THE PRIVILEGE CASE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 417, 29 August 1877, Page 2

THE PRIVILEGE CASE.

GEORGE JONES AT THE BAR OF THE HOUSE. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO BE TAKEN. (by teleguaph.) Wellington, August 29. The privilege case occupied the House for the remainder of the sitting. After Mr. Gisborne had finished speaking, as telegraphed yesterday, Mr. Sharp asked what power the House had to inflict punishment.

Mr. Travers thought that Mr. Whitaker's motion and Mr. Hislop's amendment were both unsatisfactory, and supported Mr. Gisborne's proposal that the House should, through the Attorney-General, vindicate its privileges, which were infringed in the person of one of the Ministers.

The Speaker said, in his opinion, a more gross libel had never been committed on any Legislature. The charges were of a most specific nature against a member of the House, who was accused of a grave offence in using his position for personal advantage, to the detriment of the inhabitants of the Colony. Four ways of dealing with the case were open. One was to examine the culprit at the Bar in a Committee of the whole House ; the second, to refer the matter to a Select Committee; the third, to direct the Attorney-General to prosecute in a Court of law. An inquiry at the Bar of the House or in Committee would scarcely be satisfactory, and if Mr. Jones was made the subject of a State prosecution by the Legislature, public sympathy would certainly be on Mr. Jones' side. This would be a grave error if Mr. Jones had firmly, but respectfully, declined to apologise or explain away his statements ; but he had, on the contrary, emphasised them. Such being the case, Mr. Whitaker had undertaken to prosecute him personally in the ordinary way. Pie thought the resolution proposed by Mr. Whitaker a proper one, and not calculated to prejudice anyone. It simply said that the Hon. Frederick Whitaker and Mr. George Jones should fight it out between them. Mr. Rees said Mr. Jones was not charged with libel for which he could be tried in a Court of law, but with a breach of privilege—absolutely distinct offences, a id in no way clashing with eacli other. Mr. Jones was at present charged with an offence against the House, and not against Mr. Whitaker, and the question was whether the House was satisfied, and not whether Mr. Whitaker was satisfied. Either the House must deal with the case, or discharge Mr. Jones. Mr. Whitaker's resolution was calculated to bring the House into contempt in the public mind. If Mr. Whitaker wanted to go into a Court of Law personally, he should have done so without troubling the House. Mr. Macandrew thought the whole proceeding unsatisfactory. Mr. Whitaker simply asked the House to shirk its responsibility. It should defend its own privileges, and not delegate the task to the Supreme Court. Mr. Fox regretted the tone of Mr. Hislop's remarks, and said they were unbecoming from so inexperienced and young a meniber. It was an act of clemency on the part of Mr. Whitaker to afford Mr. Jones an opportunity to come to the Bar, and express regret at being, as was evidently the case, made the tool of some unknown person, or to have avowed his readiness to defend his statements. He had done neither. The libel was not like speeches delivered in that House, which were general charges in reference to the Native Lands Court Bill ; but specific charges were made against Mr. Whitaker, which, if proved, would render him unfit to sit in the House and subject to impeachment. He never heard a more unsatisfactory statement than that of Mr. Jones. It was a childish and unmanly defence, based on mere rumours probably originated by Mr. Jones himself. The House had no means equal to the Courts of |La\v to investigate such a case. He supported Mr. Whilaker's motion. If the Supreme Court found Mr. Jones guilty, he really would be punished ; while if the House proceeded with the case, he could only be detained in custody till the end of the session, and then be released defying the House. Mr. Button objected to Mr. Whitaker's resolution, on the ground that it did notdeal with the question of privilege. The House was bound to protect its own honour, and could not hand this over to Mr. Frederick Whitaker, as a private individual, to vindicate before any Court. He objected also to Mr. Hislop's proposal, which would be equal to marching up the hill and then down again ; it would also be unsatisfactory to all parties to investigate the matter before the whole House, or a Committee. The only proper course to pursue was to order the Attorney-General as such to prosecute Mr. Jones in the Supreme Court. Mr. Tole -thought that as Mr. Whitaker had stated that if Mr. Jones had apologised he would have left the matter in the hands of the House, and not interfered further in it himself, the House should dispose of the question at once. Mr. De Lautour said Mr. Jones had stated that if the House, after a full inquiry, decided he was wrong he would submit to its judgment. If this inquiry was granted, Mr.' Jones probably would be prepared to justify his statements. Meniber after meniber had actually condemned a man whom they now were proposing to send before another tribunal for trial. The matter was so mixed that it was desirable to adjourn it. He moved the adjournment of the debate. '

Major Atkinson "opposed the adjournment, and thought the House had taken a wise and moderate course. The best thing was to give Mr. Jones an opportunity of vindicating himsellm a Court of Law, as he had not taken the opportunity to do so before the House. If the House ordered the Attorney-General to prosecute it might defeat the ends of justice by creating sympathy for Mr. Jones.

