HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7385, 10 August 1889, Page 6

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Friday, August 9. AFTERNOON SITTING. The House met at 2.30 p.m. THE MPRIEVE OF CHKMXS. Bir H. Atkinson said that the Government. after consideration, had agreed to lay all the papers on the table in connection with the Chemis reprieve, as asked tor by Mr Hutchison yesterday. THB WABD-HISXOP CORRESPONDENCE. Mr Larnach asked the Government whether any member of the Ministry sent Instructions to the Crown Prosecutor, Mr B. C. Haggitt, indicating that he was not to oppose the rule being made absolute in the case of Regina v McDonald re Christie In banco, at Dunedin, on April 24th last, and if so, would he state the nature of the Instructions. Mr Hislop moved the adjournment of the House. He said he understood that a good many members wished him to make a statement as to his position In this matter. He now intended doing so. The House was well aware that he was a member of the firm of Hislop and Creagh, solicitors at Oamaru, Bβ took no part, however, in the proceedings connected with Christie's bankruptcy, hor was he responsible for any of those noceedings. It had been stated in the House that while Christie's case was going Oα he (Mr Hislop) had been sitting alongside the counsel, prompting him, but that was absolutely untrue. As a matter of fact, during the four days in which the proceedings were going on, he had only Men in Court three times. On his return from Dunedin he was informed that a great mistake had been made in the evidence, and on enquiry he found that Christie's statement was positive on this point. He took into consideration the net that if this was true a man was in urison who ought not to be there and that the statement made by the Judge in passing sentence was an erroneous one. After consulting with the Premier, He(MrHielop) sent Christie's petition on to Judge Ward, so as to get his explanation of it; and he also 'wrote the letter which had been the subject of debate. If anyone studied the matter they would find that the real tests of the question would be found in that letter. Judge Ward held that in this case there was no right of appeal, and in writing to the Judge he asked him to state the grounds on which appeal was refused. The petition clearly stated that a fact of very great Importance had been ascertained to the advantage of the prisoner after hearing the case, and he (Mr Hislop) had also asked the Judge whether if that fact were true, it would alter the case. He farther asked him to inform the Minister for Justice of the state of the law- in cases of this kind. The question then arose whether, having an indirect reference with the case, he should have interfered at all, but after consideration of all the circumstances, and knowing that the decision did not rest with him, he saw no harm in taking the matter up as he had done. He admitted, in regard to another matter in his letter, that a difference of opinion existed as to whether he should have Interfered, but it had been reported to htm thai: Judge Ward had some connection with the Company mentioned in the bankruptcy proceedings, and, having ascertained that such connection did exist, the arose whether he should have informed his colleagues of it, or comma=ated with Judge Ward. He admitted that he might have been indiscreet in lommnnlcaflng with Judge Ward, but he ! bad come to the conclusion that the most itraightforward course to pursue was to mention the matter to the Judge, and if Sffi-M™ 8 ™ 1 to w> recent Mr Haggitt to oppose the rule if he thought proper, and that he (Mr HMom wooll take the responsibility on hWE Inferring to the correspondence betJreen himself and Judge Ward he said that the tone of it had a good deal of warmth, bat

