THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 271, 17 November 1887, Page 2

THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.

R. THOMPSON'S EXPLANATION,

VOGEL CHALLENGES THE SPEAKER'S RULING.

LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE

>V TELEGRAPH—OWN EEPOKTER.)

Wellington, this day. Nothing was discussed yesterday but the breach of privilege case. It has absorbed public attention to the utter exclusion of such minor questions os retrenchment, economy, and protection, and these are wholly forgotten in the genoral excitement. Never before in the history of this Parliament has a member been " named," although his words have been taken down and the galleries cleared. Members might ■therefore be pardoned for the display of feeling on such an eventful occasion. The question has been discussed in every conceivable phase; records have been searched and authorities examined, and, as may be supposed, opinions are very divided. The feeling of the larger section of the House appeared to be in the direction of iiphoiding the action of the Speaker, which was considered to be warranted by the language and conduct of Sir J. Vogel. On the other hand, the Opposition party and those who are moving in this direction Showed a determination to support the leader of their party in the course lie had adopted. Efforts were made during yesterday forenoon to come to some arrangement, but Sir J. Vogel absolutely refused to budge an inch from the attitude he had assumed, and would not retract or apologise. He was occasionally consulted by his friends, prominent amongst whom are Mr Seddon, the member for Kumara, and Mr Hutchison, member for Waitotara, and it is said they fully concur in the course he was pursuing. Ministers met and discussed the question, but were unable at that time to come to any conclusion respecting the courso to be adopted. It was generally agreed in political circles that it was a very difficult matter to know how to deal with an hon. gentleman whose physical infirmity entitled him. to special consideration, and, indeed, secured it for him during the whole time that the affair was under discussion. It was hoped that some arrangement would be arrived at before the afternoon sitting commenced,, but such was not the case. The Premier was compelled to state that Government had not yet seen their way as to whatcourseshould take, but they hoped they ■would be able to arrive at a solution of the difficulty by 7.30, till which hour he moved the adjournment of the House. It was evident from the appearance of the House that quite a number of members were anxious to unburden themselves, and a necesarily brief discussion limited to certain points followed. Dr. Hodgkinson evoked a chorus of " ohs !" by the statement that while the doors were closed last night the Speaker had not been treated with the respect which his position entitled him to. Mr Seddon appealed to the Speaker not to let it go forth that this was so ; and Sir Maurice said no disrespect had been shown to the chair.

Mi* Scobie McKenzio put ib to the Speaker whether the question put by Mr E. Thompson was not offensive in its original form, and the Speaker admitted that if his attention had been drawn to it, ©r he had known that it contained a iiersonal reflection on the member for Christchurch North, ho would have required ib to be either withdrawn or liiDdificd.

Ar R. Thompson, who asked the question \vh,f;h has been thtf cause of the whole troi .bio, made an explanation of his action, altl ugh interruptions and points of order rai.-**d by Messrs Seddon, O'Callagliati, Ltrtssfcam and ofchcr speakers were so frethat he could only proceed under the \)i Section of tho Speaker. He paid he n- "ov intended to reflect in any way either uri Sir Julius "Vogel personally or on his inihmities. He claimed the right, which all members possessed, of inquiring into any •xpenditure which did not appear to bo justified, or was unfairly charged upon the public revenue. Mr Thompson proceeded to sayamidstcontinued andpersistent interruptions that he had visited Government Buildingsand foundib was only since hehad placed this question on the order paper that any Beeps had been taken by Sir .J. Vogel relative to these men to send them back to their legitimate occupation. Mr Levestam raised the question whether it was not really Thompson who should apologise. Mr Seddon took exception to tho action of the Speaker in clearing the galleries, and complained that reports furnished to local papers were partial, and that whatever action they took should be open to the world.

