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