ACCUSATIONS BY MEMBER FOR WAITOTARA COMMITTEE.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1890 Session I, I-07

1.—7

1890. NEW ZEALAND.

ACCUSATIONS BY MEMBER FOR WAITOTARA COMMITTEE.

Report brought up sth Atigust, and ordered to be printed.

ORDERS OF RPFERENCE. Extracts from the Journals of the House of Representatives. Feiday, the 11th Day of July, 1890. Ordered, "That a Select Committee be appointed to ascertain whether all or any of the accusations against the Government, and especially against certain members thereof, made by Mr. Hutchison, member for Waitotara, in his speech in the House on Wednesday, the 2nd instant, are in substance true or false, and to report their opinion thereon ; with power to call for persons and papers, and to report within fourteen days ; five to be a quorum. The Committee to consist of Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Bryce, Dr. Fitchett, Mr. Withy, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond, and Mr. Seddon."—(Hon. Mr. Mitchelsou.)

Thubsday, the 24th Day of July, 1890. Ordered, " That the Accusations by the Member for Waitotara Committee have leave to postpone bringing up their report for fourteen days."—(Mr. Withy.)

Tuesday, the sth Day of August, 1890. Resolved, " That this House concurs in the request made to it to relieve the Accusations by the Member for Waitotara Committee from its duties, and orders the discharge of witnesses from attendance."—(Mr. Withy.)

INTEEIM EEPOET. Youe Committee has the honour to report to the House that a difficulty has arisen in the conduct of its inquiry, resulting from the refusal of the Bank of New Zealand to produce a certain portion of the books and documents requisitioned for. This portion contains the private accounts of certain members of the Ministry. Appended to this report will be found fully set forth the original requisition made upon the bank, together with subsequent reductions thereof; and communications between the Chairman of the Committee, the president of the Bank of New Zealand, and Mr. John Murray, who is present in Wellington, in order to represent the bank. Edward Withy, 31st July, 1890. Chairman.

APPENDIX TO INTEEIM EEPOET. Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E., to Mr. J. Muebay, Bank of New Zealand, Auckland. (Telegram.) Wellington, 15th, July, 1890. You are required to give evidence as soon as possible before the Committee of the House of Eepresentatives appointed to inquire into the accusations made by Mr. Hutchison against members of the Government. You are also required to produce the following books and papers. You are requested to inform me the earliest date you can be in Wellington with the information required. 1. (a.) The books of the bank containing the original and all other entries of the current accounts, and the balances as carried forward of the several transactions and dealings prior to the Ist day of July, 1890, opened or kept and being in the name or names of any one or more of the members of the present Ministry, namely— Sir Frederick Whitaker, Sir Harry Albert Atkinson, The Hon. Edwin Mitchelson, ■ —whether jointly or severally, or in conjunction with any other person or persons, or corporation or corporations, and whether on their own account or as surety or guarantee for any person or persons, corporation or corporations ; and (b.) The books of the bank containing the original and all other entries of all securities, mortgages, bonds, bills, or notes given or lodged by the said members of the Ministry, or any of them, in connection with the account or liability of any other person or persons, corporation or I—l. 7.

1.—7

2

corporations, and containing a record of all transactions in respect thereof, showing how such securities, mortgages, bonds, bills, or notes have been realised, released, compounded, discharged, or otherwise dealt with. 2. The securities, mortgages, bonds, bills, and notes above referred to which still remain in the possession, custody, or control of the bank. 3. The books of the bank containing all letters, telegrams, or other writings or documents, whether written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, and whether shown by press copies or otherwise, from the bank to any of the said members of the Ministry, or any one on his or their behalf; and the original of all letters, telegrams, and other documents received from any one or more of them, or any person or persons, corporation or corporations, on his or their behalf, in any way relating to the several matters before mentioned. 4. The several balance-sheets of the bank as made up for the half-years from and inclusive of that ended the 31st March, 1887, up to and inclusive of that ended the 31st March, 1890. 5. The original agreement in force on the Ist October, 1887, and any since made or in force after that date and prior to the Ist July, 1890, between the bank and the Colonial Treasurer with reference to the public accounts of the colony. 6. The tables of rates of interest on fixed deposits notified as allowed by the bank, whether alone or by arrangement with any other banks in the colony. 7. The original letters, memoranda, telegrams, and writings received by the bank from the Colonial Treasurer since the Ist October, 1887, till the Ist July, 1890; and copies of all letters, memoranda, telegrams, and writings from the bank to the Colonial Treasurer; and the original agreement or agreements made between the bank and the Colonial Treasurer within the period mentioned having reference to the rate of interest from time to time, or at any time, payable, or to be allowed or credited by the bank on balances beyond the amount or amounts mentioned in the agreement for the time being in force as interest-bearing balances. 8. (a.) The books of the bank kept at Auckland and at Wellington, including the original copies of those of the London branch, containing the original and all the other entries since the Ist October, 1887, giving particulars of the public accounts of the colony, as referred to and dealt with in the agreement or agreements between the bank and the Colonial Treasurer, and all other accounts, if any, in which any of the public funds of the colony were dealt with since the date mentioned; and weekly and other balances of such accounts, the rates allowed and the amounts credited for interest, the rates allowed and the amounts credited for fixed deposits, the rates and the amounts charged for remittances ; and also showing the particulars of all securities, bills, debentures, or coupons lodged as security, or on deposits, or for custody ; and (b.) The books or other documents or returns which may show the total moneys and securities respectively belonging to the public accounts included in each of the half-yearly balance-sheets issued by the bank within the last three years. 9. The minute-books containing the original and all other entries made at or after the meetings of the directors of the bank since the Ist January, 1887. 10. All letters, telegrams, memoranda, and other writings and documents received by the directors or the general or acting-manager or other officer of the bank from Sir Frederick Whitaker, and the press or other copies of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, and other writings and documents from the directors or the general or acting-manager or other officer of the bank to Sir Frederick Whitaker, with reference to the resignation by him of his position as director of the bank. 11. All other books, records, letters, memoranda, writings, or documents, whether written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, relating in any way to the dealings of any member of the present Ministry with the bank, or in respect of his position as a customer, guarantor, shareholder, or director of the bank ; and all copies of telegrams, letters, and other communications to, and the originals of all telegrams, letters, and other communications from, the Agent-General of New Zealand—whether in ordinary language, or by code-words, cipher, or cryptography, with the keys to such—relative to the position of the bank, or in any way relating to the bank since October, 1887.

Mr. J. Mueeay to Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E. (Telegram.) Kaukapapapa, 16th July, 1890. Beceived your telegram here at half-past eight last night. Have sent it to bank at Auckland, that needful steps in compliance with requirements of Committee may be taken at once. If requirements of section one, two, and three are to be fully and literally complied with the preparations will take a long time—impossible to say how long—l should think some weeks at least, as persons named have had dealings with bank for many years—Sir F. Whitaker, for instance, for, I believe, twenty-eight. To produce all books of accounts means about seventy large ledgers, and to look out for books containing letters and telegrams, and to look over bank's large accumulation of these for many years, in order to discover what letters and telegrams there may be, is hardly practicable at any reasonable time and expense. I would respectfully submit whether requirements of Committee might not be sufficiently met if limit as to time past were named, as in the case of the public accounts—say, Ist October, 1887. Does the sentence, "or in conjunction with any other person or persons," in your telegram mean or include the firms in which the persons named are or have been partners ? if so, this would add immensely to the work, and indispensable time required if no reasonable limit as to past time is named. John Mueeay.

Memoeandum from Mr. G. Hutchison, M.H.E., to Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E. Parliamentary Buildings, 16th July, 1890. With the desire to save as far as possible the production of unnecessary books, involving, perhaps, inconvenience to the bank, I would ask you to limit the range (under the order to Mr.

3

j 7

Murray) to those transactions of Ministers since Ist June, 1885, subject to the production of those books which may deal with matters prior to that date if such a step should at some subsequent stage of the inquiry appear desirable. I regret I am unable to limit the time further at present, or to say that dealings with companies or partnerships can be excluded, although, I beg to assure you, it will be my endeavour to avoid everything that might cause concern to any one outside the Ministry. G. Hutchison.

Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E., to Mr. J. Mueeay, Bank of New Zealand, Auckland. (Telegram.) Wellington, 17th July, 1890. The requisition may be limited for the present, so far as transactions of Ministers, severally or in conjunction with partners or corporations, with the bank are concerned, to those since Ist June, 1885. Edwabd Withy, Chairman of Committee.

Mr. J. Mueeay to Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E. (Telegram.) Auckland, 18th July, 1890. Beceived your telegram of 17th. Bank people are busy looking out the books and documents required; but they tell me it will require at least a fortnight, probably month, to comply with requisition, the extent and scope of which I venture to think Committee cannot have realised in requiring me to produce these documents. It would appear as if Committee think lam an officer of bank; if so, they are mistaken. I can only request bank to furnish them, and can in no way hold myself responsible for their being furnished in full compliance with Committee's requirement. Further, as I have been away from executive duty in bank for nearly two years, part of the time in England, and as previously I had only a very general knowledge of the accounts of persons named, lam not able to say much about them. If Committee consider this position unsatisfactory I would respectfully suggest that they make requisition to president of bank to cause the books and documents specified in requisition to me to be produced before Committee, accompanied by a bank official competent to speak in regard to them. Please understand that I am not suggesting substitute for myself. lam at Committee's service to give such evidence as lam competent to give. I presume I may understand I need not proceed to Wellington till accompanied by the books and documents required. John Mueeay.

Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E., to Mr. W. H. Colbeck, President, Bank of New Zealand, Auckland. (Telegram.) Wellington, 18th July, 1890. Eepeeeing to requisition for books and documents telegraphed to Mr. John Murray, Committee requests that you will order the production of everything therein asked for, and that you will send it the name of a bank official competent to speak in regard to them, in order that it may summon him to accompany Mr. Murray to Wellington. You will be good enough to understand that original documents, and not copies, are required. Edwabd Withy, Chairman of Committee.

Mr. W. H. Colbeck to Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E. (Telegram.) Auckland, 19th July, 1890. In reply to your telegram of the 18th, I have already ordered the production of everything asked for in your telegrams to Mr. Murray of the 15th and 17th instant, and have telegraphed to our branches to make careful search; collect what is required. The material when collected will be sent to Wellington in charge of Mr. Eichard Butler Bigg, Inspector's Accountant, an official competent to speak in regard to the matters under consideration of the Committee. W. H. Colbeck.

Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E., to E. B. Eigg, Bank of New Zealand, Auckland. (Telegram.) Wellington, 21st July, 1890. You are required to attend before the Accusations by Member for Waitotara Committee, with Mr. John Murray, and to explain books and documents mentioned in requisition to Mr. Murray. Edwabd Withy, Chairman of Committee.

Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E., to Mr. J. Mueeay. (Telegram.) Wellington, 21st July, 1890. Abe you now able to state when you can leave for Wellington with necessary documents ? Time is of considerable importance. Edward Withy, Chairman of Committee.

Mr. J. Mueeay to Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E. (Telegram.) Auckland, 21st July, 1890. Bank people inform me impossible yet to say when books, &c, will be ready. If Committee consider that bank cannot possibly part, for instance, with current account ledgers in daily use, of which at

1.—7

4

least five are wanted, till new ledgers are opened and entries for some time past copied into them, implying large amount of work, which can only be done by qualified clerks in overtime, the books being in constant use, they will understand that by this item alone much time must be unavoidably occupied. John Mubbay.

Mr. W. H. Colbeck to Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E. (Telegram.) Auckland, 21st July, 1890. On behalf of board of directors I must respectfully protest against important bank records, such as current account ledgers of which no duplicates exist, being exposed to loss in transit; the directors' minute-book too, of which there is no duplicate, and which it would be impossible to replace, is a record the loss of which, in event of litigation for instance, would entail the very gravest consequences to many people. This book we must respectfully decline to send to Wellington unless the Committee positively insist on it, and indemnify us and all others whom it may concern against any consequences which may arise from its loss. W. H. Colbeck, President.

[Extract from Minutes, Wednesday, 23rd July.] The Chairman reported that Mr. Hutchison had consented to limit his requisition from the Bank of New Zealand by substituting " 31st day of March " for " Ist day of July " in paragraph No. 1.

Mr. Withy, M.H.E., to Mr. W. H. Colbeck. (Telegram.) Wellington, 22nd July, 1890. Eeplying to first portion of your telegram of 21st, you may substitute 31st day of March for Ist day of July in paragraph 1 of my telegram of the 15th to Mr. Murray. Will this relieve you from sending books of account in current use ? Edward Withy, Chairman.

Mr. W. H. Colbeck to Mr. Withy, M.H.E. (Telegram.) Auckland, 23rd July, 1890. No part of my telegram makes special reference to books of account in current use, and the objection is not met by relieving us from sending away a few of so many bank records. We have asked Mr. Murray to proceed Wellington to-morrow to explain our views and position to Committee. W. H. Colbeck.

Friday, 25th July, 1890. The Committee, having heard Mr. H. D. Bell (who appeared with Mr. E. Stafford for the Bank of New Zealand, respecting the requisition made upon them for books and documents), on the 24th July, came to the following resolution on the 25th: — " That this Committee sees no reason to vary the requsition already made to the Bank of New Zealand for the production of books and documents." This was followed by a resolution to the effect— "That the Chairman send a copy of the last resolution to the counsel of the Bank of New Zealand in Wellington, and telegraph it to the bank in Auckland." W. H. Colbeck, Esq., president of the bank, replied as follows: — These instructions were carried out. " Auckland, 25th July. " Your telegram ending ' documents.' Mr. John Murray will be in Auckland to-night, and will call upon the Committee to-morrow."

Mr. J. Mubbay to Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E. Sir,— Bank of New Zealand, Wellington, 28th July, 1890. I have the honour to inform you that I am now in Wellington, and prepared to submit myself for examination by the Committee, upon rceeiving notice of their wishes as to time and place. I have, &c, E. Withy Esq., M.H.E., Chairman. John Mubbay.

Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E. to Mr. J. Mubbay. Sib ; House of Eepresentatives, 28th July, 1890. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your favour of this date, informing me that you are prepared to submit yourself for examination by the Accusations by Member for Waitotara Committee. I regret my inability at present to state the wishes of the Committee as to the time and place for hearing you. The Committee will meet for deliberation at 11 o'clock to-morrow (Tuesday). I have, &c, John Murray, Esq. E. Withy, Chairman.

5

I.—7

30th July, 1890. The following telegram was sent to the president of the Bank of New Zealand in Auckland : — "At what date will Mr. E. B. Eigg be ready to appear before the Accusations by Member for Waitotara Committee, with the required books and documents?" And on the 31st a reply was received as follows : — " In reply to your telegram of yesterday, Mr. John Murray, who is now in Wellington, has been requested to reply to your inquiry." Mr. John Murray replied, as requested by the president of the bank, in the following letter: — Mr. J. Murray to Mr. E. Withy, M.H.E. Sib,— Bank of New Zealand, Wellington, 31st July, 1890. The bank authorities in Auckland have asked me to reply to your inquiry when they will be prepared to produce the documents, &c, previously demanded. I have accordingly the honour to inform you that, as regards the operations of the Public Account, the bank has been prepared since Monday last to produce to the Committee all books, documents, and evidence in its possession; and that, as regards the private accounts of the persons named, all directors and officers of this bank being under an honourable pledge not to disclose the bank's affairs, or its relations with its customers, except on compulsion by a competent authority, we are precluded from giving the information demanded. If the Committee insist upon compliance with their demands, I would respectfully ask that the bank may be heard by counsel at the bar of the House of Eepresentatives. If it be asked why the Committee did not receive this explanation sooner, I would respectfully remind you that the president of the bank telegraphed to you last week that I had been requested to proceed to Wellington to explain the bank's position to the Committee, and that I intimated to you on Monday morning last my readiness to appear before you. 1 have, &c, E. Withy, Esq., M.H.E., Chairman. John Murray.

EEPOET. Youb Committee has the honour to report that it is of opinion that it cannot usefully proceed further in the inquiry committed to it, inasmuch as five of its members have expressed a desire to be discharged from further attendance. Your Committee therefore respectfully recommends that it be discharged or re-constituted. Edwaed Withy, sth August, 1890. Chairman.

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS.

Monday, 14th July, 1890. The Committee met at 10 a.m. Present: Mr. Withy, Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Bryce, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Ormond, and Mr. Seddon. The order of reference constituting the Committee was read. The Committee then adjourned.

Tuesday, 15th Jxjly, 1890. The Committee met at 11 a.m. Present: Mr. Withy, Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Bryce, Dr. Fitehett, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Seddon. The order of reference constituting the Committee was re-read. Besolved, On the motion of Sir John Hall, seconded by Mr. Macarthur, that Mr. Withy be elected Chairman of the Committee. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. Hon. Sir H. A. Atkinson, Hon. Mr. Hislop, and Mr. Hutchison attended at the request of the Committee. A shorthand-reporter attended and took notes of the subsequent proceedings. Mr. Hutchison handed to the Committee a list of witnesses whom he desired to be summoned to give evidence before the Committee, and of books and documents which he desired to be produced. Mr. Hutchison handed to the Committee a copy of the following as the formulated charges which he desired to have investigated by the Committee : — 1. That, pending the raising of the two-million loan, extraordinary expedients for raising money on the public credit were resorted to by the Ministry, and that, among other expedients, at the end of the financial year, on the 31st March, 1888, upwards of three-quarters of a million

I.—7

6

sterling were outstanding on deficiency bills, with the result of assisting the Bank of New Zealand at its half-yearly balance on the date mentioned. 2. That the two-million loan having been raised in June, 1888, the proceeds went to relieve the necessities of the bank, and that, while its true position was not disclosed, the Ministry made such representations through the Agent-General as were incorrect in point of fact, and misleading. 3. That then, subsequently, largfe balances were left uninvested in the hands of the bank, as shown by the public accounts of the colony. 4. That, within the time of the happening of the events mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Sir Frederick Whitaker, Sir Harry Atkinson, and the Hon. E. Mitchelson, members of the Ministry, were under pecuniary obligation to the Bank of New Zealand. 5. That the Colonial Treasurer, notwithstanding a contrary expression of opinion by the House of Eepresentatives in 1888, did refer to the Public Accounts Committee of 1889, for thenconsideration, but not for their report, a proposal to pay certain moneys towards meeting the interest due in November, 1889, by the New Plymouth Harbour Board in London ; and that he did afterwards, without authority, disburse upwards of £4,992 under circumstances such as to suggest the ability of the Board to meet its engagements. Hon. Sir H. A. Atkinson and Hon. Mr. Hislop having declined to accept the above as a correct embodiment of the accusations contained in Mr. Hutchison's speech of the 2nd July, it was arranged that Mr. Hutchison should meet a member of the Government in order that an attempt should be made to frame issues acceptable to both parties and to the Committee. Hon. Sir H. A. Atkinson, Hon. Mr. Hislop, and Mr. Hutchison then withdrew. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Seddon, That Mr. John Murray, of the Bank of New Zealand, be summoned by telegraph to give evidence before the Committee, and to produce certain books and documents mentioned in the list supplied by Mr. Hutchison. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Seddon, That Mr. George Buckley, of Christchurch, be summoned by telegraph to give evidence before the Committee, and to produce certain documents mentioned in the list supplied by Mr. Hutchison. It was resolved, That Mr. J. C. Gavin, Secretary to the Treasury, and Mr. E. W. Kane be asked to hold themselves in readiness to give evidence before the Committee, and to produce certain books and documents mentioned in the list supplied by Mr. Hutchison. The Committee then adjourned.