Mr. Hodgkinson said the case before the House was one of privilege, not of libel. Mr. Jones not having apologised, was still guilty of a breich of privilege, and the House would stult'.fy itself if it did not vindicate its own privileges and those of every member of the House. It could not delegate this duty to any private member. Mr. Thomson thought the House had made a great mistake in calling Mr. Jones to the bar, as it did not know what to do with him. He supported the adjournment. If the case was to be judicially investigated, either by the House or a committee, or a Court of Law, the less said the better. Mr. Murray-Aynsley thought the adjournment would be an injustice to Mr. Jones. Mr. Wm. Wood said the House should deal with the question itself. Mr. Jones had not yet been asked what evidence he had. Equally as strong statements as Mr. Jones' had been made in the House by members on botli sides. He was op- ■ posed to sending Mr. Jones before a Court of Law branded as a libeller, as it would be a most unfair course to adopt. Mr. Stafford said the whole affair was in a most unsatisfacty condition. The House had summoned Mr. Jones for a breach of privilege, and now was asked to do nothing because Mr. Whitaker chose to take action elsewhere. The House was thus placed in an improper position. What Mr. Whitaker proposed to do was to vindicate his own character and not the privileges of the House. Supposing Mr. Whitaker had not been in a pecuniary position to commence such an action, and Mr. Jones had not apologised substantially or withdrawn his statement, what would have been the result 1 ? Mr. Gishorne's motion was preferable to Mr. Whitaker's. To pass the latter would be to admit that the House made a great mistake in summoning Mr. Jones, and it would be laughed at. He would like each member to have a copy of the article and Mr. Jones' statement before them previous to coming to a decision. The Speaker said he would have the documents printed. Mr. Shrimski said if the House had taken more time to consider its action in the first instance it would have avoided the difficulty and saved much valuable time.

The d' bate was interrupted by the dinner adjournment. On the House resuming, the discussion on the privilege case was continued. Mr. Bowen urged that the question be relegated to the ordinary judicial tribunals.

Mr. Sheelian considered the House should itself deal with the question of privilege, leaving to Mr. Whitaker the legal remedy for libel if he wished to take it. He urged that the matter should be referred to a select committee. He believed Mr. Jones was wrong in his facts, having confounded the Attorney-General's name with those of his sons.

Mr. Stout supported the reference of the matter to a committee as regarded the privilege portion of the question, leaving to Mr. Whitaker the ordinary remedy for libel. Mr. Whitaker's original motion was negatived on the voices, and Mr. Hislop's amendment then became the substantive motion.

Mr. Fox proposed to add certain words to the effect that the House did not desire to proceed further in the matter of privilege in order not to prejudice the position of either party in a Court of Law, should legal proceedings be taken. Mr. Reynolds thought Mr. Jones should be fined, and kept in custody till he apolog : ssd. Messrs. Joyce and Bunny supported the reference of the question to a select committee.

Mr. Travers said he suspected there was somebody behind Mr. Jones in the matter. The House was bound to accept Mr. Whitaker's positive denial, and Mr. Jones should have done so too and apologised, instead of which he had been im-

pertinent enough to quote from members' speeches in justification of the libel. He urged the sending of the case before a jury, where justice would be clone to all parties. Mr. Fox withdrew his amendment in order to allow Mr. Gisborne to move that the Attorney-General be ordered to prosecute Mr. Jones for libel on a member while in his place in Parliament. Mr. Sheehan opposed such a course, as manifestly unfair. Mr. Rees said the Government were defendants in one libel case already, and now wished to become plaintiffs in I another. If he (Mr. Rees) were libelled in Government papers, the House would not pay the costs of prosecuting the offenders. Mr. Gisborne's proposal would cover the House with ridicule and the Government with shame. Mr. Lusk opposed Mr. Gisborne's proposal, and supported a reference of the question to a committee, which, if it saw fit, could order a prosecution. Mr. Montgomery supported the motion for referring the matter to a committee. The amendment to refer the case to a select committee was then put, and on a division being taken, it was lost by 41 to 34. Mr. Bunny complained of the Govern- j ment whips influencing votes by stating that this was a Government question. I

