GRATTAN GREY'S CASE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 9820, 20 July 1900, Page 5

GRATTAN GREY'S CASE.

Lengthy Discussion in the House.

Strong Condemnation.

In the House of t Representatives last night the Reporting Debates and Printing Committee, recommending that the services of Mr Grattan Grey, chief of the Bttisaid .staff be dispensed with, -came up for discussion. Mr Seddon deeply regretted moving that tbe report be adopted, and the necessity therefor. He hoped the issue ■would not be clouded.' It was simply a question of whether a Parliamentary officer should control Parliament, or wheU;er Parliament should control the officer. The subject matttr and authorship of the writiogi was not in dispute, but the writer's actual defiance of the authority of the committee of the House. The evidence taken showed that Mr Grey joined Mansard on the ground that the appointment would not interfere with his journalistic duties. A* to the statement that he (Mr Seddon) had threatened Mr Grey with dismissal for writing certain letters to the Dunedin Star, he gave it an euuaiified denial. By a resolution oi the House the Speaker ■was autlv-rised to control the officers of the House, but there being no Speaker at the time it was left to the Parliament to deal with. He did not personally interfere with officers of the Hous", but if Mr Grey took up the position he did it was high time the House asserted itself. Mr Grey admitted being cognisant of the decision of the committee last year, that members of the Barnard staff should refrain from writing political articles, and to continue doing so was an ac -of contumacy. Any other members of the ■'■"■> sard staff might take up a similar attitude, which would ultimately l'«nd to shake the confidence of members of the House in the acourary of the reports j of U-.risaid. He did not wish to muke a

martyr of Mr Grey. He only wanted him to a<kno vledgc the mastery of the House and refrain, when o-dered sotodr,

from writing on party political subjects. Members of the Barnard staff were not Civil servan:s, and therefoie the House had full control over them. The com-

-mittee recommended that no louger can Sir Grey continue a member of the Hans-rd staff, and it was a most unpleasant duty for him (Mr Seddon) to .move the adoption of the report. Mr Pirani thought it a farce that

Parliament should spend hours over a anatter that no private employer would waste afew minutes over. He contended

that Mr Grey wa9 within his rights in doing what outside' work he plosed. The only logical position for the Premier and the committee to take up was to determinedly end the agreement and reengage Mr Gray on new conditions. Mr Hornsby did not arraign Mr Grey for his writings, but for disregarding instructions from the committee. Mr Grey's attitude from beginning to end ■was one of defiance. The committee and Parliament considered Mr Grey a traitor, and in his pro-Boer articles he had been guilty of treason. It was time Parliament put its foot down, and said it would tolerate no such conduct on the part of an officer of the House. Mr G. W. Russell did not intend to

vote for the dismissal of Mr Grey, yet he

objected to come under the category of ■ traitor, which the previous speaker had said was the position of all who voted against the motion. He did nob agree ■with the decision come to by the committee. If Mr Grey was to be dismissed for his writing- 1 , one other member of the staff should also be prohibited from publishing wi>hin the colony cartoons of members. The punishment proposed to be meted out to Mr Grey was too severe for the offence committed. Mr VVilford commended the judicial manner in which the Premier had carried out his dv' y in intn ducii'g a"disagreeable matter. The question at issue was not

as to the nature of Mr Grey's writings,

but his defiance and denunciation of the committee. Under all the circumstances was only ,one course the House could adopt, and that was to approve the committee's repo-t. ■ Mr Smith admired freedom of speech, writing, and conversation, but there was a limit even to use these virtues, and that limit had been exceeded by the slanders to the pe»ple of this country uttered by Mi Grey, >vho had wilfully insulted every person in the colony. Mr Hogg said the last speaker was palpably trying to mislead the House. It was a disagreeable thing to do, but the -committee had a duty to perform, and

they had done it. He deprecated the attack made, not only upon the Premier

for dereliction of duty, but upon the

Speaker in connection with the matter. Members of the staff had certainly a right to do private work during the recess, but he never thought for a moment that they were justified in employing their spare time in traducing their employers. Mr G. Fisher said the committee afforded Mr Grey every loophole to escape from the blunder he had male, but he had shown such a spirit of hostility to the committee that no other recommendation than that come to could have been made.

