LAWRY AND NORTHCROFT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6290, 22 September 1898, Page 2

LAWRY AND NORTHCROFT.

ACCUSATION AND REFUTATION. CONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE. A WARM DEBATE. [From Oub CoRREsroNDENT.j WELLINGTON, Sept. 22. The statement made by Mr Lawry during the debate on the Police Commission report, that Mr Northcroft, S.M., had approached him in order to use his influence to prevent his removal from Auckland to Wanganui, was the subject of a warm discussion in the House at an -early hour Wednesday morning, when the Estimates were under consideration. Mr Bollard asked the Minister of Justice if he intended to comply with Mr Northcroft's demand that he should give an empathic contradiction to Mr Lawry's statement, or grant him an enquiry. Mr Law.ry had evidently been labouring under a delusion when he made his statement. It was not likely that Mr Northcroft, who had dissuaded his friends from holding an indignation meeting respecting his removal, would have approached Mr Lawry on the matter. The Premier said, as the head of the Government, it would probably be advisable that he should lay down what he considered was the proper course under the circumstances. No civil servant in the colony had a right to demand a Minister to challenge a member in the House in respect to his utterances, and to tell him that he had slandered a magistrate. Where would the liberty of speech of members be if Ministers were called on, at the request of civil servants, to denounce a member and tell him that his statements were incorrect? A member, in making a speech in the House, was responsible' to, hia constituents, h^t not to any civil servant or Minister of the Crown. A civil servant was quite right in communicating with his Minister, but to call on the Minister to tell a member of the House that statements made by him were incorrect was not right. Statements made in the House had to be accepted, and if the Minister of Justice had attempted .to do as Mr Northcroft asked him, Mr Speaker would have told him to mind his own business. He was sorry that a misunderstanding had arisen, and "he might tell the House now that there had been communications totbe Government from no less thar three imembsra of Parliament moving in the direction of preventing Mr Northcroft's removal. Mr G. Hutchison : There is no evidence that Mr Northcroft instigated them. The Premier : There is no evidence of his instigating them, except in the case of Mr Lawry. He pointed out that Mr Lawry had not said tliat Mr Northcroft requested him to take any action whatever to prevent his removal, but what Mr Northcroft had said as to the position in which he was placed, and the inconvenience »>nd loss entailed by his removal, naturally influenced the member for Parnell. Mr Buchanan: He denies having met him. The Premier. We must leave it at that. Mr Buchanan : I don't think we can. The Premier went on to assert that statements by members must be accepted, and said no Minister or member could challenge them or call upon them to account fbr them. Mr Pirani : You have. done jt-.. „~- , ; . t - -„ . : Thjß.Premie.r T Jilh.av* 'never ao ; 4eit. : . i' M^APlrant: You challenged Mr George Hutchison- the other day. ; . . . . ::■ The Premier : ; That was a statement; i>i fact. Concluding, tlie Premier said that though the Opposition" contended there should be no reference to magistrates or judges in the House, it all depended upon who the judge or magistrate was. If members of the Opposition mentioned a magistrate, then it was a proper thing ; but when a member on the Government side mentioned a magistrate, it was high treason. He could not conceive Mr Lawry wilfully saying that he had met the Magistrate in question, and that a certain conversation had ensued, if there had been no such meeting or conversation. Mr George Hutchison: It was an hallucination. ■ The Premier : It might have been so. Continuing, he said/he knew Mr Northcroft very -well, and. 1 he considered he was about the last man who would wilfully make a nvstake. He had known Mr Lawry as a member of tlie House for many years, and would say the same thing about him. The Hou T. Thompson considered that it was not his office to stand up in the House and deny Mr Lawry's statements, and he had informed Mr Northcroft,' who was a gentleman he respected very highly, that he could not do so; but was quite willing to place before the House Mr Northcroft's communications on the subject. Mr Lawry said he scarcely tbankcl the Premier ioc what he had said in attempting to defend him, though he believed that he meant .well. He had no hesitation in saying that every word he said about IVIr ' Nbrtljcroft was absolutely true, and he hurled defiance at the members for Patea, Palmeraton North and Eden, and challenged them to meet him on a public platform at Auckland, when he would defend the position he had taken up. "I consider," he said, "that Mr Northcroft, in this matter, has acted most disgracefully." Cries of " order " and " that is your estimation of him." Mr Lawry : "The member for Patea would not like to hear my estimate of him." Mr Hutchison : " I don't mind so longas you go outside and do it." MrLawrv: " I will go outside now and do it." He went on to assert that Mr Northcroffc had referred to him (Mr Lawry) in a telegram to the Minister in teruis that no gentleman would apply to another. "Had Mr Northcroft," he said, "telegraphed to me, 'Mr Lawry, you made a mistake; I never met you in connection with the matter, it is a question of lapse of memory on your part,' I would have wired back courteously giving him the benefit of the doubt?" v Mr Carson -. " Oh, there is a doubt ? Mr Lawry : " There is no doubt about Mr Pirani said he was glad that the Minister quite willing evidently to comply with the very fair request of one of his own officers, so that it might go into "Hansard" and have the same publicity as Mr Lawry's statements. When he (Mr Pirani) received the first telegram from Mr Norlhcroft Mr Lawry came to him and asked him not to bring the matter up in tho House. Mr Lawry: "IE private conversations are to be brought up in the House — " Th« Chairman : Order. Mr Pirani has not given way. . Continuing, Mr Pirani said he tola Mr Lawry that the clearest course for him to take was to get up in the House nnd say he had been mistaken in saying that he had received a communication from IVIr Northcroft, and that he withdrew the allegation he had made against him. He had pointed out to him that a man is often foo weak to admit that he has been wrong, th.uo-h it would strengthen his own position'by taking that attitude. Unfortunately, Mr Lawrv did not choose to take that position, and had made a statement in the House that he had had a personal interview with Mr Northcroft. He went on to point out that there was a precedentfor Mr Northcroft's demand for an inquiry in the case of Judge Kettle, who had been granted a departmental inquiry into charges made against him. Whether Mr Lawry or Mr Northcroft was right was not the question, which was one of perjury on the pirt of Mr Northcroft, who had sworn bafore the Police Commission that he had not used political influence with regard to his transfer from Auckland to Wanganui. Now, that statement was either right or it was wrong. Mr Lawry. It was wrong. Mr Pirani : If it was wrong, then the member for Paruell will be able to prove , his statement. It was not likely that Mr Lawry would get up in the House and j