Wednesday, 16th July, 1890. Present: Mr. Withy (Chairman), Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Bryce, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Dr. Fitchett, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond, and Mr. Seddon. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. T The following outward correspondence was reported : Telegram to Mr. John Murray, of the Bank of New Zealand, Auckland, requiring him to give evidence, and to produce books and documents ; telegram to Manager of Bank of New Zealand, Auckland, requesting him to take care that Mr. Murray receive the message sent to him without delay; telegram to Mr. G. Buckley, of Christchurch, requiring him to give evidence, and to produce documents; letter to Mr. J. C. Gavin, Secretary to the Treasury, asking him to be in readiness to give evidence, and produce books and documents; letter to Mr. E. W. Kane, asking him to be in readiness to give evidence, and produce books and documents. The following inward correspondence was received: Letter from Hon. Mr. Hislop, stating that members of the Government had been unable to agree with Mr. Hutchison as to the form in which his charges should be put, and forwarding extracts from the Hansard report of Mr. Hutchison's speech, such extracts, in the opinion of members of the Government, containing the accusations made by Mr. Hutchison; telegram from Mr. John Murray, requesting that some limit of date should be put to documents required by the Committee, and that further limits should be put to the requisition. Hon. Mr. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison attended the Committee. A shorthand-reporter attended, and took notes of the proceedings. The extracts from Mr. Hutchison's speech of the 2nd July, forwarded by Hon. Mr. Hislop, were read. Hon. Mr. Hislop made an explanatory statement with respect to the formulation of the charges. Mr. Hutchison made a statement, and asked the Committee to accept the formulated charges already put in. Hon. Mr. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison then withdrew. The shorthand-reporter also withdrew. It was resolved, on the motion of Dr. Fitchett, That the deliberations of the Committee be not reported, but that everything else be reported and ultimately printed. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Seddon, That the charges as formulated by Mr. Hutchison be referred to him, and that he be asked to collate from his speech the passages constituting each of his several charges as formulated. It was resolved, on the motion of Dr. Fitchett, That there be printed and distributed, for the use of the Committee, (a) Mr. Hutchison's charges as formulated, with his collation from his speech; and ib) Mr. Hislop's extracts from the speech, which the Government contend contain the charges. Mr. Hutchison again attended, at the request of the Committee, and undertook to look through his requisition for books and documents, with a view to putting a limit of date to those required from Auckland. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Seddon, That the date of the next meeting be fixed by the Chairman. The Committee then adjourned.

7

1.—7

Feiday, 18th July, 1890. A special meeting of the Committee was held, by leave of the House, at 5 p.m., to consider Mr. Murray's telegram marked I 9. Present: Mr. Withy (Chairman), Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Bryce, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Seddon. Mr. Hutchison attended at the request of the Committee. It was resolved, on the motion of Hon. Mr. Bryce, That the confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting stand over till next meeting. A memorandum from Mr. Hutchison was read, consenting to limit his requisition for books and papers from Auckland. Copy of a telegram to Mr. John Murray was read, limiting the requisition for books and papers from Auckland. The telegram from Mr. John Murray marked I 9 was read and considered. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Seddon, That the Chairman be requested to carry out the suggestion made in Mr. Murray's telegram of date, and to ask the name of a competent bank official so that he may be summoned to attend. Mr. Hutchison stated, in answer to inquiries from the Committee, that he did not see his way to further reduce the requisition made by him for books and documents from the Bank of New Zealand, as he considered them essential to the proving of his case. Hon. Mr. Bryce gave notice that he intended to ask at next meeting that Mr. Hutchison should be examined as a witness, with the view of inquiring what knowledge he possesses as to the truth of the charges he has made. The Committee then adjourned.

Tuesday, 22nd July, 1890. The Committee met at 11 a.m. Present: Mr. Withy (Chairman), Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Bryce, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Seddon. The minutes of the meeting of the 16th July were read and confirmed. The minutes of the special meeting of the 18th July were read. Moved by Dr. Fitchett, That all reference to the contents of Mr. Murray's telegram be omitted from the minutes, and that this procedure be followed as much as possible in the future. The motion was put and lost. Moved by Mr. Seddon, That in paragraph of minutes referring to Mr. Murray's telegram all the words after the word "read" be omitted. The motion was put and lost. Moved by Hon. Mr. Larnach, That the following be substituted for the paragraph relating to Mr. Murray's telegram: "That the meeting of the Committee was held to consider telegrams marked 0 1, 0 9, I 3, and I 9, which have passed between the Chairman and Mr. John Murray." Moved, as an amendment by Mr. Seddon, That Mr. Larnach's motion to the effect that the meeting on Friday, the 18th July, was called for the purpose of considering telegrams marked 0 1, 0 9, I 3, and I 9, from Mr. Murray to the Chairman, and from the Chairman to Mr. Murray, is incorrect, the meeting having been called by the Chairman to consider a telegram from Mr. Murray, bearing date the 18th July, 1890, the same being urgent, so urgent that the meeting .was held although some of the members of the Committee had no notice of the meeting. The amendment was put and lost. Hon. Mr. Larnach's motion was not pressed. It was resolved, on the motion of Dr. Fitchett, That the paragraph in the minutes respecting a telegram from Mr. Murray be so altered as to read, " The telegram from Mr. J. Murray, marked I. 9, was read and considered." It was resolved, on the motion of Hon. Sir J. Hall, That the following be added to the minutes : " Mr. Hutchison attended, and stated, in answer to inquiries from the Committee, that he did not see his way to further reduce the requisition made by him for books and documents from the Bank of New Zealand, as he considered them essential to the proving of his case." The minutes as amended were confirmed. The following outward correspondence was reported : To Mr. J. C. Gavin, Secretary to the Treasury (marked O 6) ; Mr. Hutchison, M.H.E. (marked 0 7); Mr. G. Buckley, telegram (marked 0 8); Mr. J. Murray, telegram (marked 09) ; Mr. J. M. Kay (marked O 10) ; President, Bank of New • Zealand (marked 0 11); Hon. T. W. Hislop (marked 0 12); Mr. E. B. Eigg, telegram (marked 0 13); Mr. J. Murray, telegram (marked 0 14); Messrs Hislop and Hutchison, circular (marked 0 15). The following inward correspondence was reported : From Mr. G. Buckley, telegram (marked 1 4); Mr. Hutchison, M.H.E. (marked I 5) ; Mr. J. C. Gavin, Secretary to the Treasury (marked I 6); Mr. J. C. Gavin, Secretary to the Treasury (marked I 7); Mr. Hutchison, M.H.E. (marked I 8); Mr. J. Murray, telegram (marked I 9); President, Bank of New Zealand, telegram (marked I 10); Mr. J. Murray, telegram (marked I 11); President, Bank of New Zealand, telegram (marked I 12); Mr. H. D. Bell (marked I 13); Mr. H. D. Bell (marked I 14). •It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Seddon, That the Chairman consult Mr. Hutchison as to whether original despatch telegrams are necessary, and ascertain the limit of time, and if the same can be readily obtained. It was resolved, on the motion of Hon. Mr. Larnach, That the Chairman ask Mr. Hutchison whether he requires the books of the bank actually in current use, commencing, say, from the Ist April last. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Seddon, That the meeting be adjourned till Wednesday, 23rd July, at 11 a.m.

j 7

8

Wednesday, 23ed July, 1890. The Committee met at 11 a.m. Present: Mr. Withy (Chairman), Hon. Mr. Ballance, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Seddon. The minutes of the previous meeting were read. It was resolved, on the motion of Hon. Sir J. Hall, That the minutes be confirmed, subject to the insertion in their proper place of motions actually put and lost. The Chairman reported that Mr. Hutchison had consented to limit his requisition from the Bank of New Zealand by substituting "31st day of March " for " Ist day of July," in paragrah No. 1, and wished, with reference to the telegrams mentioned in the requisition to Mr. Gavin, only such as are in the hands of the Treasury. The following outward correspondence was reported: Circular to Hon. Mr. Hislop, Mr. G. Hutchison, and Mr. H. D. Bell (0 16); to President, Bank of New Zealand, telegram (0 17). The following inward correspondence was reported : President, Bank of New Zealand, telegram (I 15). Hon. Mr. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison attended the Committee. It was resolved, on the motion of Hon. Sir J. Hall, That Mr. Bell and Mr. Stafford be allowed to appear, to state to the Committee on what ground they desire to appear for the Bank of New Zealand. Mr. H. D. Bell and Mr. E. Stafford attended at the invitation of the Committee, and the Chairman notified the former of the substance of the motion just passed. A shorthand-reporter attended and took notes. After a short statement from Mr. Bell, Mr. Seddon interposed, in order to propose a motion, whereupon Messrs. Bell and Stafford withdrew. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Seddon, That Mr. Bell and Mr. Stafford be heard on behalf of the Bank of New Zealand on the question of books and documents contained in the summons. Messrs. Bell and Stafford were readmitted, and the Chairman read the resolution just passed. Mr. Bell addressed the Committee. Discussion following, Messrs. Bell and Stafford withdrew. Mr. Hutchison asked whether he should have a right of reply to Mr. Bell. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Seddon, That Mr. Hutchison and the Hon. Mr. Hislop be heard in reference to the contentions made by Mr. Bell as to the production of books and. documents. Messrs. Bell and Stafford were readmitted. Hon. Mr. Hislop made a statement that he did not wish then to address the Committee on the question of the production of documents. Mr. Hutchison addressed the Committee, Mr. Bell replied to Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Hutchison made an explanation, and Mr. Bell commented thereon. Hon. Mr. Hislop made a further statement. The Committee then adjourned.

Thursday, 24th July, 1890. The Committee met at 11 a.m. Present : Mr. Withy (Chairman), Hon. Mr. Ballance, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Seddon. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. The following outward correspondence was reported: Circular to Hon. Mr. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison (0 18). Hon. Mr. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison attended the Committee. It was resolved, on the motion of Sir J. Hall, That there be be printed, for the use of the Committee, Mr. Hutchison's requisitions with subsequent modifications, and all communications which have passed between the Chairman and the Bank of New Zealand, and between the Chairman and Mr. Gavin: the Government Printer to be urged to get the printing done as quickly as possible, and to be instructed to send a proof-copy for each member of the Committee. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Seddon, That the Chairman ask the House for an extension of time for fourteen days for the Committee to report. Mr. Seddon moved, That the Press be admitted to the meetings of the Committee, to withdraw at any time that the Committee think fit. Hon. Sir J. Hall seconded the motion, which was held over, it being understood that the Chairman should consult the Speaker as to the legality of admitting the Press. Mr. H. D. Bell and Mr. E. Stafford attended, at the invitation of the Committee. A shorthand-writer attended and took notes. Mr. Bell addressed the Committee. After some discussion, Mr. Hutchison addressed the Committee. Mr. Bell answered a number of questions addressed to him by members of the Committee. Hon. Mr. Hislop addressed the Committee. Mr. Bell and Mr. Stafford then withdrew. After discussion, the Committee adjonrned.

1.—7

9

Friday, 25th July, 1890. The Committee met at 11 a.m. Present: Mr. Withy (Chairman), Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Bryce, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Seddon. The minutes of the preceding meeting were read and confirmed. Order of reference authorising the Committee to postpone its report for fourteen days was read. Printed copies of Mr. Hutchison's requisitions and correspondence thereon were laid before the Committee. The Chairman reported that he had consulted the Speaker as to the legality of admitting the Press to the meetings of the Committee, and that the Speaker was of opinion that so to admit the Press would be to trench on, and might violate,, the Standing Orders. The Chairman ruled that Mr. Seddon's motion on the subject of the previous day was out of order. Hon. Mr. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison attended the Committee. It was moved by Mr. Seddon, That during the taking of evidence strangers be admitted, as provided for under Standing Order 190, to be excluded at any time the Committee thinks fit. The Committee divided on the motion, with the following result: —• Ayes, 2.—Dr. Fitchett, Mr. Seddon. Noes, 5. —Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond. The motion was accordingly lost. It was moved by Hon. Mr. Ballance, That the House be asked to suspend Standing Order 190, to enable the Committee to admit strangers, if it so desires, while the Committee is deliberating. The Committee divided on the motion, with the following result: — Ayes, s.—Hon. Mr. Ballance, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Seddon. Noes, 2.—Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Ormond. The motion was accordingly carried. The Chairman reported that he had not yet ordered the reports of the addresses of counsel to be printed. It was resolved, on the motion of Hon. Mr. Larnach, That the addresses of counsel and others be printed as soon as possible. It was moved by Hon. Mr. Larnach, That this Committee sees no reason to vary the requisition already made to the Bank of New Zealand for the production of books and documents. An amendment was moved by Hon. Sir J. Hall, That, with a view of averting the inconvenience and risk which would result from the conveyance to Wellington of a large proportion of the original books of account, as well as letter-books and. other documents of the Bank of New Zealand, copies, authenticated in accordance with the provisions of the Banks and Bankers Acts, 1880 and 1887, will be received by the Committee of such accounts, letters, and other documents as may be required to be put in evidence before the Committee. The Committee divided on the amendment, with the following result : — Ayes, 2.—Hon. Sir J. Hall, Mr. Macarthur. Noes, s.—Hon. Mr. Ballance, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Seddon. The amendment was accordingly lost. Hon. Mr. Larnach's motion was put and carried. It was resolved, on the motion of Hon. Mr. Larnach, That the Chairman send a copy of the last resolution to the counsel of the Bank of New Zealand in Wellington, and telegraph it to the bank in Auckland. Hon. Mr. Bryce moved, That Mr. Hutchison be examined as a- witness, with a view of inquiring what knowledge he possesses as to the truth of the charges he has made. After discussion, it was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Macarthur, That the debate be adjourned till Tuesday, the 29th July, at 11 a.m. Hon. Mr. Hislop made a statement to the Committee. The Committee then adjourned.

Tuesday, 29th July, 1890. The Committee met at 11 a.m. Present: Mr. Withy (Chairman), Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Bryce, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Seddon. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. The Chairman reported, with reference to the proposal to admit strangers, that the Speaker had pointed out to him that under Standing Orders, clause 196, it was forbidden to publish evidence and documents before reporting to the House. The following inward correspondence was reported : Telegram from the President of the Bank of New Zealand (I 16) ; telegram from Mr. John Murray (I 17). The following outward correspondence was reported : Telegram to President, Bank of New Zealand (O 20); to Mr. H. D. Bell (O 21); to Mr. John Murray (O 22) ; circular to Hon. T. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison (O 23). Hon. Mr. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison attended the Committee. Discussion was resumed on Hon. Mr. Bryce's motion, "That Mr. Hutchison be examined as a witness, with a view of inquiring what knowledge he possesses as to the truth of the charges he has made." 2—l. 7.

10

1.—7

By consent of the Committee, Hon. Mr. Bryce amended his motion by the substitution of the words " the first " for the word " a " before the word " witness." Dr. Fitchett moved that the following amendment be substituted for the motion: That the Committee sees no reason at present to depart from the order of evidence indicated by Mr. Hutchison. The Committee divided on the question, with the following result: — Ayes, 4.—Hon. Mr. Ballance, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Seddon. Noes, 4.—Hon. Mr. Bryce, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond. The Chairman gave his casting-vote with the Ayes, and the motion for the substitution of the amendment was accordingly carried, the amendment thus becoming the substantive motion. Mr. Macarthur moved that the following amendment be substituted for the motion as before the Committee: That the Committee take evidence as to the alleged wrongful manipulation of the public funds referred to in the speech of the member for Waitotara, before the question of private indebtedness is dealt with. The Committee divided on the question, with the following result: — Ayes, 4.—Hon. Mr. Bryce, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond. Noes, 4.—Hon. Mr. Ballance, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Seddon. The Chairman gave his casting-vote with the Noes, and the amendment was accordingly lost. The motion as before the Committee was then put, and a division was taken, with the following result: — Ayes, 4.—Hon. Mr. Ballance, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Seddon. Noes, 4.—Hon. Mr. Bryce, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond. The Chairman gave his casting-vote with the Noes, and the motion was accordingly lost. Mr. Seddon gave notice of the following motion : That the Chairman telegraph to the Bank of New Zealand in Auckland in order to ascertain at what date a bank official will be ready to appear with the required books and documents. The Committee then adjourned.

Wednesday, 30th July, 1890. The Committee met at 11 a.m. Present: Mr. Withy (Chairman), Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Bryce, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Seddon. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. Hon. Mr. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison attended the Committee. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Seddon, That a resolution passed on Friday, 25th July, be so amended as to read, " That the House be asked to suspend Standing Orders 190 and 196 to enable the Committee to admit strangers, if it so desires, while the Committee is deliberating." It was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Seddon, That the Chairman telegraph to the Bank of New Zealand, in Auckland, in order to ascertain at what date Mr. E. B. Eigg will be ready to appear with the required books and documents. It was resolved, on the motion of Hon. Sir J. Hall, That the Committee now proceed to define the charges contained in Mr. Hutchison's speech. It was resolved, on the motion of Hon. Mr. Ballance, That the Hon. Mr. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison be heard on the question of defining the charges. A shorthand-reporter attended and took notes of the subsequent proceedings. Mr. Hutchison addressed the Committee. Hon. Mr. Hislop addressed the Committee. Mr. Hutchison again addressed the Committee. The Committee adjourned till 11 a.m. on Thursday, the 31st July, to hear the conclusion of Mr. Hutchison's remarks on the formulation of the charges; and then to hear both Hon. Mr. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison as to the conduct of the inquiry.

