THE SPEAKER'S RULING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8958, 16 August 1892, Page 5

THE SPEAKER'S RULING.

THE HON. J. MoKENZIE'S MOTION.

TO BE WITHDRAWN.

[by telegraph.— special CORRESPONDENT.] W kllington, Monday. Various rumours are still current as to the probable issue of the dispute between the Speaker and the Minister for Lands. Yesterday it was freely stated in the lobbies, and with much regret that the Speaker had gone twice in person to Mr. Mc Kenzie to urge that he should withdraw his motion of censure, but that Mr. McKenzie had refused to see Mr. Steward, and had insisted that all negotiations should be conducted in writing. What I now understand did occur was this: Mr. McKenzie first wrote to the Speaker asking by what authority he had altered the wording of his (Mr. McKenzie's) notice of motion. Mr. Steward went personally to explain viva, voce to Mr. McKenzie, who, however, declined to discuss matters save by letter. I hear that negotiations are still proceeding, but, that Mr. McKenzie is obdurate, and insists on bringing on his vote of censure, tn which case the Speaker is strongly urged to act as his predecessor once did on a similar occasion, and compel the House to deal with the matter before proceeding with any further business. It is said that Mr. McKenzie's chief ground of complaint consists in the allegation that he was treated by the Speaker disrespectfully, as when Captain Russell moved that Mr. McKenzie's words (Mr. Scobie McKenzie was no gentleman") be taken down he required an amende as well as the withdrawal, while in the case of Mr. Fergus terming Mr. Duncan a "servile follower of the Government," the Speaker accepted the withdrawal only. The answer to this in the opinion of many competent authorities is that the latter expression although unparliamentary was merely an instance of excess in language of debate, whereas the expression "no gentleman," was a gross personal insult. . Some expect that the Speaker will explain to-morrow that he made no difference between persons, but that he was compelled to discriminate between two very different cases. It was reported, however, in the lobbies this afternoon that Mr. McKenzie would listen to no suggestions as to conciliation, but insisted on pressing to the utmost his vote of condemnation. I asked the Minister this afternoon whether he intended to withdraw the motion, as had been stated earlier in the day. To this Mr. McKenzie replied that it would depend upon circumstances whether he would withdraw it or not.. Later. I hear to-night on Ministerial authority that the Minister for Lands has been induced by his colleagues to give way as regards the motion he tabled traversing the Speaker's ruling, and that he will ask leave to withdraw the motion, while the Speaker on his part will make an explanation of his ruling. '