THE VOGEL AFFAIR.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 69, 19 November 1887, Page 2

THE VOGEL AFFAIR.

THE PRESS CRITICISMS. PLAIN SPEAKINGS? THE •• BELL.” Wellington, last night, The Vogel affair is still the subject of much comment here. Though it was plainly evident to whom the remarks were particularly in. tended to reter, a telegram sent by Sir Julius to Christchurch indisputably proves that he had two members in view.

The Post remarks : —“ We can quite understand that Sir J. Vogel should have felt outraged and insulted by the nature and terms of the question; but after the plain, straightforward manner in which Major Atkinson answered it Sir J. Vogel should have treated the question and its author with the contempt both deserved. He was altogether wrong to enter the arena either to defend himself or to attack such an opponent. He lowered himself by doing so. Major Atkinson had already honourably said all that was necessary, and so far the eympatnies of the House were altogether with Sir Julius Vogel. He, however, very foolishly went on to attack Mr Robert Thompson, and in so doing was quite improperly interrupted and called to order by the Speaker. The words taken exception to were not in any sense unparliamentary, and were not half so strong as others which have time after time been allowed to pass unchecked. The Speaker, indeed, seemed to interpose rather in dread of what might be coming than in reproof of what had actually been said, and this feeling seemed to influence him throughout the unhappy scene. But whether the Speaker was right or wrong in his ruling, it was the duty of Sir J. Vogel, although he might have respectfully expressed his dissent, to have submitted to it. He was wrong in entering into an undignified wrangle with the chair, and still more wrong to oast the serious all-round as well as particular imputations which he did on his fellow members.”

The Tinies says“ While we admit that Mr Thomson was wihin his rights in putting the question which gave rise to the disturbance, aud while we entirely accept hi. assurance that he intended no personal reflection on Sir Julius Vogel, as also Minister’s declaration that they did not instigate his action, we cannot help regarding it as a distinct error of judgment and taste. No such reflection being designed, the information could have been got at in another way. Neither the question or anything else could excuse the conduct ot Sir Julius Vogel. His defiance of the Speaker’s authority and the very gross charges which he hurled broadcast against the character of hie fe iowmemb rs and of high members of the House, cannot be justified or even extenuated by his warmest friends and admirers, and cannot possibly be passed over by the House. Sir Maurice o’R.orke dealt with the disagreeable affair in his customary firm yet temperate manner, and the House is fortunite in possessing a Speaker who knows so well how to protect aud preserve i.s dignity.” The Auckland Bell says :—The conduct of Thompson was unmannerly in the last degree but our attention turns from him to the action o toe Speaker, as defender of the “ manners ” Of honourable members.' It has been often 3»id that our Parliament has been dis-

tinguished from sill other Parliaments id the colonies by its “ manners," and we point with the finger of scorn to "scenes” ia sister legislatures. “Manners,” of course, are often the superficial covering that hides ulcerous rotteness below, and it is a notorious fact that the Parliament of New Zealand has been almost uniformity the most drunken and debauched by drunkeness, of all the Parliaments of the colonies: and had it not been for the disgraceful cowardice of the Wellington press this artificial covering of respectability would long ago have been torn aside, Speaker as well as many members would long have been, “ named ” aa hiving exposed themselves in the most beastily state of intoxication. Goaded to parliamentary indiscretion by the indecency of reproof from the Speaker, Sir Julius laid the charge of incapable drunkenness against ths members, and in a veiled way against the Speaker, Sir Maurice O'Rorke himself.

Now this is a matter of which the whole world of New Zealand ia cognizant; for it is a notorious fact that the Speaker ot the New Zealand House of Representatives has nut only been prevented from taking his place in the House because of his lying incapably drunk in an adjoining apartment, but he has even disgraced Parliament and disgraced the colony by taking bis place in the chair of Speaker while utterly unfit to comprehend what was passing before him. That such a thing should have been so long tolerated is in itself disgraceful to members of Parliament, and doubly disgraceful to the Wellington press, which, by its culpable silence, has connived at the infamy; and we trust that now the ice has been broken by this disturbance of the 11 manners ” of the House the whole matter will be brought to light. ,It was to thia Sir Julius evidently referred when he spoke of the extra services rendered by messengers and others to members when in a state of intoxication, it being well-known and freely spoken of by members with bated breath, that the beluleaeneaa of the Speaker when lying drunk in the neighbourhood of the chamber of representatives has necessitated the meanest, and rather forbidding services of the officers pt the House, It is needless pursuing this matter further. Wo trust Sir Julius Vogel will stand by his guns, and that he will demand opportuniiy for proving the charges which he has made; and if he does not, we here throw down a cnallenge to the House of Representatives to purge itself from the disgrace of having connived at druhkeness of the most flagrant And degrading kind in the Speaker’s chair, and of thus exposing itself to the scorn of all the legislrtures of the Australasian colonies.