Thuesday, 31st July, 1890. The Committee met at 11 a.m. Present: Mr. Withy (Chairman), Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Bryce, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Seddon. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. The following inward correspondence was reported: From the President of the Bank of New Zealand, telegram (I 18), Mr. John Murray (I 19). The following outward correspondence was reported :To Mr. John Murray (0 27); circular to Messrs. Hislop and Hutchison (O. 26). Hon. Mr. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison attended the Committee. A shorthand-reporter attended and took notes. Mr. Hutchison continued and concluded his address begun the previous day. The shorthand-reporter then withdrew. It was resolved, on the motion of Hon. Mr. Ballance, (1.) That an interim report be presented to the House, setting forth the refusal of the bank to produce certain books and accounts; and that the Chairman of this Committee be instructed, after consultation with the_ Speaker, to move a resolution asking the House to make an order for the production of the said books and accounts. (2.) That a copy of this resolution be sent to Mr. Murray. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr Seddon, That the Committee proceed to prepare an nterim report and resolution, to be submitted by the Chairman to the House.

1.—7

11

It was resolved, on the motion of Hon. Sir J. Hall, That the Committee adjourn till 2.15 p.m. The Committee then adjourned. At 2.15 p.m. the Committee resumed. On the motion of Mr. Seddon, the following interim report was adopted :— Your Committee has the honour to report to the House that a difficulty has arisen m the conduct of its inquiry, resulting from the refusal of the Bank of New Zealand to produce a certain portion of the books and documents requisitioned for. This portion contains the private accounts of certain members of the Ministry. / ... Appended to this report will be found fully set forth the original requisition made upon the bank together with subsequent reductions thereof; and communications between the Chairman of the Committee, the President of the Bank of New Zealand, and Mr. John Murray, who is present in Wellington in order to represent the bank. T o-rr Appendices to Interim Beport: 0 1, O 9, 0 11, 0 13, 0 14, O 17, 0 20, 0 22, 0 25, 13,1 5, I 9, I 10, I 11, I 12, I 15, I 16, I 17, I 18, I 19. Extracts from minutes, 23rd July, 1890. The Committee then adjourned.

Friday, Ist August, 1890. The Committee met at 11 a.m. Present: Mr. Withy (Chairman), Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Bryce, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond, and Mr. Seddon. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. The following outward correspondence was reported : To Mr. John Murray (0 27). Hon Mr. Hislop and Mr. Hutchison attended the Committee. The Chairman reported that he had presented the interim report to the House, which, on his motion had ordered that the report be printed, and resolved that it be taken into consideration at 2.30 p.m. on Friday, the Ist August; and that permission be given to the Bank of New Zealand to be first heard by counsel at the bar of the House. . It was moved by Mr. Seddon, That the Chairman be requested to move the following resolution in the House : " That Mr. John Murray and Mr. Eichard Butler Eigg, of the Bank of NewZealand do attend the Select Committee on the Accusations by Member for Waitotara, and bring with them, or one of them, the banking books and documents that the said Committee has already ordered to be forwarded, or may hereafter require." ~;',, Mr Macarthur moved, That the resolution to be submitted to the House be amended by the addition of the following words : " Provided that the bank shall not be compelled to disclose the private accounts and documents until after the Committee shall have reported, as alleged m the speech of the member for Waitotara, that public funds have been improperly used or raised to the advantage of the bank and the disadvantage of the colony." The Committee divided on the question with the following result :— Ayes 4 —Hon. Mr. Bryce, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond. N o es 4 —Hon. Mr. Ballance, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Seddon. The Chairman gave his casting-vote with the Noes, and the amendment was consequently lost. Dr Fitchett moved, That the motion before the Committee be amended by the addition of the following words : " That the foregoing resolution is not understood to pledge the Committee to its order of procedure." . . The Committee divided on the question, with the following result :— A Y es 4 —Hon Mr. Ballance, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Seddon. Noes' 4 —Hon. Mr. Bryce, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Mr. Macarthur, Mr. Ormond. The Chairman gave his casting-vote with the Ayes, and the motion was accordingly amended. The motion, as amended, was then put and carried nemine contradicente. The Committee then adjourned.

Tuesday, sth August, 1890. The Committee met at 11 a.m. • Present: Mr. Withy (Chairman), Hon. Mr. Ballance, Hon. Mr. Bryce, Dr. Fitchett, Hon. Sir J. Hall, Hon. Mr. Larnach, Mr. Macarthur, and Mr. Ormond. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. The Chairman reported that on Friday, the Ist August, Mr. H. D. Bell had been heard at the bar of the House as counsel for the Bank of New Zealand; that the Chairman had then submitted to the House a motion framed on that day by the Committee ; that an amendment to that motion had been carried; and that in consequence four members of the Committee had intimated their intention to ask to be relieved from taking further part in its proceedings. The Chairman had, however, asked those members to attend the Committee to do what might be necessary until they were discharged by the House. . Hon. Mr. Ballance and Hon. Mr. Larnach retired. It was resolved, on the motion of Dr. Fitchett, That the Committee report to the House that it is of opinion that it cannot usefully proceed further in the inquiry committed to it, inasmuch as five of its members have expressed a desire to be discharged from further attendance. That the Committee, therefore, respectfully recommends that it be discharged or reconstituted. The Committee then adjourned.

1.—7

12

ADDEESSES OF COUNSEL AND OTHEES. Tuesday, 15th July, 1890. [Hon. Sir H. A. Atkinson, Hon. T. W. Hislop, and Mr. G. Hutchison, M.H.E., in attendance.] The Chairman. —The Committee has decided, Mr. Hutchison, to ask you at the outset to let us know in what way you purpose proceeding with your charges against the Government. We also asked the members of the Government to be present to hear in what way it was intended to proceed, so that we may have a fair start with our inquiry. I should like to point out to you that the order of reference refers only to the speech made by you in the House on Wednesday, the 2nd instant. Mr. Hutchison. —l purpose asking the Committee to order the attendance of certain witnesses, whose names I will give the Committee, with a note of the books and papers which I desire to have produced. lam prepared to hand in that list now, if the Committee thinks this the proper time to do so. (List handed in.) The Chairman. —Mr. Hutchison desires the attendance of Mr. John Murray, Auckland, Mr. George Buckley, Christchurch, Mr. J. C. Gavin, and Mr. Kane, Clerk to the Public Accounts Committee in the session of 1889—four witnesses. Are these all, Mr Hutchison ? Mr. Hutchison.- —As far as I know at present. The Chairman. —Could you summarise and put as distinct charges the charges which you made in your speech ? Mr. Hutchison. —I have considered that, and I think it would be conducive to the orderly proceeding of the Committee if I did so. lam prepared to formulate the charges. The Chairman. —Have you the charges written out ? Mr. Hutchison. —Yes, Sir, I have. (Handed in.) The Chairman. —Then, I think, gentlemen, I could not do better than read these charges over at once. (Charges read.) Hon. Mr. Hislop. —Would it be convenient for me to state the position which the Government think they ought to occupy with regard to the inquiry ? The Chairman. —I should like, first of all, to ask Mr. Hutchison if he proposes to put in anything further than this ? Mr. Hutchison. —No, Sir ; of course these are the charges as they appear to me to be collated from the speech, or the larger part of the speech. lam not dealing with any other part than that which appears to me to be a fair statement of facts. Inferences Ido not deal with. The Chairman. —As we have now before us the way in which Mr. Hutchison proposes to proceed, and the names of the gentlemen, and the books and papers he wishes to have before the Committee, it would be quite proper to ask the Government in what way they propose to meet the charges. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —l should like to say to the Committee that it was the intention of the Premier to be present throughout the inquiry, and take the leading part in it on behalf of the Government; but his colleagues, and ultimately himself, came to the conclusion his state of health would not permit of that; and with the permission of the Committee I should like to appear as a member of the Government. Other members of the Government, being also interested, might occasionally wish to bring matters before the Committee, independently of myself, and I wish to ask the Committee if they would have any objection to their being present. With regard to the charges which have been read out, I would submit to the Committee that the charges as now put in by Mr. Hutchison—l am speaking under some difficulty, only having heard them read and not having seen them —are not the charges shown in the speech. They do not go nearly so far in some respects, and they do not communicate what is really charged in the speech. I submit that perhaps the best plan to follow would be that these charges should be taken by the Committee into consideration, and the Government will be prepared to put in writing to the Committee what they believe are the charges contained in the speech—and in doing so they will only follow the words used by Mr. Hutchison—and then we ask the Committee themselves to settle between us what are the matters to be tried. The Chairman. —May I ask if you draw any distinction between Mr. Hutchison's charges appearing in Hansard, and what it is alleged he actually said in the House ? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —All I wish to say is, that what has been lodged by Mr. Hutchison is not a complete statement of the charges as they appear in Hansard. I mean, the charges go very much further in some directions and not so far in others as the statement. I think it would be much better that the Government should put specifically in writing their differences with Mr. Hutchison's charges. I do not wish at present to address the Committee on the point as to whether that is a proper transcript of the charges or not. Mr. Hutchison puts in what he thinks his speech contains, and we are willing to put in what we think the speech contains ; and we ask the Committee to compare them and decide as to the charges to be tried. I should like to add that we should like to meet all the charges in the speech, because the speech has gone out not only as has been stated in Hansand, but also as is stated in this pamphlet-form to some extent; and we should not consider we had been offered a fair opportunity of meeting these charges if something which is contained in the speech is not contained in Mr. Hutchinson's charges as he has put them in. Mr. Hutchison.—l do not want to minimise what is contained in the speech. I have drawn these out fairly as facts upon which the speech was based. Inferences, of course, I have not alleged. It is not usual to do so. Hon. Sir H. A. Atkinson. —lf I might be allowed to say one word, I should like to say I wish the charges put in the words of Mr. Hutchison; they were quite distinct. I would also wish that, after the specific charges are disposed of, the Committee should inquire into the transactions between the Bank of New Zealand and the Government during their term of office, so that the whole of the dealings with the bank may be known completely to the public.

13

1.—7

Hon. Mr. Larnach. —Do I understand you to mean every dealing between the bank and the Government, and any member of the Government ? I hold the Committee has nothing to do with the private dealings of any member with the bank, unless it is shown that the Government, as a Government, has done something wrong with the public funds. What I mean, Sir, is this: if the Government have improperly applied the funds, it will be for the Committee, undoubtedly, to examine those causes that. led up to that; but I submit that the private dealing of any member of the Government or anybody else with the bank is no business of the Committee, if it is agreed the work of the Government has been conducted properly. If the Committee find that the Government have dealt improperly with the funds, then they have a perfect right to inquire what produced this wrong-dealing. But I submit no Minister should be subjected to any question as to his piivate dealings with this bank or any other bank, unless it is shown these private dealings have affected his public conduct in regard to the administration of the colony's affairs. Further, it appears to me eminently reasonable that the charges should be put in Mr. Hutchison's actual words. The Chairman. —I think, if Mr. Hutchison and some member of the Government were to take Hansard and underline the parts which they mutually agree should be accepted as charges, it would save a good deal of time. It might then be open for either side to make a supplementary list of things they consider should be brought into the inquiry. Hon. Sir H~. A. Atkinson. —l want the exact words of the speech. They are definite and clear. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —We have the charges marked as you suggest. Hon. Sir H. A. Atkinson. —l, as representing the Government, am quite willing to meet Mr. Hutchison to arrange the charges if possible. The Chairman. —l naturally assume Mr. Hutchison will be quite prepared to meet any member of the Government. We are all anxious to arrive at the correct solution of this. It would save a good deal of time if we had the words marked in Hansard, mutually agreed upon as charges, but not in any way to restrict either side to things which they were agreed upon. Mr..Hutchison. —I desire to make my charges in the form of a statement of facts. The Chairman. —I understand my suggestion is practically agreed to. Mr. Hutchison. —I am quite willing to endeavour to minimise the points at difference. Sir H. A. Atkinson. —I understand the Committtee will go into nothing but the words contained in the speech, so that we are not to have things printed that we disagree upon if they are not in the speech. The Chairman. —The order of reference confines us to the speech. I understand that the Government and Mr. Hutchison have agreed that they will meet and decide as to what charges they can agree upon jointly, and either side will then have the opportunity of giving any further extracts from Hansard which they consider should be dealt with by the Committee. [To Mr. Hutchison, Sir H. A. Atkinson, and Hon. Mr. Hislop:] I think we need not detain you any longer. Mr. Hutchison. —l should be glad if you could communicate when you would be prepared to take the witnesses. I may say, Sir, I should object to taking these witnesses on the spot before those who come from a distance. I desire to call the witnesses in the order their evidence may relate to the charges. Further, I would ask that I may be allowed a copy of these charges, as I have not retained them. Sir H. A. Atkinson. —We disagree with that. A lot of it is not in Hansard at all. Might I say one word further : Those charges contain matter which I know is not published in the speech, and that is unfair to the Government. If it is printed, fresh charges are made which will make the matter very difficult to deal with. ... As far as public balances and that go, I shall be glad to admit everything in that respect, to save Mr. Hutchison any trouble. I shall be glad to give the Committee full official information upon every point. We may admit certain points, and so save the time of the Committee.

Wednesday, 16th July, 1890. The Chairman. —I would ask Mr. Hislop whether he has any further remark to make to the Committee as to the manner in which we should proceed. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —No; the remarks I made yesterday, supplemented by what I have just handed in, appear to me to be sufficient, and are all I have to make to the Committee. I may, however, state, in regard to an incorrect and misleading paragraph which appeared in this morning's paper, that I desired no restriction or contraction of anything in the speech of the honourable member for Waitotara; but, on the contrary, the objection raised was that the charges as submitted by him were not co-extensive with his speech on the main charges; and that there was an attempt to get in other matter than was in the speech. Mr. Hutchison. —Then, you will not let in the New Plymouth matter at all ? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —l do not refer to this other matter now; but we have no objection to go into the New Plymouth or any other matter if the Committee require that we should do so. We have simply taken out what seemed to us the gravamen of the charges made against us—namely, that we were moved by consideration for the Bank of New Zealand instead of consideration for the good of the country. At the same time we are quite prepared to go into the New Plymouth matter or any other. Mr. Hutchison. —I object altogether to the form in which the Minister of Education asks the Committee to deal with these charges. Yesterday you asked me to formulate the charges made against the Government. I did so. If I understand the meaning of the word formula it does not mean a number of extracts taken from the speech here and there and brought forward as the charges made by me. Unless the Committee are going to disregard their own resolution that the charges should be formulated, I say the charges are not formulated by reading these passages from

L—7

14

Hansard —a series of extracts dissociated from their context. The first question which I have now to submit to the Committee is the question whether these charges are formulated or not. The Chairman. —The order of reference includes the whole of the speech made by the honourable member for Waitotara, so that we have no power and no desire to limit it to anything less than that. Ido not know what words he thinks it necessary to include so as to formulate the charges made. Mr. Hutchison. —l submit the formulated charges for your consideration, Sir. Certain words or phrases might be altered, but the charges are as I have handed them to the Committee. Ido not say that the words are in every instance as precise as they might be, but you are not to take the adjectives and verbs in a long speech and string them together as the particular charges. I submit it is for the Committee to condense the matter and put it into concrete form, but not to restrict my language. Mr. Seddon. —ls it usual for the accused to make his own indictment, or is he simply at liberty to answer the indictment which is brought against him ? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —l apprehend the charge here would be similar to that of a libel suit, when the manner of proceeding is this: those who complain that certain words are used concerning them, which words constitute the libel, put in those words, and then the party who undertakes to justify those words is bound to justify them word by word. That is the duty imposed on the defendant, who in this case is the member for Waitotara. Mr. Hutchison. —I am not the defendant, I am the plaintiff rather. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —We maintain that it is the duty of the honourable member to do what the defendant would be called on to do in a suit for libel, to plead the truth of what he has stated. Mr. Hutchison ought to be required, as he would be in a libel suit, to take his statements one by one, and prove them to the Committee. He would certainly in such proceedings in a Court of law be required to prove his statements one by one ; so that we do not ask for anything more here than what would be required in a libel proceeding. We state that we have been libelled, and we ask that the Committee should take the charges specifically one by one. We do not object to the whole of the speech being taken, provided the statements it contains are inquired into specifically and determined as to their truth or falsity. Mr. Seddon. —The extracts set out by the Government:—They say that we have no right to inquire into the personal matters until the public matters are proved. I want to know where is the authority to say that we have no right to go into that question ? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —I say that we only suggest that the Committee should be careful to consider what is to be done in this case, for it will form a precedent for the future. The reason is, I would suggest, that it will be very inconvenient if, in the future, any member of the House should, for the purpose of throwing discredit on another member and on the House, mix up personal with public matters which he is not able to prove. I do not wish to urge this matter further on the Committee, because the Committee can guard the privileges of the House as well as I can. We leave ourselves in the hands of the Committee. If the Committee decide that any particular matter contained in the speech should be gone into, the Government will unhesitatingly give such information as the Committee desires. The Chairman. —I would ask the member for Waitotara whether he has any further observation to make. Mr. Hutchison. —l submit that there is no such analogy as the Hon. the Minister for Education sought to set up. It would be an unprcedented thing to say that a plaintiff should be restricted as to how he should bring forward the case that he has to open to the Court. The plaintiff can open it in his own way, and call evidence on such points as he thinks material. It is for the Court to say afterwards whether the evidence covers the charges contained in the libel. I had not heard what extracts were considered by the Minister as containing the charges until they were just now read from this table. My position here now is that I have followed the desire of the Committee and formulated the charges I made against the Government. If the Committee say that they will not accept my formula, then I claim an opportunity of considering these other matters as suggested by the Ministry.