traduce a public servant, unless he was able, to substantiate his statement. If ho was able to do so, and if he proved that the Magistrate had committed perjury, the sooner it was done, and the Magistrate removed from the Bench, the better it would be for the administration of justice. But he (Mr Pirani) had more faith in Mr Northcroft and less in Mr Lawrythan would justify him in thinking that Mr Northcroft had deliberately perjured himself. No man, whether a public servant or not, could rest under the imputa- ! tion of having committed perjury without doing his utmost to prove that his accuser was wrong. Mr Duthie said he had known Mr Northcroft as a young man during the Maori war in the Wanganui district, and he was then a man above suspicion, incapable of telling a lie. That was thirty years ago, but he did not believe that his character had altered. The Premier pointed out that there was a difference between the Kettle and Northcroft cases, as in the former case allegations had been made by a brother officer. The statements made by Mr La wry could, no doubt, be easily explained, if the parties had a few words together. Mr Carson said that the doctrine laid down by the Premier amounted to this : If a member slandered a public officer: that slander had to be accepted. He. had learned for the first time that a Minister could sit still and |hear an officer of his slandered without defending him ; but no Minister with a spark of justice or manliless would do so. As to Judge Kettle, he asked the Premier if it was not the' case that an officer of a department in Wellington went to Wanganui and dictated a letter to Mr Barns, which letter Mr Barns had copied under protest, and which, to this day he had not signed. The Premier gave this an emphatic denial, and, referring to the general question, said he would like to see any member of the House get up and slander an officer in any of his departments. They would very soon find out what he would do. (Laughter and hear, hear.) He contended that Mr Lawry's statements were not slanderous, nor had .he accused Mr Northcroft of perjury, but had simply recounted, as far as his memory served him, an occurrence which took place between them. / Mr La wry said that the whole . thing resolved itself into a question of veracity between Mr Norther oft and himself. He would not believe that Mr Northcroft had wilfully made a misstatement, but he I attributed it to a lapse of memory on Mr ! Northcroft'd parti. : 'Mr Pirani quoted from the evidence of the Police Commission— Mr Northcroft's I statement respecting political interference — to show that if Mr Lawry's statements were true Mr Northcroft had perjured himself. He also quoted from. the "Auckland Herald's " report of Mr Lawry's speech, which Mr La wry himself had told him had been taken from his unconnected "Hansard" proof. After other members had spoken, the matter dropped, and consideration of the Estimates was resumed.