, became Mr Whicak r chose to take action elsewmre the louse vs;a* thus placed m an imp oper position! What Mr Whitaknr propjsed w sto vindicate his own character, not cha privileges of the House. Supp >s<* Mr Whitaker bad not been m the pecuniary position to commence such an action, and Mr Jones had not apolo ia >d, ■mbsiantiated, or withdrawn his statement ? Mr Gisborne's motion was preferable to Mr Whitaker 3. To pass the Utter would be to a 1m t. the H »via hal made a great mistake m suuimotn ing Mr Jon^s, and it w j d be laughed at. He would tike eacii nt iber %i> h ive a cooy of the article md -tr J -ues's statement bofore the decision wa come to. I'lie SPEAKEtt da id h; w^uld ha-e tie documents printed. .. Mr SHRIMSKI said if the El mse had taken more time to consider its acti >v m the first instance, it would have avoided the difficulty, and saved viluible time. [The result will be found m a telegram from our Wellington Special Oorre^on* dent.— Ed W.r.]