Wednesday, 23ed July, 1890. (Mr. Withy, Chairman.) [Mr. H. D. Bell and Mr. Stafford in attendance.] The Chairman (addressing Mr. Bell). —The Committee have decided to ask you to state the ground on which you desire to appear for the Bank of New Zealand. I may say that the Committee has not yet decided its mode of procedure, and so far we have not considered that the Bank of New Zealand was before us. We wish to hear you on the matters which have been raised by Mr. Hutchison, and, first of all, on the ground on which you wish to appear for the Bank of New Zealand. Mr. Bell. —I am prepared to adopt the position you suggest—that the Bank of New Zealand is not before you. I ask that I may now be heard with regard to the summons which you have caused to be served upon the bank's officers, requiring it to produce certain documents. It is with regard to that summons that I request to be heard. Adopting the position which you suggest—that the bank is not before you, or is no party to these proceedings—with the permission of the Committee, I will read first the telegraphic summons. The Chairman. —The Committee are anxious that you should tell us distinctly, in the words of our resolution, why you wish to appear for the Bank of New Zealand. This motion was passed: " That Mr. Bell be allowed to appear and state to the Committee on what ground he desires to appear for the Bank of New Zealand." We are not proposing to go into the merits of any question, because we have not begun to take evidence yet. Mr. Bell. —I was going to state, bowing to your decision, that the bank is not before the Com-

15

L—7

mittee or a part of its proceedings. The bank has been summoned, by your summons, to produce certain documents. The bank desires to submit to you and to the Committee reasons why those documents should not be produced. That is a matter which I desire, on behalf of the bank, to submit to you, and that is a matter upon which I desire to be heard. The Chairman. —Then, you do not desire, I understand, to appear here for all matters that may bring the bank before the Committee. Mr. Bell. —I beg your pardon, Sir. You addressed me, in the first instance, by saying that the Committee considered that the bank was not before it. lat once bowed to that. But the moment that the bank is brought before you—that you are to inquire into the actions of the bank, which is equally charged here with other persons—then the bank will represent to you and to the Committee its undoubted right to be heard by counsel upon matters affecting the credit, the reputation, the character, and stability of the institution; but that is a matter which at this moment does not arise, you having informed me that the Committee has now considered that the bank is not at present before it. I bowed to that, and proposed simply to submit the matter of the summons. Upon that question I desire—the bank desires respectfully to be heard, and to be permitted by its counsel, at the present stage, to state the reasons why it should not obey that summons in its terms. With regard to the other questions, that is a matter upon which the bank will claim its undoubted right—its unquestionable right, as we assert—at a later stage, when the Committee shall consider that the bank is before it. The Chairman. —I shall ask that Mr. Bell be heard, on behalf of the Bank of New Zealand, on the question of the production of the books and documents as contained in the summons. Mr. Bell. —Sir, the summons which you caused to be served upon the bank, or one of its officers, requisitioned the bank in the following terms : " Produce all books, documents, and papers of later date than the Ist of June, 1885." I have, in the nature of things, only the telegram from Auckland informing me of the contents of the document. The Chairman. —Here is the original document, which differs somewhat from what you are now reading. Mr. Hutchison. —That is the original document, and it should not pass out of the custody of the Chairman of the Committee. Mr. Bell. —I understand that the honourable gentleman who just spoke objects to my using or looking at the original document. Mr. Hutchison. —I do not object to your reading it, but I handed in the document with a request that it should not pass out of the custody of the Chairman or the Clerk. lam sorry to say that it has once already passed outside the Committee. Mr. Bell. —The document before you is, I understand, according to the statement you make, the original of that which has been served upon the bank at Auckland. The Chairman. —Yes. Mr. Bell. —Very well, I will refer to that. The reason I proposed to read it was because I am anxious to save the time of the Committee by reading what I have to say in the way of reasons against the production of the books, papers, &c, which have been ordered, or part of them. If the Committee will permit me I will go on and read it. "Parliamentary Committee to inquire into charges against Ministers have requisitioned : For all books, documents, and papers, of later date than Ist June, 1885, in which transactions with Sir Frederick Whitaker, Sir Harry Albert Atkinson, and Hon. Edward Mitchelson are recorded, either jointly, severally, or in conjunction with any other person or persons, or corporation or corporations, whether on their own account, or as surety or guarantee for any person or persons, corporation or corporations : all securities held in connection with such transactions; security registers. All letters, telegrams, or writings or documents, whether written or printed, or partly written or partly printed, and whether shown by press copies or otherwise, from the bank to any of the said members of the Ministry, or any one else on their behalf. The original of letters, telegrams, or documents received from any one or more of them, on his or their behalf, in any way relating to the several matters before mentioned. The original agreements in force on the Ist October, 1887, and any since made or enforced after that date and prior to the Ist July, 1890, between the bank and Colonial Treasurer with reference to the public accounts of the colony. Original letters, memoranda, telegrams, and writing received by the bank from the Colonial Treasurer since Ist October, 1887, till Ist July, 1890. Copy of all letters, memoranda, telegrams, and writing from the bank to the Colonial Treasurer, and the original agreement or agreements made between the bank and the Colonial Treasurer within the period mentioned, having reference to rate of interest from time to time, or at any time, payable or to be allowed or credited by the bank on balance beyond the amount or amounts mentioned in agreement for time being in force as interest-bearing balance. The books of the bank kept at Auckland and Wellington containing original and all other entries since the Ist October, 1887, giving particulars of the public accounts of the colony, as referred to and dealt with in the agreement or agreements between the bank and Colonial Treasurer. All other accounts in which any of the public funds were dealt with since the date mentioned, and weekly and other balances of such accounts. The rates allowed and the amount credited for interest. The rates allowed and the amount credited for interest on fixed deposits. The rates charged for remittances. And showing securities, bills, debentures, and coupons lodged as security, or on deposit, or for custody. The books or other documents or returns which may show the total money and securities respectively belonging to the public accounts included in each of the half-yearly balance-sheets issued by the bank during the last three years. All other books, records, letters, memoranda, writing, or documents, whether written or printed, or partly written or partly printed, relating in any way to the dealings of any member of the present Ministry with the bank, or in any respect of his position as a customer, guarantor, shareholder, or director of the bank. All copies of telegrams, letters, and other communications to, and the original of all telegrams, letters, and other communications from,

16

1.—7

the Agent-General of New Zealand—written in ordinary language, or by code-words, cipher (with keys to such) —in any way relating to the bank since the Ist October, 1887." In order to save time, I have written out that which I have to say. If the Committee will permit me to read it, I will then hand it in : The Bank of New Zealand submits that it ought not to be required to produce its ledgers and books of accounts, as stated in the Committee's summons, for the following reasons : — 1. To send away from Auckland its ledgers and books of accounts would so seriously interfere with the.business of the bank as practically to prevent the business being carried on in the regular and customary way. The time does not permit of copies being made. The books are numerous, and the entries innumerable. 2. The mere risk of transport of documents and books containing the official record and entry of the bank's transactions is considerable. 3. It is respectfully submitted that the summons is contrary to the law of the colony. By " The Banks and Bankers Act, 1880," section 2, " legal proceeding " is defined to mean (inter aim) " any proceeding or inquiry in which evidence is or may be given," and " the Court " is defined to mean " the Court, Judge, Magistrate, Arbitrator, or other person before whom a legal proceeding is held or taken ;" "a Judge "is defined to mean " a Judge of the Supreme Court of the colony." By "The Banks and Bankers Act Amendment Act, 1887," it is provided—by sections 3, 4, and 5, that a copy of an entry in a banker's book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence if one of the ordinary books of the bank, and verified by affidavit as having been examined and being correct; by section 6, that a banker or officer of a bank shall not in any legal proceedings to which the bank is not a party be compellable to produce any banker's book, the contents of which can-be proved under the Act, unless by order of a Judge made for special cause; by section 7, a Judge may, on the application of any party to a legal proceeding order an inspection. 4. It is further submitted that, if in face of this enactment the bank produces its books without the order of a Judge of the Supreme Court, it will render itself liable in damages to any customer thereby damnified. . 5. It is submitted that to produce the ledgers, and books, and documents, which contain the record' of the accounts of numerous persons other than the persons now directly or indirectly impugned, and to leave such ledgers, and books, and documents in charge of this Committee, or permit theninspection by any other person than an officer of the bank, would be a grave dereliction of the bank's duty to its customers, and, if not a departure from duty, a serious injury and offence to its customers. ... , 6. The bank respectfully submits that it cannot produce or offer for inspection the accounts of the persons directly or indirectly impugned without the consent in writing of such persons. It is the guardian of their confidence, both by law and by the custom of bankers, and its first duty is to protect the confidence created by the relation. The law is laid down in Walker on Banking, page 44. . The Chairman.—l would like if you would finish your remarks on the question of the production of documents, and the Committee will deliberate upon it. Mr. Bell—Yes. I have one further observation to make, Sir: that, according to the constitutional usage, as, I submit, with great respect to the Committee, Committees of Parliament guide themselves in matters of evidence by reference to the law which governs the proceedings in the Courts of the colony, I submit, first, with confidence, that this is a " legal proceeding" within the definition which I have read from the Act of 1880. The Chairman. —As regards the documents ? Mr. Bell.— Yes. And, secondly, I submit that, if it were not a " legal proceeding " within the definition of the Act of 1880, this Committee, following the course which is laid down for the guidance of Committees in works of authority, would follow the precedent established by the law in regard to evidence to be produced before similar tribunals. I refer the Committee to the Shrewsbury Peerage Case, in 7 House of Lords Cases, at page 1. I will read from page 14 :— " Mr. Serjeant Byles objected that handwriting could not be proved in this manner ; the Fitzwalter Peerage [10 Clark &F. 193], the handwriting to a family pedigree was there deposed to by an Inspector of Franks from the post-office as that of the same person who had signed other papers which were admitted to be genuine, but the pedigree was rejected. " Mr. Ellis : That was in 1843 ; since then the 17 &18 Vict., c. 125, has been passed. By the 27th section comparison of handwriting is admitted. . " Sir F. Kelly: The Fitzwalter case does not apply, for there the papers from which the witness acquired his knowledge were not before the Committee. " Mr. Eoundell Palmer [in support of the objection]: The statute now quoted does not extend to all Courts and all judicial investigations. The expressions in the section show that it is confined to Courts of common law. . ■ " Lord Wensleydale : That is a mistake ; the rule is universal, and extends to [section 103] every Court of civil judicature in England and Irelaud. '" Mr. Serjeant Byles : This Committee is not a Court of civil judicature; it is a Committee of investigation, and may follow its own rules. The rules applicable to a trial at law are not applicable here; for, as observed by Lord Eldon in the Chandos Case, an error in a trial at law may be remedied, but an erroneous decision in a peerage case is beyond remedy. " Lord Brougham: The comparison is defective. There are many proceedings at common law where an error cannot be remedied. It is true that, strictly speaking, the words of the 17 &18 Vict, do not apply to a proceeding before a Committee for Privileges, but if the rule laid down in the statute is good in itself there is no reason why we should not adopt it. " The Lord Chancellor: Where the Legislature has said that a particular rule of evidence is to be adopted in ' every Court of civil judicature,' if that rule is in itself convenient, it would be strange for us to refuse to adopt it simply because the words of the Act arc not binding upon us.

1.—7

17

"Lord St. Leonards: I entirely agree.. The provision in the statute does not apply to this House, for, strictly speaking, we are not a Court of civil judicature. But here is a rule of evidence adopted for the purposes of the public good. If there was a good reason shown why we should not adopt it we would not do so, but would make a rule of our own for the purpose of greater care and caution; but that is not so, and there is nothing to induce this House, sitting in Committee for Privileges to inquire into a peerage, to disregard a rule of evidence which, in its legislative capacity, it has established as a rule of evidence good for all Courts of justice. " Lord Wensleydale concurred." Sir, I submit that the rule which is established by the Banks and Bankers Act is established for the protection of those whose accounts and secrets would be disclosed if the books of the bank were to be bandied about before a tribunal, and that this Committee —first, is bound by the Act of 1880 and the Amendment Act of 1887 ; and, secondly, if not bound, should follow the precedent and the principle established by the Shrewsbury Peerage Case. That is all I have to say. Mr. Hutchison. —l should have an opportunity of replying to Mr. Bell. The Chairman (after deliberating with the Committee). —Mr. Bell, the Committee have decided to hear Mr. Hutchison and Mr. Hislop on your contention as to the production of the documents of the bank. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —l do not wish to address the Committee on Mr. Bell's contention as to the production of the bank's documents. I wish to submit to the Committee that, while the Government are prepared to submit to any ruling which may be made as to anything within the four corners of the speech, they will strenuously resist any attempt to go outside the particular issue. The Chairman. —That is not before us now. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —That is all I wish to say to the Committee at any time. Mr. Hutchison. —lt will be in the recollection of members of the Committee that Mr. Bell put his argument in the alternative. He first contended that this was " a legal proceeding," and then that, if not a "legal proceeding," still, by analogy, the rule in force in Courts of law ought to be applied. What I am about to say with reference to the Acts is: that the rule of common law is that the best evidence shall in every instance be produced. The best evidence of any transaction between a customer and his bankers is the entry made at the time. However, for convenience, it seems that in legal proceedings—l use that term advisedly—in legal proceedings a different course has been laid down in the two Acts Mr. Bell has quoted from—the Banks and Bankers Act of 1880 and the Amendment Act of 1887. Section 15 of the Act of 1880 reads thus : " The entries in bankers' books " —no doubt the books requisitioned are bankers' books, there can be no two opinions about that—"shall be admissible in all legal proceedings as prima facie evidence of the matters, transactions, and accounts recorded therein, on proof being given by the affidavit in writing of one of the partners or officers of such bank, or by other evidence, that such books are or have been the ordinary books of such bank, and the said entries have been made in the usual and ordinary course of business, and that such books are in or come immediately from the custody or control of such bank ; nothing in this section shall apply to any legal proceeding to which any bank shall be a party whose books may be required to be produced in evidence." Of course Mr. Bell, for the purpose of his present argument, admitted the position which was indicated to him—that the bank was not a party to these proceedings. If the bank be a party to these proceedings the Act does not apply. He assumed, however, that at present the bank is not a party to these proceedings. But it is necessary to consider whether the proceeding before this Committee is " a legal proceeding," because such a proceeding is the basis of this section. The interpretation clause of the Act reads : " 'Legal proceeding' means any civil or criminal proceeding or inquiry in which evidence is or may be given, and includes an arbitration." Now, there can be no doubt that this is not an " arbitration," and, therefore, we are left to consider whether it is a " civil or a criminal proceeding orinquriy"—the latter words being correlative. It is certainly not a "criminal" proceeding. Then, is it a " civil " proceeding? What is a civil proceeding? It is proceeding for debt or damages sought to be recovered by some suitor, or in which some relief is sought such as it is in the power of a Court in Equity to grant. Now, let us see how in " a legal proceeding" the character of evidence by production of copies of entries in books can be obtained. Section 16 of the Act of 1880 says—these sections I am reading from are repealed, but I am going through them to show the character of the modification made in the law and continued in the succeeding Act—" Copies of all entries in any banker's books may be proved in all legal proceedings as evidence of such entries, without production of the originals, by the affidavit of a person who has examined the same, stating the facts of such examination, and that the copies sought to be put in evidence are correct." Section 17 provides: "No banker's book, and no copies of entries therein contained, shall be adduced or received in evidence under this Act unless five days' notice in writing, or such other notice as may be ordered by the Court, containing a copy of the entries proposed to be adduced, and of the intention to adduce the same in evidence, shall have been given by the party proposing to adduce the same in evidence, to the other party or parties to the said legal proceeding; and such other party or parties is or are at liberty to inspect the original entries and the accounts of which such entries form a part." In this section we have the first reference to "the Court," and, as to this, the interpretation clause reads thus :" ' The Court' means the Court, Judge, Magistrate, Arbitrator, or other person before whom a legal proceeding is held or taken." The amended provisions which have been substituted by the Amendment Act of 1887, to which I will now refer, show how inapplicable the proceedings are to the reference before this Committee; in fact, they do not apply at all, as will be seen. Sections 15 to 20 of the Act of 1880 are repealed. Section 3 of the Act of 1887 provides : " Subject to the provisions of this Act, a copy of any entry in a banker's book shall in all legal proceedings be received as primd facie evidence of such entry, and of the matters, transactions, and accounts therein recorded." Section 4 continues :"A copy of an entry in a banker's book shall not be received in evidence under this Act unless it be first proved that the book was at the time of the making of the entries one of the ordinary books of 3—l. 7.

1.—7

18

the bank, and that the entry was made in the usual and ordinary course of business, and that the book is in the custody or control of the bank. Such proof may be given by a partner or officer of the bank, and may be given orally or by an affidavit sworn before any person authorised to take affidavits." Section 5 requires that the copy shall be a copy duly examined with the original entries. Section 6 provides: "A banker or officer of a bank shall not in any legal proceedings to which the bank is not a party be compellable to produce any banker's book the contents of which can be proved under this Act, or to appear as a witness to prove the matters, transactions, and accounts therein recorded, unless by order of a Judge made for special cause." It will be seen that there is an alternative even in " a legal proceeding," where a Judge may order, " for special cause," a different course to be pursued than that of the production of copies. Can this Committee adopt that alternative course ? Has it the power over a Judge of the Supreme Court to direct, " for special cause," that originals shall be produced? Clearly not. This Committee has no power over a Judge. Section 7 says :" On the application of any party to a legal proceeding a Court or Judge may on summons order that such party be at liberty to inspect and take copies of any entries in a banker's book for any of the purposes of such proceedings. An order under this section shall be served on the bank three clear days before the same is to be obeyed, unless the Court or Judge otherwise directs." Such is the process of the Supreme Court. How can such process be applied here ? That .process, which is a very convenient one indeed in proceedings in the Supreme Court, is wholly inapplicable here, even assuming that the bank is not a party. If it be that the bank is a party, not even in the Supreme Court would such proceedings apply. But, assuming that copies are ordered here, then, following the phrase on the door of this room, I, the " accuser," should not have the opportunity that the Act would give me, if I were plaintiff or defendant in a Supreme Court case, of examining the original entries, nor should I be prepared, if I had the right, to take that course, which woidd involve a prior inquiry in Auckland similar to that which I propose this Committee should make here. I submit, with confidence, firstly, that this is not "a legal proceeding;" that, secondly, none of the reasons which would be applicable in the circumstances of an action in the Supreme Court can apply here. lam not familiar with the Shrewsbury Peerage case referred to by Mr. Bell in regard to the adoption of a certain rule of evidence. The dictum relied on would appear to refer to a question of admitting the evidence of an expert as to identity of handwriting; and, as to that, the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords considered it desirable to adopt a rule of evidence which experience in Courts of law had shown to have been conducive to the eliciting of truth. But the analogy fails which has been sought to be drawn between the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords and this Committee, even assuming the decision referred to had any application to the adoption of a special course of procedure set up in Courts having the machinery to apply that procedure. The Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords is, in effect, a Court of law, although uncontrolled by any statute. The House of Lords is the ultimate Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom. Ido not know of any higher Court unless it be that of the clemency of the sovereign, which is limited to reprieves and cases of that kind; but that is the exercise of a prerogative rather than the function of a Court. Mr. Bell. —The House of Lords may or may not accept the report of a Committee of Privileges. The Committee of Privileges is not a Court of ultimate appeal. Mr. Hutchison. —What was the procedure of this Committee of the House of Lords ? The Lord Chancellor appears to preside. Mr. Bell. —The Committee of Privileges only reports to the House of Lords, and it gives judgment. Mr. Hutchison. —As indicated by tin , report, we find the law lords sitting and coming to a resolution, which universal practice has shown is always adopted. The report is a mere matter of form. The decision, however, has only reference to admissibility of evidence as to similarity of handwriting. What has that to do in. the way of supporting an analogy between the course of procedure applicable to legal proceedings and that of a Committee of our House of Representatives ? It does not apply at all. I claim that the original documents be produced. I have limited the range of the requisition more than once at the request of the bank. Mr. Bell referred to some passage in " Walker on Banking," but Ido not know that it is in point at all. Before the Act of 1880 was passed bankers' books had to be produced in Court. Even in a Supreme Court the Judge may direct the very books to be produced. A bank has never, as far as I know, refused to produce .them when required. It makes a protest as a matter of form but submits. Mr. Bell. —A bank is bound under legal obligation to keep the accounts of its customers secret. Mr. Hutchison denies the obligation. Mr. Hutchison. —Not unless with the authority of the customer. But the authority of this Committee is the authority of Parliament, which is supreme. At page 33 of " Walker on Banking," Ist edition, it is stated that it is improper to produce bank-books unless on compulsion. I admit the impropriety of a bank disclosing its actions except upon justifiable occasion. That this is a proper occasion I think the Committee have already decided by directing the production of the books. The power of : the Committee is practically indisputable. The Committee, if it find any opposition made to its order, will report the matter to the House, and the House will give its direction; and I presume that the House would support the Committee in its demand with reference to the production of evidence. As to privilege against disclosing certain accounts, that, I think, is a subject which may be left to be discussed when it is raised. lam not aware at present that a privilege can be insisted upon. Mr. Bell only submitted, first, that copies ought to be sufficient, and then objected, pro forma, as I understood, to the production of books without the customers' consent. The latter cannot avail against authority. Mr. Bell. —I am afraid, Sir, that I have been misunderstood. Perhaps there has been some misfortune in my manner, or in the words I have used, though I have been exceedingly careful in writing them down, so that I should hot be misunderstood, or use words which should leave room for misunderstanding. The bank is being called upon to do that which will practically stop its