he did not as a rule accent blows in the spirit of a philosopher. He regretted that the matter had been taken up as it had been. With regard to the first question as to whether his conduct was such as to justify the charge of interference with Judge Ward, it was a little unfortunate that his firm had anything to do with the case, but he did not make the connection. The very fact that the Minister of Justice had stated that if the charges made against the Judge were true he should not be allowed to remain on the Bench was his (Mr Hislop's) justification for making that statement. He submitted that nothing he had done had had the effect of interference with the Courts of Justice, and he hoped that whatever difference of opinion there might be as to his action the House would do him the credit to admit that nothing he had done was such as to thwart the administration of justice. In future it would be impossible for him to sit in judgment on Judge Ward, and he should take no further part in deliberations in this matter with those who were in authority. Mr Larnach was glad to hear the Minister's statement, and said he had taken the matter up from a spirit of fair Slay, as Judge Ward had not only one linister to fight but two. If the Minister for Justice was not in New Zealand, it was easy for the Colonial Secretary to communicate with him. There could be no doubt that interference had taken place with the administration of justice, which should have never occurred, and he thought now that the Government should set up a Committee to enquire into the whole matter, in justice to a man who could not defend himself, and was in no position to say whether Mr Hislop's statement was correct or not. He hoped the House would not allow the matter to drop without some tribunal being appointed such as he had indicated. Mr Ballance said there was no doubt that Mr Hislop's statement was a complete statement of the case from his point of view, but there were several other points that required explanation, as well as a large quantity of evidence that had not yet been heard. The Colonial-Secre-tary had rightly admitted that he should not, after what had taken place, sit in judgment on Judge Ward, Dut what about his colleague, the Minister for Justice, who had endorsed all Mr Hislop had done in the matter? It seemed to him (Mr Ballance) that that Minister should also refrain from sitting in judgment on him. He believed now that the proper thing to do was to appoint a Committee, especially as such a Committee had been set up in the other Chamber. There were undoubtedly grave and serious reflections in the correspondence on the conduct of the judge, and they were entitled to a Committee to investigate them. He would ask the House whether it was not due to Mr Hislop, as well as to the judge, that such an investigation should take place, and he would ask the Government to consent to it at once. Mr Fish said that the Colonial Secretary's statement had convinced him that it was the duty of the Premier to at once agree to a Committee being appointed. Unless there was some such enquiry the public would hold the opinion that Mr Hislop, in the action he had taken, was acting not in the interests of justice but of hi? client. Messrs Fitzherbert and Hutchison also supported a Committee being appointed. Mr Fulton altogether dissented from those who advocated a Committee being formed. He considered it was the House that should review the action of the Government and not a Committee. Mr Seddon was stroufcly in favor of a Committee of considerable length. Mr Walker trusted that the Government would see their way to grant what was evidently the wish of a large number of members, by setting up the Committee asked for, so as to enquire into the whole of the circumstances connected with the matter. In fairness to themselves also Ministers should agree to it. Mr Hislop said that no single member had shown that anything he had done was wrong in itself. The only thing that had been shown was that he, occupying a certain position, had acted rather indiscreetly in this matter. He denied that he had formulated any opinion detrimental to Judge Ward. The House rose at 5.30 p.m. EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE. Sir H. Atkinson moved—"That the House at its rising adjourn till Monday, at half-past seven p.m., for Government business only." Mr Larnach moved an amendment — "That the sitting be for the purpose of the consideration of appointing a Committee to investigate the Ward-Hislop Sir H. Atkinson said he had made an offer to the leader of the Opposition to set apart a day for the consideration of this question. He looked on the present motion as distinctly traversing the Government policy, and the sooner that was settled the better. He declined to accept this Committee, and he should treat the present motion as one of want of confidence in the Government. If the Government was not fit to deal with trumpery questions of this kind they were not fit to sit on the Treasury Benches. The Opposition had been shuffling from day to day over this question, and he should not transact any business till it was disposed of. Mr Ballance denied that there had been any shuffling on the part of the Opposition. It was the Government that was responsible for the wasting of time, and it was an insult to the House to refuse the appointment of this Committee, when a Committee had already been appointed in the other Chamber. All they wanted was that the whole of the facts should be put before them, and the Colonial Secretary's explanation did not disclose the whole of the facts. Mr Hislop said that all the facts were before the House. He contended that it was the duty of the Government to deal with all such matters, and to see that the administration of justice was properly carried out by its subordinate officers. If the Government could not discharge this duty he should like to ask whether a Committee could do it? If the House, however, held such an opinion, it was time the Government knew it. The principal reason for the action taken by the Opposition was in order to put an indignity on the Government, and as to the Committee set up in the Legislative Council, a want of confidence motion passed in that Chamber had not the same constitutional effect as a similar motion in the House. He again submitted that everything the Government had to disclose in connection with this case had been laid before the House already. Mr Walker thought, in the interests of the House and of the Government, it was absolutely necessary that the fullest consideration should be given to this question. His side of the House did nor regard it in a party sense at all, notwithstanding what the Premier said about pretence, but their conviction was that the whole facts should be investigated by a Committee of the House. "•■■.■.-

Mr Taylor protested against a matter of this kind being made a vote of no confidence merely to frighten the Government supporters. He wished to say that whether Ministers went out or not he should vote for the Hon. Mr Larnach's amendment. Dr. Hodqktnson said that this amendment was one of the necessary consequences of party government, and was brought down to worry the Ministry. The Government could not look at this amendment in any other light but that of a vote of censure, as it proposed to take the matter out of their hands altogether. Mr Bruce said that there had unfortunately been a manifest display of party feeling on this question, and it would be almost impossible under the circumstances to set up a satisfactory Committee to deal with it. He did not think there could be much more said than had already been disclosed by the Colonial Secretary. Mr Fish regretted the position of affairs, which induced the Premier to make this question one of no confidence, as he had already expressed the opinion that a Committee should be set up, and yet he could not desire to see the Government ejected from office at present. He thought the Premier would have acted much better if he had agreed to this Committee at once, as at best the report of such a tribunal would only affect one of his colleagues. There were several grave reasons why the Government should not be turned out of office at present, and they had also to consider who were to succeed them. It appeared to him that the best course he could take under the circumstances Would be to refrain from voting at all. Mr Marchant pointed out that an action was now going on between Christie and Judge Ward in consequence of which the Public Petitions Committee refused to consider Christie's petition, and he believed that the Committee's action in that respect was commended by a majority of the House. He hoped members would pause before consenting to the appointment of the pro- , posed Committee, as such a body would > have to enquire into the lengthy list of