Mr. Barff condemned the conduct of Ministers in not taking an opportunity to meet and repel charges, even stronger than those of Mr. Jones, which had frequently been made against them in the House. He urged that the House should itself deal with Mr. Jones. Mr. Murray condemned a State prosecution. Mr. Thomson moved an amendment to the effect that tho expenses of the prosecution should not be paid by the Colony. This was rejected on a division by 4!) to 27. , , _, Mr. Hi slop moved to add words to Mr. Gishorne's motion to the eflect tli.it if tho verdict in the case was for the defendant (Mr. Jones) or, in case of the jury disagreeing, the Government should pay the.* of the defendant, .13 between attorney and client. Mr. Whitaker accepted this amendment, but objected to that part with regard to a disagreement of the jury being included in it ; but on the voices this was insisted on, and Mr. Hismp's addition made to Mr. Gishorne's motion.

After some further discussion. The House divided on Mr. Gishorne's motion as amended, which was carried by 39 to 29. Mr. Whitaker then moved that Mr. Jones be discharged. Mr. Barff proposed to add the words "the House being unable to deal with the case," but was ruled out of order. The motion for Mr. Jones' discharge was carried.

Mr. Jones was again called to tho bar, and having been informed of the resolution, withdrew. The House rose at a quarter-past 12 o'clock. [from our own correspondent.! Wellington, August 28. Before the House proceeded to tho Orders of the Day, Mr. Whitaker moved that Mr. Jones be ordered to attend at the bar of the House. The motion was carried ntm. con., amidst general smiles and a buzz of conversation. A brass bar

had been placed across tho main lobby, leading to the Speaker's table. The Ser-geant-at-Arms having entered with Mr.

Geo. Jones, The Speaker, addressing Mr. Jones, stated the grounds on which he had Leen summoned to attend at the bar.

Mr. Jones pulled out a manuscript, and, having bowed to the chair, went on to read it. He pleads ignorance of forms of the House. He spoke of the fine Hues that separated a'broach of privilege and journalistic criticism. Ho said that no disrespect to the House was in-

tended, and he had no personal feeling against Mr. Whitaker. It was a matter of common rumour that Mr. Wliitakor was interested in land transactions in the North Island. The matter was one of common report, and had not been disputed. He had regarded the land policy as datrgerotis to the welfare of the Colony, more especially those transactions in which it was rumoured the AttorneyGeneral was interested. When ho saw that the Attorney-General was the only person who supported the Native Land Courts Bill, he shared in tlio feelings of those who opposed it. Mr. Jones was proceeding (o read from apeoohes of Inembers in reference to the Lund Court Bill, when

Mr. Travers asked wli ether tin a was the sort of justification which a person charged with a breach of privilege ought to be allowed to plead. Mr. Sheehan hoped members* would hear Mr. Jones out. Possibly ho proposed to read a statement nnido in the H"use quite as strong ;v s that complained of in the article. The Speaker did not so© how ho could interfere so long as Mr, Jones was respectful—so long as he did not use expressions which aggravated his offence. Mr. Jones then proceeded to quote from the speeches of Messrs. Ballance, Lusk, Tairoa, Sir George Grey, and Mr. Travers, and referred to the strong; expressions used in their speeches. He said that a gentleman from Waikato, who was now residing in the South had' supplied him with the particulars on which the article was based. These, with, what he knew personally, led him to publish the article. He, therefore, could not with candour admit that he had done wrong. If a journalist believed that wrong was being done, it was his duty to expose it. The journalist could not surrender his convictions of years. If the House considered that he had anted with indiscretion, ho was prepared to submit to its punishment. A general buzz of conversation hero caused some delay. Mr. Jones stood facing the Speaker, with hia hands behind him. The Speaker : You will retire in custody of the Sergeaut-at-Arms. | Mr. Jones having retired, I Mr. Whitaker said the proceedings of f, Mr. Jones were unsatisfactory. So far: from apologising, ho had aggravated the;, offence. It would be unsatisfactory forij the House to appoint a committee to;! deal with the matter only. The proper! course to follow was for Mr. Jones to bo discharged from custody, and he (Mr. Whitaker) to take proceedings against him in the Supreme Court. If Mr. Jones had offered an apology he would not have ; been disposed to pus i the matter further. If Mr. Jones' statements were true, he (Mr. Whitaker) deserved to be put out of that House,—if not true, Mr. Jones deserved to go to gaol; Ho contended with a motion that Mr. Jones bc^- \' Tged with a view to proceedings takci. in tho . Supreme Court. [The above telegram from our ton correspondent was received,-*' 0 . a ? for insertion in our issue of last Evening- J