19

1.—7

business. It is being called upon to produce the whole of its Auckland books for the last five years, and lay them on the table of this Committee. Well, the bank respectfully protests against that, and submits to the Committee that it ought not to be asked to do it. I gather from what has been said by an honourable member of the Committee that I was understood as declaring, on behalf of the bank, that it would not do anything of the kind. Nothing in the language that I used could bear that interpretation; at least, I hope not. In the passage to which the honourable member referred I began by saying, " The bank respectfully submits." lam asking, on behalf of the bank, that it should not be required by the Committee to do this. I have submitted that it is against the law, and I have submitted that, if not against the law, it is against all reason to ask the bank to lay upon the table of a Committee of this House its books and ledgers for the inspection of members. Mr. Hutchison pooh-poohs the argument that this is a legal proceeding, but I read the definition from the Act of 1880 as he did. The only word upon which he could rely as excluding it from legal proceedings is the word " civil." That this is a proceeding in which evidence is given, and that the widest language is used for that purpose, he did not himself deny. The Act of 1880, as I pointed out, besides this definition of a legal proceeding, goes on to define a Judge as something quite different from the Court before which the proceedingis heard. A " Judge "is a Judge of the Supreme Court of the colony. The Court is only defined as a Court for the purpose of the Act —for shortening the expression throughout the Act—and it means " the Court, Judge, Magistrate, arbitrator, or other person before whom a legal proceeding is held or taken " —"legal proceeding " being any civil or criminal proceeding or inquiry in which evidence may be given. Therefore the person before whom the legal proceeding may be taken may be a person other than a Court, other than a Judge, other than a Magistrate, other than an arbitrator, yet lam told that it is absurd for me to say that a Committee is a body of such persons. I submit that it was intended that this Committee and its proceedings should come within the provisions of the Act. Dr. Fitchett. —lf that be so, why is it necessary to mention "arbitrator" ? Mr. Bell. —Because arbitration is not a proceeding in which evidence can be taken by any authority of law, except it be a reference from the Supreme Court. Dr. Fitchett. —Would the arbitration be arbitration under the Supreme Court Act of 1860? Mr. Bell. —lt includes any arbitration. An arbitrator may not look at copies : this statute authorises him to look at copies without referring to the originals. On the passing of the Act of 1887 it was provided that a banker should not be compellable to bring his books before a Court, except in proceedings to which he was a party, unless by a special order of a Judge—a Judge of the Supreme Court. Mr. Hutchison referred to the word " Court;" but, inasmuch as the word " Judge" means " Court," it means the Supreme Court. A Judge of the Supreme Court has to determine whether it be or be not necessary that the original books be produced. I should have thought that every one would see the reason for that enactment. It was not only the inconvenience to bankers in producing their original books; that was not the only reason. The chief reason which influenced those who promoted that legislation, both in England and here, was that a banker's books, which might be bandied about in a Court, contain the records of other persons' private matters. You may seal those books, you may tie them up, but by no process can you prevent an examination by curious persons ; and those are the persons to be excluded from seeing those parts of a document which they have no right to look into. That was the object of the legislation of 1887. There was a twofold object, in favour of bankers and in favour of the public. Now this is to be disregarded to an extent which was never contemplated as being possible by the Legislature in 1887. The Committee is asked to disregard the interests of those whose entries were in the bank's books. The summons covers the whole of the books of the bank at Auckland, and practically all the books of the bank at Wellington. Those books are to be brought here, and the business of the bank is to be stopped. Now, of course I speak with the very greatest possible respect of the members of the Committee. Ido not suggest that any member of the Committee would knowingly look into any matter which was not within the reference now submitted to it—l do not for a moment suggest that; but the thing might accidentally happen. It is still more desirable that others should not have access to see matters contained in documents which are to be piled up here. It is a question of physical dealing with the books, which might contain the records of important accounts. Ido not happen to be in any way concerned with the bank, or to be a customer of the bank. The Chairman. —They would contain my account. Mr. Bell. —Of yourself and of others who might or might not desire that their accounts should be laid on the table of this Committee. I declare that the bank has no object in this but, first, its desire to carry on its business, which will be impossible if you take its books and compel them to be in your apartment here; and, secondly, its paramount duty to protect the secrecy which has been confided to it. I submit that the Shrewsbury Peerage case has not been distinguished by Mr. Hutchison in any sense. My learned friend, Mr. Hutchison, distinguished this case as a man does in a speech in the House, and not as counsel does in Court. I appeal to those members of the Committee who are acquainted with legal proceedings to say if my learned friend, Mr. Hutchison, dealt fairly with my argument upon this point. My learned friend read the head-note, which had nothing to do with the matter; and then he says to this Committee that what the Lords were there dealing with was a question of evidence, which had nothing to do with the question before the Committee. I never heard such an argument as that in answer to legal argument. I appeal to those members of my own profession who are members of the Committee whether they ever heard of an argument of that kind addressed to a judicial body on a question of principle. Mr. Hutchison. —l also read portions of the report and the conclusions. Mr. Bell. —He carefully avoided reading . I beg pardon; he is a member of the House, and I ought not to say that. Mr. Hutchison. —I do not object. Mr. Bell. —I thought that he carefully avoided reading the passage which contained the

1.—7

20

statement of a principle not as applicable to that particular point, but as embodying a principle of general application which is to guide Committees in dealing with matters where the general law is a guide. What the Lord Chancellor and Lord St. Leonards said was this: — " The Lobd Chancelloe.—Where the Legislature has said that a particular rule of evidence is to be adopted in ' every Court of civil judicature,' if that rule is in itself convenient, it would be strange for us to refuse to adopt it, simply because the words of the Act are not binding upon us." " Loed St. Leonaeds.—l entirely agree. The provision in the statute does not apply to this House, for, strictly speaking, we are not a Court of civil judicature. But here is a rule of evidence adopted for the purposes of the public good. If there was a good reason shown why we should not adopt it, we would not do so, but would make a rule of our own for the purpose of greater care and caution." The Committee of the House of Lords was there, I submit, stating a principle which should guide Committees in dealing with matters in respect of which a principle of law bound other judicial bodies, and, as I understand, the Committee said that, if that rule of law was a convenient rule, the Committee ought to follow it. My learned friend says that they were dealing with a question of evidence. I submit that he had only to read those passages which he did not read to the Committee. I venture to submit that the Shrewsbury Peerage case is precisely in point, and that Mr. Hutchison did not even endeavour to distinguish it in any way in which he would have distinguished it if he had been standing and answering me as counsel in a Court of law. It may be that lam wrong in supposing that his criticism of the case had been such as would not have been addressed to a Court of law. I may be wrong there, but I do think that he simply scoffed at an argument which was based upon sound foundation, and offered no real answer to it. He stood upon his position, which I admit is superior to mine here, as a member of the House, for the purpose of poohpoohing an argument which he could not fairly meet. The result of the Committee insisting upon compliance with this summons would be—as I have already said —first of all the bank would be prevented from carrying on its business as a bank; and, secondly, that it would present to this Committee for inspection, if it thought fit, the accounts and affairs of all its customers since the year 1885. No Committee of this colony will ever call upon it to do that. Mr. Hutchison. —l claim the right to make an explanation. Ido not think Mr. Bell has been at all just to me. I never saw the Shrewsbury Peerage case until at this table, and what I endeavoured to do, not in any way to mislead the Committee, and not to repeat again what he had read to the Committee as a ruling of the Court, was to try and ascertain the circumstances in. which that ruling was given. I showed to the Committee that it was in reference to a point of evidence as to handwriting. I think Mr. Bell has not shown that spirit of fairness which ought to have been shown in referring to the remarks I made. I directed the attention of the Committee to the point he relied upon and to the surroundings of that point. Hon. Sir J. Hall. —l wish to ask you, Mr. Bell, a question, which you need not answer unless you see fit. Can you suggest any other way in which the Committee can obtain the information they require? Ido not ask you to reply to that if your prefer not. Mr. Bell. —Yes; I believe the whole of it, with the exception of the matter of private accounts, is contained in a return now in the Colonial Treasury Office in this city. Hon. Sir J. Hall. —Then with regard to the private accounts ? Mr. Bell. —A copy of the private accounts can be delivered to the Committee without the slightest difficulty—a complete transcript. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —That is, subject to the objection of the bank. Mr. Bell. —The bank " respectfully submits." Hon. Mr. Hislop. —Perhaps the Committee would not object to my making a few remarks in regard merely to the question of the production of documents. The Chairman. —We cannot go beyond that. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —l was going to suggest to the Committee that it should not come to a decision upon this matter until it has formulated the charges. I did not address the Committee to-day on this particular point as to the liability of those gentlemen mentioned—namely, the Premier, Mr. Mitchelson, and Sir Frederick Whitaker—to open up their accounts to the Committee, because I thought that the time was not ripe to do it. I think the time will only be ripe when the Committee are considering the formulation of the charges. I shall then have a good deal to say on the question of whether the Committee is in a position to compel the disclosure of what Mr. Hutchison evidently desires. I only mention this so that it may perhaps help the Committee in their deliberations. With regard to the public accounts, what Mr. Bell says is quite correct: that we can furnish almost daily returns of the bank account from the Treasury here—all the accounts as furnished by the bank from time to time of the daily transactions. The Chairman. —We have your letter addressed to the Committee. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —When I placed that letter before the Committee I only had in view the particular charge which was made by Mr. Hutchison against Sir Frederick Whitaker—namely, that on a particular date he was indebted to the bank in a large sum of money. I stated to the Committee that, if it determined to go into that, notwithstanding my protest, I should submit to the ruling because it might be considered to be within the four corners of the speech; but it becomes quite a different matter when Mr. Hutchison attempts to drag out the whole dealings of three gentlemen with the Bank of New Zealand during a period of five years, which matters are not referred to in the speech, which are not disclosed, and which could not have been contem-. plated when the reference was made to the Committee by the House. Before the Committee comes to a decision as to whether they will go into these matters I should like to be heard. Dr. Fitchett. —You told us, Mr. Bell, that the Committee compelling the production of the books, documents, and papers would involve the stopping of the business of the bank. Well, Buppose the Committee were not to ask for any books during the current half-year. You know the practice in the banks, that they open fresh books every half-year.

21

1.—7

Mr. Bell. —l was not aware of that. Dr. Fitchett. —That is the practice. Mr. Bell. —I am speaking from the telegrams. The telegrams state that that would be the effect; it is not an exaggeration of the matter on my part. Dr. Fitchett. —l want to know whether or not the bank's business would be stopped supposing we asked for no books for the current half-year. Mr. Bell. —l will answer that question to-morrow. I will make inquiry and ascertain. The Chairman. —The Committee yesterday sent a telegram to the bank trying to get, if possible, the books that have been disposed of having entries made in them. We have not a clear reply from the president of the bank upon that point. Mr. Bell. —I trust the Committee will insure them for it. I wish the Committee to bear in mind that there has been a protest made against the disclosure of private matters. I wish to say that neither my learned friend Mr. Stafford, nor myself, has had any communication with the Government upon this matter, or with the members whose accounts were referred to, and I am not aware, and have no means of knowing, what course those gentlemen desire to take in regard to this matter. It now appears that some letter on this head has been addressed by Mr. Hislop to the Committee, and, from my making a speech to-day which raises this question, it might appear that there is some collusion between the bank and the Government upon that point. I beg to say that I was unaware that any such letter was written, and have no means of knowing what course those gentlemen desire to take. Mr. Hutchison. —I wish it to appear on the minutes that, on the Chairman suggesting that the range of the private accounts might be further curtailed, I assented to a shorter date than the Ist July, 1890, being inserted—namely, the 31st March. lam desirious of facilitating the business of the bank, and not to inconvenience it in any way. The Chairman. —That is so. You have twice abated your requisition. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —I think, Mr. Bell, you mentioned in your remarks that one strong objection on the part of the bank to bringing their books was the liability of having them pried over or looked through. Is it not usual, or did you never know of cases, where a bank, when ordered to produce books, has not found it necessary to send an officer with those books to point to the particular account in which evidence has to be taken ? Mr. Bell. —Yes, always. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —Therefore, if the bank's officer leaves those books out of his control after the evidence has been taken, the responsibility is with the bank. Mr. Bell. —l should think so. No bank has ever been asked to leave any bank-books either before a Court or arbitrator where evidence was being taken without the custody of an officer. My experience has been, and I dare say Dr. Fitchett will bear me out, and I dare say Mr. Hutchison will also bear me out, that whenever a bank's books are produced in Court, by any necessity, the Judge and the lawyers have agreed that the books shall be kept away from the Court so that they shall go back to the officer, and accordingly copies are made and exhibited as the exhibits. I think that has been done in. every case in this district within my experience. I never knew a case of a lawyer insisting, as he might insist, that the original exhibit should be kept until judgment was delivered. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —The invariable practice is that, where a bank-book or ledger is required to be produced, it is accompanied by an officer of the bank, who may be a witness, and give evidence on that book. The book is never out of his custody unless through his own carelessness, for which he is responsible. Mr. Bell. —The book itself is very often referred to. Erasures might be referred to, and certain entries with regard to bills —the question whether a bill was a bill under collection or discount. But every care is taken that the book shall not remain where any one can see it except the particular page which is under inspection. Lion. Mr. Larnach. —Therefore, that objection of the bank really falls to the ground, because, after all, unless through the carelessness of the bank's officer, there is no one likely to see anything except the evidence. Mr. Bell. —The conclusion that you suggest does not seem to me to follow. Is not somebodygoing to look into the books of the bank to see what is in them ? Hon. Mr. Larnach. —l beg your pardon; that is not true. There are before the Committee certain charges, and the Committee are not going to look into the bank's books to get information with reference to anybody or everybody. Mr. Bell. —l understand Mr. Hutchison wishes to look at the books to see what evidence he has in support of his charges. Mr. Hutchison. —No, only in respect of certain charges; not to go through the pages. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —Did you ever know it to be necessary for a bank, if ordered to produce books, to get the customers' consent ? Mr. Bell. —No, of course. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —You made it a point that the bank could not do so and so without the customers' consent. Mr. Bell. —ln the case of a Court. Dr. Fitchett. —You ask the Committee to be guided by the Bankers Act in one respect and not in another. Could a banker not be called upon to produce the accounts without the consent of the customer under the Bankers Act ? Mr. Bell. —He could not be called upon to produce the original books at all. Dr. Fitchett. —Would the consent of the customer be necessary if ordered by the Judge? Mr. Bell. —lt is not necessary under the Bankers Act. The question was discussed in the case of an election petition against my learned friend Mr. Hutchison. I think he was heard on the question as to whether we should look into it.

1.—7

22

Mr. Hutchison. —l was not heard. Mr. Bell. —lt was not done ex parte; you consented. Mr. Hutchison. —l did not consent. Mr. Bell. —ls it reasonable that you should look at the accounts of these gentlemen ? Dr. Fitchett. —That is not the point. You suggested that it could not be done without their consent. Mr. Bell. —l have not said so. We submit that we ought not to be required by this Committee to produce our customers' accounts unless you first get their consent. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —The question I ask is whether, within your knowledge, that consent was required in a Court of law ? Supposing that the bank is in the habit, as all banks doing a large business are, of opening a new set of books each half-year, and this Committee does not require the books of the present half-year, it will not inconvenience the bank if any books are asked for that are not in use. Mr. Bell. —l said I would make inquiry and see what the practice of the bank is. Mr. Hutchison. —They are not wanted beyond the 31st March. The Committee adjourned.