The Speaker explained that the order to clear the galleries did not apply to this day's sitting, and he would not renew it unless occasion required it. The House thereupon adjourned, and during tho remainder of the afternoon knots of members anxiously discussed the situation, and the best way out of the difficulty did not appear easy to discover. Sir R. Stout was at the House, and appeared to be in the confidence of Sir Julius Vogel's friends in the matter. It transpired later in the afternoon that Government had decided to submit an amended resolution, which was practically a vote of censure on Sir J. Vogel, and the other side would meet it with an amendment questioning the Speaker's ruling. When the House met at half-past seven, the galleries were filled in anticipation of the res»med debate on the question of privilege, brought about by the motion placed on the order paper yesterday by the member for Marsden. Immediately the Speaker took the chair, the Hon. E. Kichardson read a memo, from Sir J. Vogel respecting his employment of the Armed Constabulary man, and stating that Government were aware of the terms on which the man was engaged. Mr Walker said that it was clear that Sir J. Vogel had informed Sir Geo. Whitmore that he was willing to pay out of his own pockeb for the man 8 services, and he charged Ministers with not making that information public, as the statement made at the afternoon sitting by the member f6r Marsden left no such impression on honmembers' minds.

Major Atkinson indignantly denied having acted otherwise than in a most straightforward manner, and said the remarks made were calculated to engender bad feeling.

The adjourned debate on the privilege question baring been called on, the Premier said :—" With the permission of the House and the hon. gentleman I would say I have been endeavouring to arrange so that this matter might be satisfactorily settled both to the House and to you, sir, and to the hon. member for Christchurch ; but, I am sorry to say I have not been able to do so, and therefore I propose to take this course a course which, while being moderate, will be sufficient at the same time to vindicate the dignity of the House. I propose to ask leave to withdraw the motion of which I gave notice, and if the House sees fit to allow me to withdraw ib I shall then propose, 'That this House regrets that the member for Christchurch North should, by his conduct, have rendered it necessary for the Speaker to name him." I think, with that motion being carried, the whole matter would be disposed of. I think, sir; that would be sufficient to vindicate the dignity of this House, arid I think the friends of the hon. member, and he has friends on both sides of the Houae, ehoald be quite satisfied with that proposal I do hope, eir, that this matter Will nej- degenerate into a party question, but

that members on both sides will take a calm view of it. I have done my utmost to bring about a reconciliation, and have now to suggest this course as a moderate and reasonable one, and one satisfactory to all parties concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the motion standing in my name. Mr Seddon pointed out that one indictment having been made, it was proposed to withdraw it and substitute a fresh charge. The Premier admitted ho made a mistake. Major Atkinson : No, I do not admit anything of the sort. Mr Seddon : The Premier seems to have recognised that the motion was going too far, and he wishes to moderate it. Major Atkinson warned the member for Kumara not to proceed with that line of

argument. Mr Seddon had no wish to provoke Ministers, but his temperature was such that he must giveexpression-to the view beheld. He objected to the amendment being withdrawn.

The Speaker : In that case, the debate will go on. Major Atkinson invited his friends to vote against both amendment and original motion. (Hear.) The original motion was put and negatived on the voices. Tho Minister for Education moved, and the Minister for Public Works seconded, the following amendment to Mi , Seddon's motion :—" That this House regrets that the member for Christchurch North should, by his conduct, have rendered it necessary for the Speaker to name him."

Mr Ballance said it appeared to him that the amendment was very much stronger in the nature uf censure than the original resolution, and he would give his reasons, in thefirst place the original resolution referred to words used in debate, while amendment challenged the conduct of the hon. member, and implied that it was so bad that the Speaker was compelled to name him. That would appear in the journals of the House, and the inference would be that his conduct was of so disorderly a character that the Speaker was compelled to namo him, wnereasif the original resolution had stood, the question would have been, what wordj did he use to deserve tho censure of the House? He (Mr Ballance) held that the censure conveyed in the amendment was much stronger than the words conveyed in the original resolution, He denied that the conduct of the member for Christchurch North was disorderly (Oh !), although the words used might have been unparliamentary. He objected to the distinction between his words and conduct that was attempted to bo made. Mr Downic Stewart: Might I ask the Premier what conduct he refers to on the part of the lion, member, Sir J. Vogel ? The Premier : The conduct to which I referred was the way in which Mr Speaker had to name Sir J. Vogel. If tho hon. gentleman does not know what I refer to, 1 am quite incompetent to tell htm. (Opposition cheers.) Mr Stewart said that tho only offence could be improper conduct in using unparliamentary language. It was now proposed to depart from tho question of Parliamentary language, and censure tho hon. member for his conduct. Yet no one was preparod to say wherein his conduct was offensive to tho House. As to conduct, outside Parliamentary language, he asked wherein the hon. member was censurable. Had he been guilty of disorderly conduct while public business was being transacted ? He (tho speaker) invited members to look at the matter dispassionately, and to recollect that tho Premier could not say whoro there was disorderly conduct.

