CORONATION INVITATIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 14689, 5 October 1911, Page 3

CORONATION INVITATIONS.

[Feom Our Pabmamkntabx Eepobtmi. ] WELLTNCTON,,October 5. An interesting debate took place in tho Legislative Council yesterday, when the Hon. C. H. Mills submitted bis motion in w)uch ke> protectee 1 against tho action, or " ■ rather the attitude, of the AttorneyGeneral tho other, day in replying to his inquiry for iidbrmaidon respecting tine Coronation invitations. The subject is .pretty well threadbare by _ now, but it assumed a new aspect by virtue of the fact that member after member, while admitting the courtesy of tho At-torney-Groneral in the past in all things, declared that he had been _ a little brief, if not to say curt, in this instance. It is a long time since a Minister has simply said "Yes" and "No" to qriCHtior*, but Sir John did. and the present outburst was the result. His only ctaimch champions were the Hens. G. Jonc* and \V. Beehan, the latter remarking that some members wore never satisfied imb'ss they were slobbered ever, Kventualiy an amendment to Mr Mills',:, motion by' the Hon. It. A. Loughnan, asking tho Government to make an explanation to the Council, was carried. At times tho debate afisumed an obviously personal aspect, and the Attorney-General was plainly ill at ease. Mr Mills's motion had been shorn of its harsh terms by tho order of tho .Speaker, but even in its amended form it carried a plain intimation that the Council wants information. In replying to the comments, Sir John Findlay said he thought it was due that he should expre.se his views. He could not avoid the preliminary observation that several of liis friend's had delivered theinsfflves of tho probationer officer's recommendation that the good character of the. accused exonerated him. Ho was indebted to thom for tho exceedingly merciful view they had taken. In answering the question he'had followed tho British practice. In the Houso of Commons he had heard the Prime Minister of Great Britain answering four questions asked by Mr Balfour, the Leader of the Opposition. To two of the questions the answer given was simply "Yes;"; to the other two simply " No," and one of these questions involved tho placing of papera on the table. It was, he submitted, not necessary to enter into faltering reasons why a certain thing should not be done. I Mr Jenkinson :It is the way you say the words! Sir John replied that in following the practice of the House of Commons he did not for one moment assume that he was transgressing the canons of good taste in giving the answer he did. He presumed that no one- would charge him with discourtesy as to the form of his reply when he had followed the practice of the British j Prime Minister. He could not see how ; he could have been guilty of discourtesy in referring Mr Mills to a copy of 'Hansard,' from which the hon. gentleman was reading in moving his question. "I j might," ho said, " have made the Prime Minister's words my own, and in the same parrot fashion have repeated what had already been said. Probably that would have been considered more satisfactory, but would the hon. gentlemen have treated me as being, if anything, less discourteous if I had repeated what was said in another place?" The Prime Minister, he went on, had accepted the responsibility of explaining the matter to the people of New Zealand. He did not feel in the position—in fact, was not in the position —to say if the answer was insufficient. There was a plain course open. The mischief arose through an old parliamentarian and ex-Minister of the Crown using words such as " undignified, crude, and insulting," and applying them to the answer given. If fne plain course open had been taken, the clement of bit- i terness which seemed to have been imparted into the debate would have been avoided. Mr Mills had done an injustice to his reputation in framing the motion in its original term*. It was all very well to say the motion was not a reflection on himself, but they would find next day that the debate in certain quarters would be taken as a condemnation, of himself and his colleagues, and he would say to some of liis friends that they, by their remarks, had lent color to that suggestion. He had no intention of being discourteous. He had learnt in England that it was the recognised rule to answer questions briefly. The procedure here might have been novel. He had spoken thus far to express the belief that whatever had been said it was not a personal attack on himself, and that any observations respecting his answer did not reflect the feeling nf the Chamber respecting himself. He thought he could say that he did not stand there charged by any member with discourtesy in the matter. He, had no objection to such a motion being passed. If it was, it would be referred to Cabinet. In his reply he had merely replied to a query by a single member of the Council, and the answer was to that member. (Hear, hear.) Mr Jenkinson : Surely you will answer a question if put by the Council. Sir John said he answered a member when a member asked a question. Mr Loughnan's amendment was carried on the voices.