Thuesday, 24th July, 1890. Messrs. Bell and Stafpoed in attendance. The Chairman. —The Committee wishes to hear you again, Mr. Bell, as to the books in current use in the bank. Mr. Bell. —l have made the inquiry, Sir, which I promised yesterday to make in reply to Dr. Fitchett and the Hon. Mr. Larnach. The books of the Bank of New Zealand occupy the period of a year; they are closed on the 31st March of each year, so that the books before April would not be in current use. May Ibe permitted to add one word to what I said yesterday to the Committee. The Committee, I presume, will have understood that what I said yesterday referred not to the ledgers which contain the Public Account, but to the ledgers containing private accounts, which are altogether separate ledgers. The Chairman. —We understood y-ou to speak of the books that contain the accounts of three members of the Government. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —Books containing individual accounts. Mr. Bell. —The bank keeps the Public Account in a different set of ledgers from those which contain private accounts. I was afraid that what I said yesterday might be misconstrued, and therefore taken to apply to ledgers containing the public accounts. As to these ledgers containing the public accounts there is no difficulty in producing them, except the physical difficulty. What I said yesterday referred to the private ledgers and private accounts kept in the bank. I also found yesterday, in the course of my inquiry, that the Bank of New Zealand has four ledgers current in each year, lettered alphabetically, so that the requisition proposed to be made by the Committee is for the production of a large number of ledgers extending to over twenty ledgers at Auckland and twenty ledgers kept here, covering the period from 1885 to 1890. The Chairman. —How many ledgers would be required to take in these three accounts ? Three ledgers I presume; the letter A would indicate the account in the name qi Atkinson, M that in the name of Mitchelson, and W that in the name of Whitaker. Would it require three ledgers, or might not any two be in the same ledger ? Mr. Bell. —They would not be in the same ledger. There is this matter, besides, which the Committee appears to be omitting from its consideration: We have been required, by notice, to produce here for inspection the accounts of persons which may have been guaranteed by these three gentlemen. lam debarred at present from saying more than that I trust the Committee will take into consideration whether that is a proper thing to do. The Chairman. —How many more books would be required ? Mr. Bell. —The whole of the ledgers in Auckland and Wellington for the period set out would be required. There are entries of accounts kept by these honourable gentlemen during the session of Parliament in each year, so that the whole of these books would be required I am informed by the bank's officers. I have had no other means of obtaining the information for the honourable gentleman who asked me questions on the subject yesterday : that the old ledgers are the subject of constant reference by the bank's officers both for their own purposes and at the request of the bank's customers. The gentleman who assured me of this is the bank manager here. He assured me of it without my asking him the question, so that I have not the slightest reason for doubting the accuracy of his statement. I have no means of adding to its force by any experience of my own. The statement of the manager is that it will cause serious inconvenience to bring from Auckland these old ledgers; of course that does not apply to the ledgers that are kept here. It was suggested to me by the Hon. Mr. Larnach that, because the books of the bank would be produced in the " ordinary course " in charge of an officer of the bank, to be referred to by that officer in answering questions, there would be no such difficulty as I have just indicated. If that is to be so, of course, as it seems to me, it would to a very large extent remove the difficulty which the bank feels in this matter, but not wholly. I would venture to ask that the bank should have the assurance from j ou, Sir, that it is not intended the books should be open to the inspection of the members of the Committee. If I understood him, the Hon. Mr. Larnach suggested that, inasmuch as the books would be in charge of an officer of the bank, who would give evidence in reference to his own inspection of the accounts, there would be, in that case, no objection, on the ground that the ledgers contained the accounts of other persons not before the Committee. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —This was my reason, because there would be no reason why any member of the Committee should look into the account at all; certainly not beyond it.

23

1.—7

Mr. Bell. —lf the letters are to be put into the hands of any person or persons for the purpose of examining any person's private account, then, it appears to me and to my clients, there would be committed a breach of the obligation of secrecy which law, honour, and custom impose on this institution ; but, if I understand the Hon. Mr. Larnach, he means that no person besides the officer of the bank should be permitted to handle or inspect the books. The Chairman. —That would, no doubt, be a point for deliberation. Mr. Hutchison. —That would not satisfy me, to be obliged to accept the dictum of a clerk referring to a certain page and refusing to let me see the contents. The Chairman. —As you have ascertained that the current ledgers for the year are from the Ist April, would the concession which Mr. Hutchison made in the form of his requisition be any material help, and remove some of the objections you raised before us yesterday ? Dr. Fitchett. —All the bank-books. Mr. Bell —That does not apply to letter-books. I made an investigation yesterday of the kind of books outside the ledger. Dr. Fitchett. —There are discount-ledgers, balance-ledgers, weekly-balance ledgers: It applies to nothing but the press copy-book. Mr. Ballance. —l can quite understand why Mr. Hutchison should not be satisfied with the evidence of a clerk who comes to give evidence of reference to a particular page in the ledger, without allowing him to see the entries; the first ground of objection you have reduced, Mr. Bell, but you have only reduced it; you have not removed it. Mr. Bell. —l agree with what Mr. Larnach suggested, that was why I made the statement; but it also appeared to me that what Mr. Larnach has suggested would not cover the whole of the ground that was required by the summons. It appeared to me that it would not satisfy any one that wanted to examine the evidence; it appeared to me, therefore, that Mr. Larnach was simply pursuing a course which would land us in the position to which we first objected when we came here. Dr. Fitchett. —l understood Mr. Larnach to say that the account under investigation would be open for examination, although the books should remain in the hands of the bank clerk. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —l have seen many of these cases. I do not think it necessary, for Mr. Hutchison's purpose, to have any other examination than that the clerk should attend with the book or ledger required, and be examined as to anything in the book that was necessary, unless you are to suppose that the bank has falsified its books. Hon. Mr. Ballance. —But you do not mean that the Committee should be excluded from examining the particulars of the account. It would be the particular instance that is wanted where necessary. How would you get such knowledge if it were necessary? Hon. Mr. Larnach. —From the clerk under examination, who would obtain it from the books. Mr. Macarthur. —You could have a certified copy if you liked. Hon. Mr. Ballance. —What would the Committee expect the clerk to do ? Would you expect him to go over every account that might be necessary, and then to go into some particular account in respect of which you would not know what questions to put to him ? Hon. Mr. Larnach. —If you say the debtor and creditor accounts are not kept correctly, that is another matter; it is altogether a question of balances. Mr. Hutchison. —Assuming that it is proper the books should be produced, then the invariable practice should be followed that the person examining, in order to judge of the testimony given by the person producing the books, should have the right to pursue the inquiry within all reasonable limits. Ido not assume that Mr. Bell would suggest that I would misuse the opportunity that the production of the books of the bank would afford. lam assuming, of course, that this question in respect of the production of the bank's books should be decided in the affirmative. Mr. Ballance. —Do you suggest that the clerk should refer to such and such a page ? Mr. Hutchison. —Yes, if there is anything to suggest such a reference. If I might interpose my opinion, the bank's official would be always in charge ; the books would never be out of his charge; he would merely be used as a means for finding particular entries. Mr. Ballance. —You claim the right of looking at the page. Dr. Fitchett. —The bank has volunteered certified copies; that would be a page. Mr. Ormond. —The right reference is as to the matter of the speech of which the order treats, together with the position of the account in the bank. The Chairman. —l wish to call Mr. Hutchison's attention to this fact: that in the requisition, even limited as he has limited it, he asks for the bank books containing the private accounts of Ministers back to the Ist June, 1885. But these gentlemen have only been members of the Ministry since October, 1887. I want to know whether the member for Waitotara has this in view : whether he considers it necessary to go back to a date before the time when these gentlemen became Ministers. Mr. Hutchison. —Yes, I have already mentioned that I had considered the point. Mr. Bell. —lt has been said by an honourable member that the bank had volunteered to give certified copies. That is not the case. The question here would arise whether the matter is relevant to the inquiry, and, if relevant, whether the bank's books ought to be subject to examination. The decision as to relevancy is left by law in ordinary cases to the discretion of a Judge of the Supreme Court; unless this is shown, the discretion cannot be exercised. The law seems to have indicated that no such investigation as this shall take place into a bank's books, no such inquiry into the contents of a bank's ledgers, without a Judge of the Supreme Court being consulted as to relevancy, and he must be satisfied of the necessity of such an inquiry before he will make the order. The bank desires to offer every facility to this inquiry. It desires, however, at the same time, that it shall not be compelled to break the pledge of secrecy or its duty to its customers. This is why lam representing to the Committee what the law has indicated to be the proper course in such cases, and how the discretion of the Court is exercised. And then, Sir, look

1.—7

24

at the question of guaranteed accounts: the persons who may have guaranteed these accounts have here no person to protect them but the bank and myself. If my account at the bank were guaranteed by the Premier, should I not have a substantial grievance, and would not the guarantor have a grievance if his private accounts, his business matters, were exposed to the inspection of a Committee? I do submit, Sir, that the customers of the bank whose accounts have been guaranteed would have a serious ground of complaint. They have no right to tell me, they have not told me, whether there are such accounts in the bank or not, but, if there be such guaranteed accounts, the parties would have a grievance against the bank, an intolerable grievance, if it were to produce their accounts to this Committee for the purposes of an investigation of charges against other persons. Mr. Seddon. —I suppose that, if an order of the House were to ask for an inspection of the bank's books, that would have equal power with the order of a Judge of the Supreme Court. Mr. Bell —Yes; but in that case I should ask to be heard at the bar of the House. I quite agree that the authority of the House is paramount. I quite agree that the House may be parallel to the Supreme Court in a case of this kind. Ido not conceal the fact that if this be a legal inquiry a Judge's order is necessary. If it be not a legal inquiry, then, by analogy, it could be done by an order of the House; but I apprehend that the House would not make such an order without hearing what the bank, represented by counsel at the bar of the House, would have to say against it. Mr. Macarthur. —Would the House make an order inconsistent with what had been done by the Legislature in the form of an Act of Parliament ? Mr. Bell. —The House can make any order: the House might order me to prison, although the law said it should not do so. Dr. Fitchett. —l understood you to say that this was a legal proceeding. Mr. Bell. —What I submit is that if this is a legal proceeding the Judge's order is necessary; if it is a legal proceeding the Bank Act applies, but it does not apply if the bank is a party. Dr. Fitchett. —Do you say that the bank is a party, and therefore the Bank Act applied ? Mr. Bell- —I stated as clearly as I could yesterday what I believed to be the position. I said I accepted the statement, and I accept it now, that the bank is not at this moment before the Committee. Dr. Fitchett. —If it is not before the Committee then the Bank Act does not apply. Mr. Bell. —It is rather the other way; if the bank is a party the books must be produced. What I contend is that it is not a party at the present stage of the inquiry. Until the Committee commences an inquiry into the conduct of the bank it is not necessary that counsel should say anything in its behalf. I fully concur in the statement made by the Chairman, but the moment an inquiry begins into the conduct of the bank, then it has a right to appear by counsel, and it will be permitted to do so. The Bank Act says it shall not produce its books without the order of a Judge of the Supreme Court. Mr. Hutchison. —My learned friend's contentions are mutually destructive: he says, for the purpose of his present argument, that the bank is not a party; inferentially he wishes the Committee to accept that statement, but as soon as this inquiry begins he is prepared to contend that the bank is a party. The Chairman. —As I understand, if the bank is made a party, he is going to contend that the bank, as a party, ought to be represented by counsel. Hon. Mr. Larnach.—ls it not a fact that this Committee was set up with full powers to call for persons and papers ? The Chairman. —I would suggest that we should not branch from the question before us. That matter will come on for discussion later. I understand, however, that Mr. Larnach said the whole question was one of balances. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —Mr. Bell had stated that he would like to appear before the bar of the House upon the question as to whether the books should be produced. I want to know whether this Committee, set up for the purpose of this inquiry, has not all the powers that it could have. Mr. Bell. —l was asked whether the House could not make an order such as the Supreme Court could make. Before the House would make an order it would hear counsel at its bar. Mr. Seddon. —Notwithstanding, we have the power of calling for the production of papers. Does the bank say, " We will not produce our ledgers "1 Mr. Bell. —I submit it is not fair to ask the question. I simply submit the grounds on which the Committee should not require the bank to produce these documents. If the Committee should, decide against my view, the bank must take the course which its duty and honour require. Am I to presume that the Committee is going to decide against me ? If not, it is not fair to ask me that question now. Dr. Fitchett. —I think we are entitled to ask Mr. Bell whether he claims the bank to be a party or not; if it be not a party then the Bank Act would apply. The Chairman. —Are not these matters for deliberation ? Dr. Fitchett. —You have not said whether the bank is a party or not. Mr. Bell. —I said that, as soon as the inquiry charges the bank with misconduct, so soon will the bank claim the right of being heard by counsel; until then the bank cannot be said to be a party. You are to inquire not into the conduct of the bank, but into the relations of certain members of the Government with the bank. If the bank's conduct is attacked, then it will produce evidence to rebut that. The Committee has to inquire into the relations of certain of its customers with the Bank of New Zealand. Dr. Fitchett. —Do you claim the right to appear from the beginning of the inquiry? Mr. Bell. —Certainly, to watch the proceedings. The Chairman. —The bank is not accused of anything, so that Mr. Bell does not appear to defend it. Hon. Mr. Ballance. —But he does appear for the bank in this matter of the production of

25

l.—i

papers and letters. That is the question we are dealing with. I think we have a right to ask Mr. Bell what course he will take. Mr. Hutchison says he will require the original documents. Mr. Bell assumes that we are a legal tribunal. In that case the order of a Judge of the Supreme Court would be required. If such an order is required, then we must take our own course; if he threatens to proceed further, the bank will take its own course, and rely on the law. Mr. Bell. —l have uttered no word to indicate anything of the kind. I have been most careful to submit to the Committee the reasons why it should not require the private accounts of the customers of the bank to be brought before the Committee, why it should not require the bank even to produce copies of certain accounts without the order of a Judge of the Supreme Court. But I have not indicated by any sign what course the bank would take in the event of an adverse decision. Mr. Seddon. —We have ordered the production of these books. You, Sir, the Chairman of the Committee, have sent that order to the bank to produce them. Counsel is now pressing us on the question of producing them; but he has not said whether he will produce them or not. The Chairman. —He is here, it appears, to endeavour to induce us to alter our requisition. We have not intimated whether we will withhold our assent to any such alteration or not. Mr. Seddon. —He has submitted his view of the matter to the Committee. The Chairman. —We have not even deliberated as to the form of our decision. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —lf I do not say anything now, my silence must be taken without prejudice to anything I may have to say hereafter. I look on the order made by you in the light of a subpoena which is issued to a witness out of the Supreme Court. It has nothing whatever to do with the evidence which may afterwards be brought before the Committee, and should not actually be put before it. I apprehend it will be more convenient, and place all in a better position, if I do not interfere in any way between the bank and the Committee. You have heard from Mr. Bell that we have been careful not to have any communication in reference to this part of the case. I have no wish to interfere between the bank and the Committee. All I contended for was that it would have been much more convenient if the charges had been properly formulated before any proceedings were taken, for it might have narrowed the inquiry between the Committee and the bank as to the nature of the evidence which ought to be produced. If that had been done we should have known what evidence was necessary or proper to be called. So far as the inquiry itself comes within the order of reference of the House, we will facilitate it in every way. But we cannot accept the position of assisting an inquiry which may go, in our opinion, beyond that reference. Even in respect of that I should be prepared to modify what I say to this extent: that if the Committee should find The Chairman. —The Committee would not go beyond the order of reference. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —lf the Committee should find on inquiry that there has been serious maladministration of the public funds by the Government, then I am authorised to say that the members of the Government will facilitate in every way possible the fullest investigation of their private relations with the bank. Dr. Fitchett. —ln the letter which was sent to the Committee, Mr. Bell says, " I have the honour to inform you that the Bank of New Zealand desires to be represented by Mr. Stafford," &c. The Committee take this to be a claim to be represented during the whole course of the inquiry. I wish to know from Mr. Bell whether his letter, when it was written, was limited to the production of documents, or whether it referred to the proceedings of the Committee as a whole. This, I think, makes it plain that in Mr. Bell's opinion, when he wrote his letter, the bank was a party to these proceedings. Mr. Bell—Bo. Dr. Fitchett. —-The bank, in view of this letter, deemed itself a party; if the bank be a party the Bankers Act does not apply; it is bound by the Act itself to produce the documents. Mr. Bell —No one knows better than Dr. Fitchett the difference between a person who is actually a party to a legal proceeding, and a person who is being attacked in the course of the proceedings, and who, being so attacked, has the right to have counsel to watch the proceedings in his behalf. No one would suppose that Parliament would set up a Committee to inquire into the business of the Bank of New Zealand. It might as well set up a Committee to inquire into the business of Mr. Bell or Dr. Fitchett. It only remains that I should explain again what I explained before as to what was meant by this message. The position is this : an inquiry is set up as to the action of certain members of the Government, with which we are in no way concerned at all, excepin so far as the bank keeps the Public Account. In the course of that inquiry it is suggested that the bank has been guilty, with the gentlemen whose actions are inquired into, of some corrupt and improper practices. The bank's stability and honour and commercial position are impugned. In the course of the inquiry—not accepting this inquiry in any sense, for neither Parliament nor this Committee has any right to inquire into the private business of the bank, except where it is incident to the conduct of those members of Parliament who are referred to—the bank claims to be heard by counsel, on their behalf, when the evidence is called, impugning the character and honour of his client. Dr. Fitchett.- —At that stage will you produce the books ? Mr. Bell. —Neither at that stage nor at any other stage is my client a party to these proceedings. Dr. Fitchett concurred in that view at first, and the Committee decided, judging by what took place, that the bank was not a party. The Chairman. —We have not deliberated. Mr. Bell —lt seems to my mind to be perfectly clear that it would be impossible to set up this Committee unless that is admitted. The bank's only right to be present is the ordinary right that any person has whose conduct is attacked in the course of an inquiry to have counsel present to watch the proceedings on his behalf. Hon. Sir J. Hall —ln reference to the guaranteed accounts, suppose an individual whose account is guaranteed has himself guaranteed the accounts of other persons, would you understand 4—l. 7.