Mr Samuel did nob think, after careful consideration of tho difference between "conduct" and "words," that the House should deal with the member for Christchurch North without having something definite before it. No member should vote on the question unless he was in the House when the words were used, and was perfectly certain what the exact words were. Ho suggested as a compromise that Mr Seddoirs amendment bo altered to roud, "That tho Hansard report of the words be procured and referred to the hon. member for his commont; to be thereon returned to the House so that the House may be able to deal fairly with him." The lirsfc objectionable expression used, viz., "manners," was a very fine one, and seeing that the member for Ohriatchurch North was exeitablo and irritable, and suffered from an infirmity to which reference had been made, too much should nob be made of the matter and the stigma oast ou Sir Julius Vogel without an opportunity being afforded him after consideration to make an explanation.

Mr Fitaherberfc pointed out that no conduct on Sir Julius Voxel's part would come under rule 130, under which he had been named. The correct procedure would have been for the objectionable words to have been taken down at the time by the clerk to the House, by order of the Speaker. By this oversight or want of knowledge of the Standing Orders on the part of the Premier he had got into a fix, and the House should not assist him to wriggle out of it. Mr Barren denied that there was any complication, and said tho only question was, whether tho House should support the Speaker in his ruling. It was clearly the duty of members to support the Speaker's ruling, and to pass such a resolution as would strengthen his hands, and at the same time not bear too heavily oh the hon, member whose conduct was under review.

Mr Scobie McKenzie said his sympathies were strongly-with Sir J. Vogel, but all must admit that his language at one time was objectionable. He cited authorities to show it was not necessary to take down words objected to when the House was in debate. It was evident that Sir J. Vogel before retiring from the House last evening had apologised, and if such were the case, the apology should be accepted. With a view of settling the matter and without desiring to cast an unnecessary stigma on Vogel he asked all sections of the House to accepb this amendment. ''That this House, while regretting all the circumstances that culminated in the naming of the hon. member for Christchurch North, and the language which that hon. gentleman was betrayed into using, accept the apology that was tendered before his withdrawal."

Mr W. P. Reeves said that on the previous evening he had taken a rough note of what occurred after the galleries were cleared, and Sir Julius Vogel undoubtedly did tender an apology before leaving the House as he used these words, "If I exceeded the limits of moderate language I regret ib." He asked whether by being "named" a severe penalty had not been inflicted on Sir J. Vogel and whether this penalty had not been inflicted by the Speaker without members having an opportunity of being heard. The Speaker, speaking to the point of order, said : "I don't think that by naming a member it carries the censure of the House. I named the member in order to give him an opportunity of retracting or explaining what todk place, but having named him, the House must say whether the apology said to have been tendered is sufficient. If the hon. member is ready to repeat that apology, the House is always ready to receive it. I was in hopes that such an apology would have been made as the House could accept." Dr. Fitchett did not think Sir J. Vogel should be called on to repeat his apology, while Mr Bruce urged that the Speaker's ruling sho"uld be upheld. Sir G. Grey said he was absent from the House when the difficulties commenced on Tuesday, but he was present when Sir J. Vogel was ordered to retire. He heard the apology made, and spoke feelingly of kindnesses he had been shown at the hands of hon. members, clearly showing that he wished to obliterate any language he had used. ■ . At this efcage. an hon. member asked