charges made against Judge Ward by Christie. If the House found that the Government did not perform their duty in this matter they could be dealt with afterwards. The Premier's motion was then put and carried by 40 to 38. Aybs-40. Atkinson Marchant Bruce McGregor Buchanan Mills Carroll Mitchelson Cowan Moat Fergus Monk Fulton O'Conor Goldie Ormond Graham Pyke Hamlin Rhodes Harkness Richardson,G. F. Hislop Ross Hobbs Russell Hodgkinson Saunders Humphreys Seymour Izard Taipua Jackson Thompson, B. Lawry (Marsden) Macarthur Thompson, T. Mackenzie, T. Valentine (Clutha) Whyte Noes-36. Ballance Mackenzie, M. Blake J. S. Buxton Mackenzie, J. Cadman Moss Feldwick Newman Fitchett Parata Fisher Perceval Fitzherbert Beeves, R. H. J. Fraser Reeves, W. P. Grey Richardson,' E. Grimmond Seddon Guinness Smith Hutchison Stewart, W. J. Jones Taiwhanga Joyce Taylor Kelly Verrall Kerr Walker Larnach Ward Loughrey Pairs. For. Against. Hall TurnbuU Tanner Stewart, W. D. Wilson Lance Dodson Duncan PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ACT. Sir H. Atkinson moved the second reading of the Property Assessment Act Amendment Bill, explaining that he should reserve his remarks till he replied to the speakers on the Bill, and inviting a general financial discussion on it, as he had promised the leader of the Opposition.

Mr Moss moved as an amendment— " That the property tax is unfair in its incidence, harassing in its effects, and injurious to the progress of the colony." He said the Government could not regard this amendment as one of no confidence, inasmuch as the House had just decided that it had confidence in the Ministry. Mr Sbddon moved the adjournment of the debate, as he thought the House was not in a position to discuss it, owing to what had occurred earlier in the evening. Sir H. Atkinson said that in accordance with his pledge he had brought in the Bill under discussion, but he considered that pledge was broken after the amendment just moved. He thought he had gretft cause of complaint, as the leader of the Opposition had allowed a surprise to be sprung upon him after he (the Premier) had brought in the Property Assessment Bill at Mr Ballance's request, so as to discuss the financial policy of the Government. He should agree to the motion for the adjournment of the debate, as ne regarded Mr Moss , amendment as one that, if it were carried, would destroy the Bill and interfere with the financial policy. Mr Ballance denied that faith had been broken, as he knew nothing whatever of Mr Moss' amendment, and the Premier had had plenty of intimation during the week that the conduct of the Government was to be challenged over the Ward-Hislop correspondence. He said that in all his experience he had never known a Colonial Treasurer bring forward an important Bill of this nature without a word of explanation. He agreed to the adjournment of the debate, as it was evident that in the excited state of the House members were not in a position to discuss it. The debate was then adjourned till Monday evening. THE MARRIAGE LAWS. Mr Hislop moved the second reading of the Otago Marriages Bill, to remove doubts as to the validity of certain marriages solemnized in Otago. Agreed to. Mr Hislop moved the second reading .of the Marriage Act Amendment Bill. Agreed to. Mr Seddon, at 9.30, moved that the House adjourn, which was lost on the voices. DUNEDIN EXHIBITION. The adjourned debate on the consideration of the amendments by the Legislative Council in thsDunedin Exhibition Public Street Closing and Licensing Bill was resumed by Mr Goldie, wbo moved that the amendment be not agreed to. The amendment was lost by 39 to 28, and the amendment of the Council agreed to. SECOND READINGS. Mr Richardson moved the second reading of the Canterbury Society of Arts Reserve Bill. Agreed to. Mr Richardson moved the second reading of the Public Reserves Act Amendment Bill. Agreed to, and the Bill referred to the Waste Lands Committee. PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS* The Patents, Designs, and Trade Mark Bill was further considered in Committee. Several important amendments were made in this Bill. Clause 128, providing a penalty for the unauthorised assumption of the Royal Arms, was struck out, on Mr Ballance's motion. A new clause was inserted in the Bill providing that no trade marks shall be registered for artificial manure manufactured in the colony unless it is accompanied by a certified analysis of the component parts by a competent analytical chemist, a copy of which shall be attached to every box or package sold. The Bill was reported with amendments, read a third time, and passed. CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL. On the motion for postponing the Orders of the Day in order to call on the Criminal Evidence Bill and consideration of the amendments made in the Council on the Bill, Mr Marchant strongly protested against such an important Bill being brought in just before midnight. He moved that the House do adjourn, whicn was lost by 30 to 19. The motion was agreed to. Mr Hutchison moved that the amend* ment made by the Council be not agreed to. The amendment consisted in the striking out by the Council of a clause providing that if a person charged with an offence snail refrain from giving evidence or from calling his wife or her husband, as the case may be, as a witness, such person shall not be prejudiced 'thereby, and no comment adverse to the person charged shall be allowed to be made thereon. Mr Seddon moved an amendment that the Council's amendment be agreed to. He thought that it would be a pity to jeopardise the Bill by rejecting the Council's amendment. Mr FrrzHERBERT took a similar view. Mr Hutchison's amendment was carried by 26 to 15, and a Committee, consisting of Messrs Fergus, Hutchison, and Samuel, was appointed to confer with tne Council, and draw up the reasons for disagreeing with the amendment. The House rose at 12.30 a.m.