1.-7

26

that the bank is called on to disclose the accounts not only of the first guaranteed individual, but the second also ? Mr. Bell —I suppose it means the whole of the accounts of the person whose account has been guaranteed by any one, any two or three or more gentlemen. Hon. Sir J. Hall. —A guarantees the account of B. The bank is not satisfied, and then he calls on D. Would not a guaranteed account involve us in three or more other accounts? Mr. Bell. —l do not know whether there are such guaranteed accounts. If there are, then I understand the summons to produce a guaranteed account includes all persons who may have guaranteed the accounts as well as the accounts of all the guaranteed persons. Sir J. Hall —You say that the books and accounts are closed on the 31st March; the books prior to that date could be produced without interfering with the business of the bank ? If they are not current books, I should say they might be produced without serious inconvenience. Dr. Fitchett. —Does that apply to letter-books and telegram-books that are closed ? No, they are current. Hon. Sir J. Hall —Would compliance with the order involve the production of current letter-books ? Mr. Bell —l think, if the Committee fixed a date, as was suggested, at some time prior to the 31st March, as the limit of the inquiry, that would probably exclude telegrams and letter-books. I do not know that fixing the date on the 31st March would do it. Mr. Hutchison. —The 31st March is not a cast-iron date; any date may be fixed that shall be considered reasonable by the Committee. Any representation of inconvenience by Mr. Murray or Mr. Bell should undoubtedly be considered if it were made. I assure the Committee that personally I desire not to inconvenience the bank. Mr. Bell. —The removal of the letter-books and telegram-books, although not current, from Auckland, and their detention here, would be a serious inconvenience to the business of the bank. Hon. Sir J. Hall —"That the Government should insure the bank against any loss which might ensue through their books being sent to Wellington," what should I understand by that, what would be the loss ? Mr. Bell- —lt would be simply irreparable. I asked the question yesterday. It appeared to me that the transference of the balances into the current ledger is a preservation of the record; but lam told it is by no means an uncommon thing to have the balances challenged. This information was given to me without my asking the question. It is therefore often necessary to recur to the previous records of account. This was stated as a serious inconvenience which would be suffered by the old ledgers being removed from Auckland to Wellington. If, in the course of transit, the ledgers were lost or destroyed while in this ramshackle building the loss would be irreparable. Dr. Fitchett. —The bank would not be liable. Mr. Bell. —They could not prove their balances. Dr. Fitchett. —Have they not the vouchers ? Mr. Bell. —l do not know that the vouchers would be of much use for that purpose. Dr. Fitchett. —Have they not the account pass-books, which are made up every day, and refer to the date of every transaction ? Mr. Bell. —The customer, indeed, has his pass-book, but if he challenges his balance I do not see what use his bank pass-book would be to the bank; he would not be likely to produce it. But it is impossible for me to debate this matter with you : I do not know enough of the subject for that purpose. Hon. Sir J. Hall —l want to get at some measure of the risk which you are asking, or rather the bank is asking, Parliament to undertake when you say we ought to insure it against loss. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —Are you aware that at the end of every half-year the bank sends circulars to each customer, stating that his account has been balanced up to date ; that the balance is so and so ; with the request that he will be good enough to acknowledge the receipt of the communication, otherwise the balance would be regarded to be accepted as correct. Mr. Bell —That is, where it is a debit balance; not if it is a credit. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —You said that the old ledgers and books were constantly referred to; if they were in charge of an officer, what inconvenience would that produce? Mr. Bell —You are better able to answer that question than I am; lam not a banker. Dr. Fitchett. —Could not the books be taken to the bank here every night; that would not cost thousands ? Mr. Bell. —lt is during transit that the loss is feared. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —Are you aware that vouchers carry their date and are tied in large bundles. Mr. Bell —You must know the date before you can get your voucher. Dr. Fitchett. —Are you aware that the banks are in the habit of sending large bundles of banknotes by post. Mr. Bell. —l do not know, but I think there could be no great trouble about that, seeing that if the notes went to the bottom of the sea it would not do the bank any harm. They would not object to lose their own promissory notes.

Wednesday, 30th July, 1890. Hon. T. W. Hislob and G. Hutchison, Esq., M.H.E., in attendance. Mr. Hutchison. —Mr. Chairman, I have been anxious during the last few days—during the last week or more —to have an opportunity of saying a word or two to the Committee, which I venture to think might save time, and, at any rate, put clearly before the Committee what my views on this matter are. I have acted throughout quite independently of any member or any section of the Committee, and I have observed during the recent discussions that arguments have been advanced

27

1.—7

from both sides of the table, which certainly do not receive my concurrence. I have asked one of the members of the Committee a few minutes ago to suggest that some time before you proceed with the case I should be heard as to how I would submit it should be conducted. Now, I was prepared to put the matter before the Committee in what I think would be some conclusive manner. I am not at this moment prepared to do that, but I shall be to-morrow morning, if you give me the opportunity I want to refer to cases and to documents. With regard to the formulation of the charges, I may say I did what I was asked to do in that manner some eighteen days ago—within ten minutes of the opening of the first meeting—immediately after this Committee became an executive body. If the Committee wish it I will deal with the matter of the formulation of the charges now, but I think it would probably conduce to the shortening of the proceedings, and, at any rate, to the clearing away of some misapprehensions that may exist in certain members' minds, if I were allowed to-morrow morning to submit fully, with authorities, what I conceive my position to be. I could go on now, but it would be somewhat unsatisfactory, because I have not the books that I want to refer to. The Chairman. —Will you explain, Mr. Hutchison, what you mean by quoting authorities as to position ? Mr. Hutchison. —l shall submit, with some confidence, on the authority of precedents, that this being a Committee set up in answer to a challenge by me in the House of Eepresentatives—a tribunal before which I said I would undertake to prove certain charges—that the onus of proof being thus on me—and that challenge having been accepted by the Ministry—the conduct of these proceedings, so far as calling evidence is concerned, rests —subject always to such reasonable regulations as experience has shown to be proper under the circumstances —rests, I say, with me. I shall, I think, demonstrate that to the satisfaction of the Committee ; and I venture to anticipate that I shall prove to the satisfaction of the Committee that you will call such witnesses as I suggest, that I shall be allowed to examine these witnesses myself in the first instance, that the representative of the Government may afterwards cross-examine these witnesses, that I may then re-examine them, and that any member of the Committee may put questions to the witnesses so under examination. >: The Chairman. —You ask till to-morrow morning ? Mr. Hutchison. —Yes ; I have authorities, but they are not here. I did not anticipate that I should have the opportunity to-day. I ask that I may be allowed to-morrow to support the position which I have now communicated in the outline. The Chairman. —Does that affect the formulation of the charges ? Mr. Hutchison. —No, Sir; I am anxious that you should go on with the formulation of the charges. I have had no communication with Mr. Ballance, or any other member of the Committee, as to my position. This application is quite independent of any member of the Committee, as far as your deliberations are concerned. I may say, one member was good enough to suggest this : that some authority should be before you so to determine the procedure, and I only ask that I should be heard. Perhaps that will do to-morrow better than to-day. Sir J. Hall. —ls that subsequent to the formulation of the charges ? Mr. Hutchison. —At any stage :it does not matter when. If I had had my authorities here it might have been done now, but it would be quite as convenient to me at a later stage. The settlement of issues appears to me to be necessary first. My statement would do after that, or at any time it will be convenient before you fix the procedure on the issues. Hon. Mr. Bryce. —May I ask what you mean by procedure ? Mr. Hutchison. —As to the proof of the charges. Hon. Mr. Bryce. —After the charges have been formulated? Mr. Hutchison. —-Yes. It would be more convenient then, perhaps. I have formulated the charges, and I say that I wish to adhere to these formulated charges. Hon. Mr. Bryce. —I should like to ask Mr. Hutchison whether the formulation of the charges might not possibly interfere with the way in which Mr. Hutchison wishes to proceed. We might formulate them in a different way to what Mr. Hutchison might like to conduct his case. Mr. Hutchison. —I have indicated by my formulated charges, handed in in response to an invitation of the Committee, how I should wish the charges dealt with. Hon. Mr. Bryce. —I do not think you understand me. Is it not possible that the Committee, when it proceeds to determine the way in which the charges should be formulated, may do so in a way that may interfere with what you consider to be the right manner ? Mr. Hutchison. —l do not anticipate that if the Committee take the speech any difficulty will arise. It appears to me that the charges might be made in a more concrete form than by taking the speech as a whole. But Ido not apprehend that there can be much difference in the end. Hon. Mr. Ballance. —ls it not possible for the Committee to formulate the charges in a way that will interfere with your procedure ? Mr. Hutchison. —lt is possible, but I do not wish to anticipate that. The Chairman. —Before any discussion is proceeded with, we will hear Mr. Hislop on this matter. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —I submit, Sir, with regard to the application which Mr. Hutchison has made, that that cannot at all interfere with the formulation of the charges. I understand he is not to be heard to-morrow on this point as to the form of the charge, but as to whether, during the proceedings, he is to have the right to call witnesses and conduct their examination. We have both had the opportunity of placing before the Committee our ideas as to the charges contained in the speech, and we, I understand, are now to have the opportunity of being heard in support of our contentions as to how they should be formulated. I submit to the Committee that the most necessary part of the proceedings is to have the charges formulated, and that could be gone on with to-day, irrespective of the application by Mr. Hutchison as to future conduct of the proceedings. I should like to say, Sir, with regard to Mr. Hutchison's charges, as put in, that the first extract which Mr. Hutchison gives covers the same ground as given in the first extract made by the Government.

J t f

28

Mr. Hutchison. —More. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —l was going to say it covers the same ground, and something more—that is to say, Mr. Hutchison goes back to the introductory matter which I gave in a different part of the statement which I handed in; but Mr. Hutchison founds upon the extract which he gives the charge which he put in, and which is appended to his extracts and numbered I—namely, " That, pending the raising of the two-million loan," &c. I need not read it. I should like to point out to the Committee that that charge, as formulated by Mr. Hutchison, does not nearly cover the ground which is traversed by his speech. For instance, in his speech he first invites the House to the statement that there is a double crisis—a crisis which he does not explain very fully—with regard to the colony. He does not state what is the nature of the crisis, but it has something to do with the raising of a loan. He goes on, and says there is a very serious crisis in the affairs of the Bank of New Zealand. Then he connects the Government with that, and he says that, in order to meet this crisis of the Bank of New Zealand, an abnormal finance was created for the emergency ; and his statement winds up with the statement that the money which was floated by these deficiency bills was not for the purposes of the colony, but to fill the coffers of the Bank of New Zealand. Now, Sir, if you look at the charge as handed in by Mr. Hutchison you will find it does not go nearly so far as the speech does. All I wish is, whether you take the words of the speech or formulate the charge yourselves, that care is taken that the charge as formulated covers the main statements of the speech. lam not very particular whether or not the words of the speech are used. I prefer it should be in the words of the speech ; but, whether or not, the charge ought to include all the damaging statements which Mr. Hutchison makes. Mr. Hutchison. —I desire to do that. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —Mr. Hutchison's statement in his charge as submitted is, " That, pending the raising of the loan," &c. What I say is this :It does not cover these three matters—namely, that there was a double crisis, an abnormal advance was created for the emergency which occurred in regard to the Bank of New Zealand, and that this finance was created and the money raised for the purpose of filling the coffers of the Bank of New Zealand, and not for the benefit of the colony. His charge, as formulated by him, does not cover these grounds. Mr. Hutchison. —I am prepared to take out this leaf. lam prepared to go on the charges as they are printed. I have no objection. These charges were put in in response to orders. The Chairman.—We do not ask you to withdraw these charges. Mr. Hutchison. —l have no objection. lam only saying that if Mr. Hislop wishes to go by the speech I am agreeable that that should be done. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —-I am not going to make a long speech. I ask the Committee not to allow Mr. Hutchison at this stage to withdraw this statement. Mr. Hutchison, at the invitation of the Committee, met Sir Harry Atkinson and myself with regard to these charges, and when we met for the purpose of having it done in the way in which we asked—namely, that the printed matter should be put on paper—he absolutely refused to vary one single iota of the statement as put in. I wish to comment now upon the singular way in which Mr. Hutchison made his charges in the first instance, and departed- • The Chairman. —l do not think we can allow any comment of that kind. Mr. Hutchison. —I give that a denial—an emphatic denial. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —l contend, Sir, that I have the right to comment upon the fact that Mr. Hutchison in the first instance in the House makes these damaging statements with regard to the Government, and then he seems to have such a singular want of appreciation of the charges which he makes that when he is asked to formulate them he furnishes charges which leave out the whole sting of the matter. I say I have the right to comment upon that before the Committee. So much, then, with regard to the first charge. Mr. Ormond. —Would you not state your contention as to following the course you have suggested ? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —My contention is that the statements in the speech are specific, and that there is no advantage at all in departing from those statements, where they are so specifically made. Therefore, I ask the Committee to take my " No. 1," the first charge made against us, inasmuch as it covers the particular matter—that is to say, the raising of the deficiency bills. The charge in the speech is that an abnormal finance was created, not for the purposes of the colony, but for the purpose of filling the coffers of the Bank of New Zealand. Mr. Seddon. —What objection have you to Mr. Hutchison's extended charge? Where do you draw the distinction between that extended charge and the charge set forth by you ? Hon. Mr. Hislop.— As I have stated before, that part of what Mr. Hutchison includes in his extract is simply introductory matter. It is not a charge at all. The charge is specific—that an abnormal finance was created for the purpose of filling the coffers of the Bank of New Zealand, and not for the purposes of the colony. I say that to answer a charge of this kind it is an advantage to the public and an advantage to the Committee that the matter containing the charge should be stated in as few words as possible—that is to say, it should not be mixed up with introductory matters, which is only by way of rendering our offence a little more gross,, if an offence is proved. The offence is that an abnormal finance was created for the purpose of raising funds to fill the coffers of the Bank of New Zealand. The other matter is simply introductory, for the purpose of showing personal connection between a member of the Government and the Bank of New Zealand, so as to show that he acted not through any mistaken motives of public duty, but from personal motives. I say it is soon enough to inquire into that when the charges against the Government are proved. With regard to a charge of this sort, I contend that no Court of law would, supposing a person was being prosecuted for having malaclministrated the public estate, allow him to be prejudiced by such personal statements as these being brought forward. If the charge was that, in order to induce him to do something, he had received some bribe, then, of course, evidence would be allowed to be led up to that, but no evidence would be

29

j 7

permitted to be given to show some personal relations between the parties in matters such as are here stated. The defendant would not be allowed to be prejudiced by evidence being brought forward as to personal relations such as are stated here. Mr. Seddon. —Why do you wish to make out that this No. 1 charge is a charge made against the Hon. Sir F. Whitaker? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —l do not know that any charge is made against the Hon. Sir F. Whitaker. That is a statement which is made to prejudice him in the minds of the thoughtless.. Mr. Seddon. —Taking your own showing—you say there is a crisis. Mr. Hutchison refers to that crisis in his charges—that is, the crisis which leads up to what you have culled. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —I have said nothing about a crisis in what I have culled. I have, extracted what I conceive to be the charges—about floating the loan and deficiency bills to fill the coffers of the Bank of New Zealand at a certain time. Nothing about a crisis. The charge is that an abnormal finance was created for the purpose of raising funds to fill the coffers of the Bank of New Zealand and not for the purposes of the colony. Hon. Mr. Ballance. —Would you be good enough to point out in charge No. 1 where there is any imputation not covered by Mr. Hutchison's formulated charges. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —l thought that was apparent from what I have said. Mr. Hutchison's charge is " That pending the raising of the two-million loan " [charge read]. Well, surely that is a very weak and mild statement compared with the extracts which I have already referred to, that extraordinary expedients were resorted to for the purpose of raising this money, that an abnormal finance was created for the emergency, and that this was done not with the view of helping the colony. Mr. Hutchison's formulated charge states that certain things were done with a certain result: in the speech the intention is stated. The thing might have been done with the view of putting the colony right, with the result also of putting the money into the Bank of New Zealand. The gravamen of Mr. Hutchison's charge is that what is described was done with the view of helping the Bank of New Zealand. The statement made by Mr. Hutchison in the House was that an abnormal finance was created for the purpose of helping the Bank of New Zealand, not for the purposes of the colony at all. I say that is not stated explicitly in his charge as formulated. Hon. Mr. Ballance. —You take exception to the word " result " in the charge : you wish it to be " with the view of assisting " ? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —-With the view of assisting the Bank of New Zealand, and not for the purpose of helping the funds of the colony. Hon. Mr. Ballance. —That is covered here in this charge ? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —No, because one thing is included and the other is excluded. He excludes the idea of its being done because of the state of the colony's finance, and he includes the idea of its only being done for the purpose of assisting the Bank of New Zealand. The Chairman. —To save the time of the Committee I may say that, as far as I can gather from discussions in the Committee, we all fully recognise that the whole speech is before us. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —l think, Sir, the fact of Mr. Ballance asking me that question just now shows that he has not taken in the full meaning of the speech. Directly I read that speech it suggested itself to me that the proper motive was excluded, and there was attributed to the Government only the motive the desire to help the Bank of New Zealand. Dr. Fitchett. —That is the charge. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —Yes, but that is not in the charge as formulated by Mr. Hutchison for the Committee. Mr. Seddon. —On that point as regards Sir Frederick Whitaker, I take it—whether rightly- or not I am not prepared to say—that the first paragraph, " Pending the raising of the two-million loan," &c, is leading up to the statement made by Sir Frederick Whitaker in the Legislative Council that the colony was insolvent. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —There is nothing in this about what Sir Frederick Whitaker stated in the Upper House. I have not seen what he said for a long time, but I think what he did say was that we should have to file our schedule in a certain event, and by that was meant that to meet certain engagements it would be necessary to raise money by a certain time. This and insolvency are two different things altogether. Any lawyer knows that when a person says he will have to file his schedule it may simply mean that he cannot meet his engagements as they become due, not that he cannot ultimately meet them. I think Mr. Ballance will appreciate the position when I remind him that when his Ministry left office they left the colony very deeply indebted to the Bank of New Zealand in respect of a particular advance. It was necessary, in order to pay this amount on its due date, to raise money. Now, money might have been raised for the purpose, in the first instance, of filling the coffers of the colony, and by being used to pay this debt it might have had the result of helping the bank; but I say that that idea is excluded entirely by the words which Mr. Hutchison has made use of in his speech. He says in effect that it was not for the purpose of getting money in order to enable the colony to meet its engagements, but our exclusive motive was the wish to put money into the Bank of New Zealand ; and he conveys the idea that it was not entitled to that money. That is the idea running through the whole speech. I say that so far as this charge, as formulated by Mr. Hutchison, is concerned, it is consistent with the idea that the money was got to put into the coffers of the colony for the purpose of paying money which was due by the colony to the Bank of New Zealand, and with the result of finding the money by the half-yearly balance ; but I say that this idea is excluded altogether by the words of Mr. Hutchison's speech. Then, Sir, there is Mr. Hutchison's second charge, and our second charge. The latter part of Mr. Hutchison's extract is the same as our second extract, only that he introduces matter which I do not think is relevant, and which only enlarges the statement without any commensurate benefit. I object altogether to his formulated charge No. 2. Ido not object to the extract, except that it is unnecessarily long. I think it ought to be cut down as much as possible, in order to