whether the House would accept the assurance given that Sir J. Vogel had tendered an apology on the previous night, burely it was not desired to humiliate by getting him to reiterate hie apology ? Major Atkinson said that he did not desire to humilate Sir J. Vogel, but failed to hear the apology in the feame way in which Mr Reeves and Sir (.!. Grey took it. He heard it: "// I have done so and so, clearly showing a want of submission to the chair. He wished the matter satisfactorily settled, and would accept an explicit declaration from the friends of Sir J. Vogel that he regretted the language he had used. It was only after being assured by some ot Sir J. Vogel's friends that he would not consent to anything at all, that the Government had felt compelled to move the resolution now before the House. _ _ Several members of the Opposition, here left the House, with the evident intention of trying to get an apology from bir J. Vowel, but it was evident, on their return that there was no likelihood of an apology being forthcoming. , After further discussion, in which Messrs Ward, Fulton, and Lovestain spoke, Mr Seddon's amendment for procuring the Itansard report of Sir J. Vogel's words was lost on the voices. Mr Scobie McKenzie said that when he gave notice of his amendment at an early stage of the proceedings he understood that Sir Julius Vogel had made an apology for the words he had used. But from what fell from the Speaker subsequently, he gathered that unless further action were taken the honour of the House would not be completely preserved. For that reason lie wished to withdraw his amendment. Sir Maurice O'Rorko wished it to be clearly understood that nothing that fell from the chair should sway members in any way whatever. He had merely laid tho fact before tho House, and left the Houso to deal with the case. Mr McKenzie did not wish to imply that anything the Speaker had said was calculated to sway the Houso, but the remark he had made led him (Mr McKenzie) to doubt the completeness of the apology tendered last night. On that account he did not intend to move his amendment. Mr Fish thereupon moved, and Major Steward seconded, " That this House, while regretting all the circumstanced that culminated in naming the lion, member for Christchurch North, and the language which that hon. gentleman used, accept the apology tendered bofore he left the chamber." On the vote being taken, the Hon. Mr Fisher's motion was carried by 45 to 32. Mr Kecves (Inangahna) said that in the interests of tho House, in the interests of members and in the interests of the country it was necessary that the Standing Srders should bo conserved, and in every case the ruling of the Speaker should bo respected. He contended,however, that in this euse the Speaker's ruling wus incorrect,and therefore moved with regret, " That in tho opinion of thin House the Speaker exceeded tho powers ho possesses in naming Sir Julius Vogel.becaiiHO tho 138 th standing order under which he acted was not applicable to the case." Mr Kerr seconded the motion.

Sir J. Hall and Dr. Fitchett asked whether the Speaker's ruling could be questioned without previous notice, and .Sir Maurice ruled that it was quite competent to review his ruling without notice. Mr Seddon, who spoko with great warmth, said that tho late division was nothing more nor loss than a party vote, and charged tho Premier with using the majority at, his back to do a great wrong. The speaker then proceeded to say that because Sir J. Vogel was leader of tho Opposition he had been hounded down, and a Wellington newspaper had spoken of his residence as a casino. Ho had that night been tried by a prejudiced jury, and justice had been denied him. The motion just carried had been hastily put, and the charge made had not been read over to tho member alleged to have been guilty of misconduct. A member could bo disfranchised at the dictation of a Speaker if the House were nob to have an opportunity of deciding whether a refractory member should be expelled. In that case, a Speaker would not be acting in conformity with the Standing Order, but as a dictator, and no member would bo safe if the position taken up was to be allowed as n precedent. In conclusion, Mr Seddon suid, "I siitill go home, sir, fur easier in my conscience to-night than any member who voted for tho motion of the Minister for Education. I shall in after time be able to look back on my vote and on the part I have taken in this debate with pleasure ; but I apprehend that in less than 24 hours those in a majority, when public opinion through the length and breadth of ISow Zealand is known, will have been deemed to have done wrong, und to have done wrong simply on party grounds and for no purpose." Mr Fish said that common sense told him that tho Speaker had nob acted in strict accordance with the Standing Orders, and therefore, correctly speaking, the lion, member for Christchurch North had been wrongly arraigned. Sir Julius Vogel had not oeen treated as a generous man should have been. In view of the circumstances of the case, to his (Mr Fish's) mind the Speaker had acted wrongly on the two first occasions on which he checked Sir Julius Vogel, for he had not then used unparliamentary language. The vote that night, so far as the majority were concerned, was a party one, and many hon. members had simply voted in the direction they had because of the inbense hatred and ill-feeling they bore to Sir Julius Vogel. After the supper adjournment Mr JJownie Stewart urged that Sir J. Vogelshouldbe invited to explain what occurred yesterday after the galleries were cleared which led Sir Maurice O'Rorke to remark that he was willing to give the member for Christchurch North every opportunity to give such explanation as would be satisfactory to the House, or allow him to apologise through any other hon. member. Sir George Grey defended R. Thompson from the attacks persistently made on him. He approved of his conduct and believed he was actuated by the best motives, and sympathised with him in the trial he had to undergo in his first attempt to do his duty. Mr R. Thompson defended his action, and maintained that no man in the country should occupy so high a position as not to be amenable to criticism, and that the question having been so/en day? on the order paper without being challenged, it was unfair to attack him respecting it now.