Mr Collins was ashamed to think that any man could write regarding the colony as Mr Grey had done, but still he could not interfere with the right of every one to free thought and speech, and he warned the Democracy that meddling with these great privileges would lead to its destruction. He failed to see that Mr Grey had set the committee at defiance, and he would have -been despised if he had taken advantage of, as alleged, any loopholes of escape -offered him by the committee.

Mr J. Hutcheson said the report of the committee last session clearly showed that Mr Grey was within his rights when lie claimed to be allowed to write after his duties for the session were over, but that they recommended that members of the Han*ard staff should refrain from -writing political matter. Mr Grey had never officially been made aware of that report. Therefore the statement that ne had defied Parliament was not corre;;c. It admitted that £400 a year was not a competent salary, therefore he was allowed to take outside work.

MrMcLachlan thought it indiscreet for Mr Grey to write as he did. It was more an offence against the country tlmn the House. Still he would be no party to dismissing the officer for such an indiscretion.

Mr Carncrosssaid the committee did not arrive at the conclusion it did because Mr Grey wrote as he did, or the views he held, but that he set the committee at defiance. As an honest man he should, holding the views he did, have resigned. Mr J. Allen said it was for a political exigency Mr Grey was to be sacrifice I, and so that the Premier might take advantage of the great w-ive of patriot c feeling. A mistake was made at firs! in appointing Mr Grey at such a smad salary, so chat he had to augment tho salary by outside work. He did not approve of the writings, but he did not intend to support the motion.

Mr Morrison said that irrespective of his writings, Mr Grey's insubordination warranted the motion being carried. Captain Russell said the proudest boast of a Briton was his freedom. The freedom allowed in the Press provided a safety valve for dissatisfaction of the people. He believed the House was doing wrong in the course it was pursuing, although he had no sympathy with the sentiment of the writings. As to the charge of contumacy, the agreement he had entered into with the Premier showed that was not the case. He believed that while Mr Grey was to be allowed to take outside work, it was not justifiable that he should take part in party politics. It was a question, however, whether a man who had served the colony well for 25 years should be dismissed for an error < f judgment. He urged that the present agreement should be determined, and a fresh one be entered into, and Mr Grey aDd other members of the Hansard staff debarred from Parliamentary politics.

Mr Ell did not agree with the writings of Mr Grey, but deprecated the doctrine that such a man should be debarred from expressing his opinion on a subject. He went further and said that civil servants should not be debarred from exercising the duties of citizenship by becoming members of a local body. , Mr Fowlds remarked that it had been said the motion, if carried, would be against the principles of Liberalism, but there was a danger that Liberalism ■would degenerate into license. Mr Laurenson was not- concerned about the opinions or writings of Mr Grey, but condemned the contumacy displayed by Mr Grey. Mr Atkiason considered Mr Grey had only made use of a privilege accorded by the terms of the contract in taking up outside work He moved as an amendment that in the opinion of the House it is desirable in future that members of the Ear.s rd staff should be prohibited from active participation in .New Zealand politics, but seeing the terms of Mr Grey's appointment expressly reserve his right to engage in outside work, this House regards the publication of the articles in the New York Times as within his technical rights, and declines to adopt the reporcof the commttee. Mr Monk supported ;he amendment. Mr Eraser could not see how Mr Greycould keep his position. The amendment was lost by 44 to 12. Mr Seddon replied, contending that the Government had the right to vary its contract any time with the ha»s<-rd reporters, and if Mr Grey was allowed to defy the committee it would lead to a state of chaos in the staff. Ha considered the report last year should have been a direction to Mr Grey to refrain from such writings. He denied having attempted to take advantage of Mr.Grey, who had defied the committee. On the contrary he had shown him every consideration. The present contract must be determined and the decision of the committee upheld, otherwise there would be no discipline amongst the staff. On a division the motion for the adoption of the report was carried by 47 to 10, the following being those who voted " No" :—Messrs Atkinson, Collins, EU, J. Hutcheson, Lang, Lawry, McLachlan, Pirani, G. W. Russell, and Captain R. Russell. The House rose at 2.5 a.m.