1.—7

30

enable you to report as briefly as possible. He says [charge No. 2 read, " That the two-million loan having been raised " " misleading"]. If you look at the words of his speech you will find the charges against the Government are of having interfered, through the Agent-General in London, by endeavouring to bolster up the credit of the bank and deceive the public. There is no idea of intentionally deceiving the public in his formulated charge. Dr. Fitchett.— -The word "misleading"? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —He says in his charge as put in, " While its true position was not disclosed the Ministry made such representations through the Agent-General as were incorrect in point of fact, and misleading." In his speech he charges the Government with having interfered, through the Agent-General in London, by endeavouring to bolster up the credit of the bank and deceive the public. One is positive, and the other may have come about without the set intention which is implied in the statement in his speech. , . ..Hon.. Mr. Ballance. —Would Mr. Hutchison's second charge cover your second charge if the words " deceiving the public " were substituted for " misleading"? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —Oh, no ! because there is the intentional deceit. With regard to charge No. 3, I think the extracts are the same; but you will find Mr. Hutchison, in formulating the charge, seems to be quite oblivious of the gravity of what he stated in the House. In the House first of all he gives these tables, which he says are taken from the public records. I do not know how he manages to get them in such a form. However, he says he took them from the public records, and then he goes on to say, "moneys for which the colony was paying interest, but which the Government left uninvested, obtaining no profit or return from the iBank of New Zealand." What he says in his charge as formulated is that large balances were left uninvested in the hands of the bank, as shown by the public accounts of the colony. Not a word is said as to our not getting any return from the bank, which, I submit, is almost the whole charge. The charge is that we carelessly administered moneys to such an extent that we left them in the Bank of New Zealand and got no interest. There are two things stated in the speech : that there is an unreasonable amount left in the bank; and, secondly, the amount left in the bank carries no interest. Both of these, of course, we contend are untrue. Hon. Mr. Bryce. —You are drawing a distinction between the printed speech and the written statement of charges ? Hon. Mr. Hislop.—Yes. I only want to say this : The two things which we contend are charged against us, and which we contend we should be allowed to disprove, are that an unreasonable amount was left in the bank, and that the amount left in the bank obtained no interest. With regard to charge No. 4, I notice that charge No. 4 of ours is not included in Mr. Hutchison's charges. I would ask that that be gone into. That is also a very serious charge, that the money is unnecessarily being sent Home, and of course the implication is that it is being sent Home in order to strengthen the Bank of New Zealand in London ; while our contention is that it is being sent Home for the purposes of the colony. Mr. Hutchison. —If the Ministry wish it inserted I do not object. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —Oh ! certainly we wish it inserted. The Chairman.—We will call it 3a. Mr. Hutchison. —I have no objection ; but I have not formulated anything upon it, you will remember. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —Well, then, Sir, there is Mr. Hutchison's charge No. 4, which is purely a personal matter. Mr. Macarthur. —You have not mentioned the £70,000 conversion loan ? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —No ; I do not think there is much in that. Mr. Hutchison. —You can put that in if you like. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —Mr. Hutchison in his speech states that he does not know very much about it, and that he does not know what the usual practice is in regard to that matter. I therefore do not think it a very serious matter. Mr. Hutchison. —I will include that if you wish to include the £800,000. If you have one, it is better to have all. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —Very well. The evidence on that matter will be very short. With regard to charge No. 4, Mr. Hutchison claims that on certain extracts which he gives here he is entitled to prove that within the time of the happening of the events mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Sir Frederick Whitaker, Sir Harry Atkinson, and the Hon. B. Mitchelson were under pecuniary obligations to the Bank of New Zealand. I contend there is no such statement within the speech, except to the extent which I extract under the heading of personal matter— Hansard, page 241. The Chairman. —Cannot we make your " personal matter " part of Mr. Hutchison's charge No. 4? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —No. It is really part of Mr. Hutchison's charge No. 1. I mean to say it is extracted under that charge, but it does not appear in formulated charge No. 1. Mr. Hutchison. —It is what Mr. Hislop calls the introductory matter of charge No. 1. It is really contained in charges Nos. 1 and 4. The Chairman. —Can we put a sidenote to your personal matter, saying that it is contained in Mr. Hutchison's charges Nos. 1 and 4 ?— Hon. Mr. Hislop. —I think the reference to it should be simply "personal matter extracted in my rendering of the charges." The Chairman. —We can each make a note on Mr. Hislop's copy, " See Mr. Hutchison's charges Nos. 1 and 4." Hon. Mr. Hislop. —With regard to the matter which I point out as a personal matter in my charges, I have already stated to the Committee what the views of the Government are. The Chairman. —Do not go into the views. We are not taking contentions now except as regards formulation of the charges. We have already your letter protesting against personal matters being taken unless the charge is proved.

31

1.—7

Hon. Mr. Hislop. —l want to explain that letter, and to draw a distinction between the charge as I have put it in and the charge put in by Mr. Hutchison. What I stated we were ready to do, if the Committee so ruled, was that, so far as the personal matter against Sir Frederick Whitaker was concerned, we would, of course, submit to the ruling of the Committee ; and with regard to that charge—namely, that on a particular date he was indebted to the Bank of New Zealand in a sum of money—that would be probably within the order of reference—subject, of course, to what I have contended already as to the order in which these charges should be taken. And with regard to that, I should like to be allowed at some future time to quote precedents from Todd and other constitutional authorities or writers as to proceedings of Committees in the House of Commons with regard to a personal matter where it is mixed up with charges of public maladministration. All I wish to say with regard to Mr. Hutchison's fourth charge is, it attempts to set up something which is not contained in the speech at all. I contend the only statement with regard to Sir Frederick Whitaker is that at a particular time he was indebted to the Bank of New Zealand. There is nothing stated as to his general dealings with the bank. There is nothing stated, as is attempted to be shown here, that during a course of years he was having any dealings with the bank. And therefore I say it would not be right for the Committee to so formulate these charges that they would go back and look up the whole of the transactions of Sir Frederick Whitaker during the time, which has been suggested. He is only alleged in the speech to be connected with one particular transaction. There is only alleged his relations with the bank while a particular transaction—namely, the raising of the loan at a particular time, 1888—was contemplated. That is the only allegation with regard to his connection with the bank. Hon. Mr. Bryce. —lt is further stated that the indebtedness which existed at one time has continued to the present day. Is that in the speech ? Hon. Mr. Hislop. —Yes. Mr. Hutchison. —Has not been discharged. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —Very well, Sir, that is what I say—that the matter alleged is that Sir Frederick Whitaker on that date owed the bank a sum of money, which has not been paid; and that is the matter which, I submit, alone can be inquired into under the order of reference, even if the Committee disregard my contention as to the order in which the matter should be taken. And then, with regard to Sir Harry Atkinson and the Hon. Mr. Mitchelson, I fail to find in the speech any statement that they were under pecuniary obligations to the Bank of New Zealand. There is no accusation from the beginning of the speech to the end of the speech that Sir Harry Atkinson or the Hon. Mr. Mitchelson is indebted to the Bank of New Zealand. The Chairman. —We cannot go behind the order of reference. To-morrow morning we will hear both of you fully as to what issues should be taken. It is sufficient if you draw our attention to the fact that you do not find the charge you refer to in the speech. Hon. Mr. Hislop. —l wish to point out that there are no charges of indebtedness on the part of Ministers except to the extent I have pointed out. The other charges against the members of the Government are very specific. For instance, there is the charge against the Colonial Treasurer : " The Treasurer displays the revenue and expenditure with engaging vivacity," &c.; see page 241. That is the charge, but there is nothing in that about the indebtedness of this gentleman to the Bank of New Zealand. From the beginning to the end of the speech there is not a word about the indebtedness of any member of the Government except Sir Frederick Whitaker. The Colonial Treasurer and members of the Government are charged with unduly helping the Bank of NewZealand at the expense of the colony, but there is no charge against Sir Harry Atkinson or the Hon. Mr. Mitchelson that they were influenced by any personal motives at all, based on their pecuniary condition. With regard to charge No. 5, I have no objection to the extract given by Mr. Hutchison. I think it is extracted at undue length.. I think the matter could be cut down a little. On that, Sir, I suppose you would report as you find it on the evidence being given. The Chairman. —Do you wish to make any remark, Mr. Hutchison ? Mr. Hutchison. —Yes, Sir; what I would endeavour to do is to address myself to this question of the formulation of the charges to-day. The Chairman. —You are not to argue. Mr. Hutchison. —No; but I would refer to some remarks made by Mr. Hislop. I would remind the Committee that this formulation by me of the charges was not a matter that I pressed on the Committee at all; it was in response to the invitation of the Committee that I did it, and lam at a loss to understand how very well to please Mr. Hislop. He objects in the first place that the formulated charges are too meagre, and then he objects that the references with which I support them are too large. If it is considered desirable to have the charges expressed in a succinct form, you may take them as formulated by me and alter them as you think proper. I submit, however, that these I have handed in are drawn as you would draw issues to submit to a jury in a libel action. Here is the first one : The only objection, as I understand Mr. Hislop, is that the words, " with the result," are not quite so strong as in the printed matter, where the words " with the view " might be more appropriate. I have no objection to the Committee inserting " with the view," or "with the view and the result of assisting the Bank of New Zealand," but I do not think, in order to formulate a charge, it is desirable to put in figures of speech used by a member in addressing the House. If you wish that phrases, figures of speech, and so on should be set out in formulating the charges you may do it; I have no objection, but I would rather not do it myself. I will refer to an instance : I say that I stated the reason why these deficiency bills were floated was to buy " minted gold." Am Ito be expected to prove that the three-quarters of a million was gold from the mint, or merely money ? I should say that the paraphrase used in the formulated charge is the correct mode of formulating the charge. Then I wish to point out what some members of the Committee do not seem to fully appreciate, that this extract states that there was a " double crisis," while, no doubt, it will be incumbent upon me to show that in the latter part of 1887-88 there was "an abnormal state of finance." The Committee will not expect me to show that it is

1.-1

32

usual to keep the proceeds of deficiency bills in the coffers or drawers of the public offices. It is for me to show that the money had the effect of assisting the Bank of New Zealand, and that it was " abnormal finance." The floating of these deficiency bills might have a double advantage. lam not now bound to say exactly what my evidence will prove. I point out that there is a "double crisis" alleged to have occurred, and that the two were working together. Hon. Sir J. Hall —To quote the words of your speech—"Here, then, we have at this double crisis " —does your extract cover that point? Mr. Hutchison. —Yes. Hon. Sir J. Hall. —Will you point that out ? Mr. Hutchison. —" Here, then, we have at this double crisis—a crisis with the colony and a crisis with the bank—the chairman of directors the Attorney-General of the colony," and so forth. Then, in the charge numbered 1, I read: " That the two-million loan having been raised in June, 1888, the proceeds went to relieve the necessities of the bank, and that, while its true position was not disclosed, the Ministry made such representations through the Agent-General as were incorrect in point of fact, and misleading." I submit that is the gist of the whole passage beginning "It will be remembered " down to " the coffers of the Bank of New Zealand." Hon. Sir J. Hall —Would not that have had, at the same time, the other result of assisting the colony ? Mr. Hutchison. —Certainly. It was " a double crisis " which had to be met. Hon. Sir J. Hall —Does your charge cover that ? Mr. Hutchison. —lf it does not I am quite willing that the Committee should alter it. Hon. Mr. Ballance. —Mr. Hislop dwelt upon that. I want to call your attention to that. Mr. Hutchison. —l am content to go by my speech. Hon. Sir J. Hall. —That will go in with the contentions ? Mr. Hutchison. —Yes. Hon. Mr. Bryce. —l would suggest your explanation is not quite full upon that point. You state that not only was this money required to fill the coffers of the Bank of New Zealand, but you imply, as I understand it, that it was not wanted for the purposes of the colony ? Mr. Hutchison. —l do not say that. I state that there was " a double crisis." I would point out, before I leave this charge, that the extract, as given by the Ministers, occupies about one-fourth of the passage that I extract in regard to the same charge. Mr. Hislop says this, the part omitted by the Ministry, is introductory. Well, I have yet to learn that introductory matter is not relevant matter to understand a particular charge. The next charge is thus formulated by me : " That, pending the raising of the two million, extraordinary expedients for raising money on the public credit were resorted to by the Ministry, and that, among other expedients, at the end of the financial year, on the 31st March, 1888, upwards of three-quarters of a million sterling were outstanding on deficiency bills, with the result of assisting the Bank of New Zealand at its half-yearly balance on the date mentioned." The extract from the speech which has relevancy to this second charge, as thus formulated, commencing " The loan was floated," and ending " representing what they do not know to be true," is about three times as long as the extract that the Government has handed in. In the passage quoted, the figure of speech " bolstering up the bank," is used. Now, if the Committee think it ought to be put in such terms, it is for the Committee to say so; but the words cannot be taken literally, and I submit they are substantially covered by the words I have used. But instead of "misleading," as used in the formulated charge, let the word be altered to " deceptive," if the Committee think that alteration an improvement.

Thuesday, 31st July, 1890. G. Hutchison, Esq., M.H.E., in attendance. The Chairman. —Will you continue your statement please, Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Hutchison. —l think I dealt with charges numbered 1 and 2 yesterday. The third reads.: " That then and subsequently " —covering a period of three years —" large balances were left uninvested in the hands of the bank, as shown by the public accounts of the colony." Mr. Hislop suggests that neither that formula nor the extract which I have appended, beginning, " Now, let us see how the Ministry were aiding the bank," and ending "documents issued by the Colonial Treasurer," is full enough, and he refers to the subject of "remittances." I have no objection whatever that my charge should be altered to read: "That then and subsequently large balances were left uninvested in the hands of the bank, and remittances made, as shown by the public accounts of the colony." The Chairman. —Remittances made to London? Mr. Hutchison. —Yes, to London; and I would supplement the printed matter under No. 3by adding that passage which appears as Mr. Hislop's " charge No. 4," which you have altered to 3a, beginning " One more reference," and ending "£800,000." My extract would then be 3 and 3a. I take the whole of the letter-press which you have called 3a, and I would graft that on to my extract No. 3. Sir, I would pass over in the meantime the formulated charge numbered " 4," and go on to that numbered "5," which reads, " That the Colonial Treasurer, notwithstanding a contrary expression of opinion by the House of Representatives in 1888, did refer to the Public Accounts Committee of 1889 for their consideration, but not for their report, a proposal to pay certain public moneys towards meeting the interest due in November, 1889, by the New Plymouth Harbour Board in London, and that he did afterwards, without authority, disburse upwards of £4,992 under circumstances such as to suggest the ability of the Board to meet its engagements." The passage on which this charge is founded is a long one, beginning, " Now we come to the conversion scheme of last year," and ending " £70,000 more." Ido not think I need trouble the Committee with many observations about this charge, as no objection has been made to the form in which

33

1.—7

it is stated, or to the matter by which it would be supported with reference to the charges numbered 1, 2, 3, and 5. I should like to say, having considered the matter since yesterday, that I would ask the Committee to take the charges as formulated by me, and at the end of each of those I have referred to—namely, 1, 2, 3, and s—to add these words, so as to connect each formulated charge with the printed matter attached: "as more particularly set out in the following extract," so that the two would be necessarily connected. If these words are at the end of each paragraph the end would be effected without omitting any possible part of any charge, for I do not want, less or more, than to cover the whole speech. Now, with reference to the charge numbered 4, ." That, within the time of the happening of the events mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Sir Frederick Whitaker, Sir Harry Atkinson, and the Hon. E. Mitchelson, members of the Ministry, were under pecuniary obligations to the Bank of New Zealand," I would there add these words: "as referred to in the speech of which the following are passages, in addition to those set out under the other heads," the three extracts being from different portions of the speech and referring generally to the operations of Ministers. This leads me to say that this charge is one which permeates the whole speech, although some individual passages are annexed which are more pointed than others. I would ask the Committee to remember that the passage numbered 3a being now added, every portion of the speech dealing with Ministers and the Bank of New Zealand is under one or other of the five heads. There is only a sentence or two here and there in the speech referring to my challenge to the Government to appoint a Committee not now comprised in these extracts ; that is the only matter that is not in the charges thus formulated and amplified. The whole charge-part of the speech is now before the Committee. In support of the charge numbered " 4," which appears to be the one Mr. Hislop is most sensitive about, I would ask the attention of the Committee to the first of the passages extracted under this head, in which the action of the Colonial Treasurer is figuratively referred to as seeking to draw off our attention by his dealings with the Consolidated Fund—he being the Minister who has to do with the Consolidated Fund as such—while "his confederates in the next room" are " amusing themselves" with the Public Works Fund. Of course these are entirely figurative passages; but the "confederates in .the next room" are, I think, sufficiently pointed to in other passages. For instance, reference is previously made to the Attorney-General. He was, as stated, at the time of the crisis of the colony and the bank, chairman of the directors of the bank and a member of "the Ministry. Another "confederate" is, I submit, sufficiently pointed to in those portions of the speech which deal with the Public Works Fund—to the Minister (until recently) for Public Works, the Hon. Mr. Mitchelson. These references thus comprise the three names which appear in the charge numbered 4 —Sir Frederick Whitaker, Sir Harry Atkinson, and the Hon. E. Mitchelson. The middle passage in the extract also deals inferentially with the same matter : " It was considered necessary to strengthen the position of the bank in various ways, one of which was by representing the contrary of what must be taken to have been known by some to be coming." Then the last passage of all—" What is our outlook? We wish to leave this land as a noble heritage to our children. It will have to be done by better men than those who at present hold the Treasury benches. I will not, whatever I may think, refer to these honourable gentleman as the pimps and panders of banks and loan and mortgage companies;" and so on. Ido not know what within the scope of parliamentary language could be more pointed than references such as these, taken in connection with the rest of the speech. Hon. Mr. Bryce. —Does that apply to the whole Ministry? Mr. Hutchison. —Yes; I may claim that it might apply to the whole of the members of the Ministry. I might individualise the whole seven or eight, but I only purpose calling evidence as to the three named. If it be desired that I should put in the whole of the names of the Ministry I will do so; but it would only be supererogation, as I should have no evidence to offer with reference to any but the three named —the Colonial Treasurer, who dealt with the Consolidated Fund; the Attorney-General, who, although his office did not put him in an official position to deal directly with the bank, was, nevertheless, a director of the bank ; and the Minister for Public Works, who dealt with the Public Works Fund. Hon. Mr. Larnach. —Do you say the Attorney-General was chairman of the bank ? Mr. Hutchison. —Yes; he was chairman of directors in 1887, and he was then also a Minister of the Crown. That is what I allege, and what I undertake to prove. I think it is not irrelevant to this question to consider how this inquiry was referred to the Committee. It is in the knowledge of every member of the Committee that there was considerable negotiation in the way of ascertaining the names to compose the Committee ; but before the House there was no difference of opinion whatever as to the terms of the reference, and I am not, I think, travelling outside my province when I say that the terms of the motion were the subject of negotiation which resulted in the words (other than the names of members) being as they now appear. And I have the right, I think, to say that in the first instance, as drafted, the reference specified the Colonial Treasurer and Attorney-General as those against whom the incriminating charges were understood to be levelled. But I objected to these two only being named, with the result that the phrase in the reference was adopted—namely, " certain members of the Ministry." [Approximate Cost of Paper. —Preparation, Nil; printing (1,100 copies), £19135. 6d.]

By Authority: George Didsbuby, Government Printer, Wellington.—lB9o. s—l. 7.