Mr Moss bore testimony to the fact that Sir G. M. O'Rorke in his decisions had always acted with most perfect and rigid impartiality. Mr Grimm'ond suggested that all reference to the subject under consideration should bo expunged from the records of the House.

Mr Seddon, as the amendment was being put, inquired whether an intimation had been conveyed to the Speaker that Sir J. Vogel desired to make ah explanation or apology, and was replied to in the negative.

Mr Reeves's amendment was rejected on the voices, and on division the Government motion, " That this House regrets that the member for Christchurch North (mould, by his conduct, have rendered it necessary for the Speaker to name him," was carried by 43 to 25. Sir J. Vogel was then sent for,and entered the chamber amidst hearty cheers from the Opposition. He said that he wished to put himself in order by moving the adjournment of the House, but as it was so late, and he folt very fatigued, he should desire to postpone it till to-morrow, if there was no objection to that course. Major Atkinson said he had no objection whatever. He would like to meet the views of the hon. gentleman.

Sir J. Vog'6l (after consideration) said he would proceed at once. He said that a

question of a personally offensive character having been put on the paper by an lion, member, he felt an irritation not unnatural, because for three years he had been very must persecuted in the House, ana had not received the same consideration as other members. When he commenced lie had no idea of entering upon this, and very much regretted having gone into what he was willing to withdraw. His remarks were not suitable at the time at which they were made. The remarks attributed to him, however, were not altogether correctly reported in the newspapers. It the words had been taken down at the time he uttered them, he was convinced there would not be a dozen members in the House who would have taken objection to them. Then something very like a squabble ensued between himself and the Speaker, and he need scarcely say that if he was wanting in respect to the Speaker it was entirely due to temporary irritation. He thought, however, the action of the the Speaker in asking the Premier to move a resolution in the matter was unconstitutional. Comparing the present resolution with the one at lirst proposed by the Government, it was so mild in character and so doubtful in its interpretation that he felt he had very little cause to complain of it. He thought the proposal to name him was in order to get the Speaker out of a difficulty. The Speaker's action, to his mind, was a mistaken one, as he should have asked for the words to be taken down at the time they were uttered. Ho had also ruled under the wrong standing order, as clause 138 could not pos.-ibly apply to his action, and there wan nothing in that clause to justify the Speaker's action. He should merely say that, in the opinion of the Houso, it was more desirable to protect the Speaker in the jnistuke!hehadinadethantopreservebheßtrict interpretation of the standing orders. He had been asked to make several compromises, and he considered he had been unjustly treated, having been turned out of the House by the Speaker. Hβ had been legally advised that he had beenturnedout, although it was not necessary to roeist it by force, and he held the Speaker responsible for that action. He considered that ho had been treated in a most injurious manner, and to make matters worse, the Premier had stated that he (Sir J. Vogel) had made charges against members generally. It seemed to him that he could not allow the matter to drop. At present the Standing Orders required that when the words of any member were thus objected to they should be taken down without delay. He did not grudge the Speaker any satisfaction he might foel at this resolution having been passed, but ho should take the opinion of the House to challenge the ruling of tho Speaker on five or six point*. He would consult the Speaker on that matter, and meet his convenience on it. The first point was whether the words, "want of knowlodge of the world, men, and manners," were disorderly expressions. The noxt point was whether " unaccustomed to the usages of good society " was a disorderly expression. He should move a resolution to amend Standing Order 393, m that the SjMjaker should not havo the power to clear the galleries without a vote or a debate previously taking place on the propriety of doing so. The fourth point was a resolution to the effect that it was irregular to allow a motion to be put regarding words usod by a member unless they are first taken down in accordance with the Standing Orders. The fifth was that the Speaker had exceeded his powers in naming him yesterday. The sixth was that the Speaker had exceeded hia powers in ordering him to leave the House. He hoped that he had not said anything which the Speaker would construe into personal d> respect, but he should like to know whether lie would permit him to challenge the Speaker's ruling on the points he had named. In doing so he ehould endeavour to consult to the utmost of his power the Speaker's feelings. He wished, to state that the expressions of sympathy which he had received not only from members on one side of the Hoi!tse,but from the other side, at the gross insult he had been subjected to, showed him that party feelings were put aside in this matter. He then moved the adjournment) of the House, which was agreed to, and the House rose at 12.30 a. in.