"I shall speak to my motion. I believe I am asserting the privileges of the House. If I am disorderly I wish my conduct to be reported to the House."

Here the Chairman insisted that Mr. Gis- | warmth of feeling, in which circumstances exborne must speak to the clause; but Mr. Gis- pressions are likely to escape them in the heat borne continued,-of debate which, though personal and offensive in their terms, are not perhaps intended to be personally offensive, it is not the duty of the Speaker to nicely measure and weigh every expression that may chance to be used; or to lay hold of particular expressions and give them a meaning with which they were not intended to be applied, and in which they possibly may not have been understood; or, by interfering in a trifling matter, to give it more importance than it deserves; or to understand equivocal expressions in an offensive and personal sense; or, in general, to interfere at all, unless he feels strongly that some personal disrespect is intended.'

That was the conduct Mr. Gisborne was convicted of. It seems to me he was guilty of no crime. Whether he was right in form or not, he believed he was doing a great public service. He did, according to my view at any rate, a great public service on that occasion. That public service is reported on the Journals, and constitutes a precedent, whether a right one or a wrong one, and if we expunged that we should most certainly be wrong, and, probably, doing what is contrary to the wishes of Mr. Gisborne. I speak of the case with which I am personally familiar: it would be a wrong to expunge that record from the Journals of the House;-and probably the same may be said of all the others. Mr. WARD.-Sir, in view of the fact that the honourable member for Waitotara has read the petition, and that some of the statements in it are well known by all impartial observers who witnessed the whole of the circumstances at the time to be at variance with the facts as they occurred in this House, I think it is only right that the authentic record which you, Mr. Speaker, made to the House should be put side by side with the statements contained in that petition; and I would ask you to accept the clear statement you made as read-or I will read it to the House:

"

That will be sufficient answer to the argument that the Speaker on a previous occasion admitted the use of words that may not have been parliamentary without checking them. Now as to the points submitted by the honourable member for Mount Ida. And, first, as to the first point of order raised by the honourable member: Since the House was pleased to do me the honour of placing me in this exceedingly responsible position, I have done my utmost to utilise the time at my disposal by looking up authorities; and it happens that during the earlier part of this session I had carefully read the decisions of Mr. Speaker Peel, as contained in the two volumes to which honourable members have access. There suddenly arose during the discussion upon a question of privilege-not the question Mr. SPEAKER.-If honourable members of privilege now before us, but a question have made all the remarks they wished to make brought up by the honourable member for I will endeavour to answer the points of order Mataura- the episode which has given rise raised by the honourable member for Mount to the present position. That is to say, the Ida so clearly that there can be no mistake honourable member for Mataura had felt agabout the view which I take of the matter. grieved at something which had taken place First, if the House will permit me, I may during a previous discussion. On Thursday say that throughout the whole of this very night, or, rather, early on Friday morning, he unhappy business I have, so far as I am aware, had taken exception to certain words quoted in no way exceeded the duties which are im- by the Minister of Lands. Blame has been posed upon me as president of this House. It laid upon the Speaker for not having stopped has been suggested, in connection with this, the quotation at the time. I was under the during the remarks now submitted to me, that, impression at the time, and so, I think, was the with regard to the expression that was ruled whole House, that the words then being quoted out of order, it had been previously used in this were words which had been used during a House without being checked. That may be previous stage of the debate on the Land Bill. so; but I will draw the attention of honourable Therefore the honourable gentleman did not members to the very patent fact that it is not appear to me to be out of order, nor did any one necessary that the Speaker should on every else appear to think so, nor was my attention possible occasion check every word that is not called to it. On the following day the honourparliamentary; and that there is undoubted able gentleman brought the matter up as a authority for taking up that position honour- question of privilege. I should have said, able members will find if they will refer to with regard to certain other words which were Cushing, page 565, paragraph 1,692. He used on Thursday night or early on Friday says,morning, that objection was instantly taken to them, and I immediately called upon the honourable member to withdraw them. The Minister of Lands did then withdraw them; but the honourable member for Mataura did not seem to be satisfied, and said that he would take another opportunity of bringing the matter before the House. On the following day the honourable gentleman rose to a question of privilege, and, after making some re

"It would not, perhaps, be practicable to lay down any very precise and definite rules as to the occasions on which the duty of the Speaker requires his interference, but, from the language of eminent and experienced Speakers, it may be gathered that, where subjects are brought under consideration in which members feel deeply interested, or where members are speaking under the excitement of great

"Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I must call the attention of the honourable gentleman to the fact that he has just uttered a word which is not parliamentary. He used the word "Shame." It is a word which is of recent use, and one which is becoming frequent. It is an expression which ought to be rigorously put down. With the authority and sanction of the House, I shall propose for the future to take notice of it.'

that occasion. In the following year, on the 9th August, 1888, in the course of a discussion on State-directed colonisation in South Africa, this took place :-

"Mr. Sexton: Is not the man referred to in the question the third man referred to by the Chief Secretary-namely, the Patrick Murray who was discharged in consequence of illhealth? and ought not the honourable and gallant gentleman (Sir John Colomb) to be ashamed of himself for putting such a question?

marks, offered a resolution to be proposed from the Chair. In that resolution were recited the words of the statement that was read out the previous evening from Hansard, and subsequently the words which the Minister of Lands had used but had withdrawn. I was immediately asked, as a point of order, whether the words which had been withdrawn were words which could be recited in the resolution. I ruled that they could not, because, technically, they had no existence. Thereupon I offered the "Nothing further with regard to this ejacuhonourable member the alternative of proceed-lation or the use of these words took place on ing with the resolution omitting those words, or, if he did not wish to move the resolution with those words omitted, at once of giving notice of the resolution for some future day. He élected to move the resolution at once without the words withdrawn. Then, if my memory serves me correctly, after considerable discussion-which discussion I allowed to proceed in the hope that out of it would be evolved some pleasant termination of the matter-I think the leader of the Opposition, or some one on that side sitting near to that honourable gentleman, put it to the Premier whether he would give an opportunity of enabling the resolution to be brought up on some future day. Later on the Premier said he did not see his way, or was sorry to say he could not give that pledge, in view of the state of the Order Paper, and of the pressure of public business. Shortly after that, the leader of the Opposition rose, and, in the course of addressing the House, said that the Premier ought to be ashamed of himself. At that point he was checked by a point of order being raised. The Speaker himself did not intervene, I may observe. But I was asked the question at once by the Premier, Are those words parliamentary?' Knowing, as I did know, that there were authorities on the point, and that I was obliged to give an answer in the affirmative or in the negative, I gave an answer in the negative, and said that the words were not parliamentary. What authority that answer rests upon I will show if the House will permit me. In the House of Commons in 1887, on the 28th January, as will be found in the 310th volume of the Imperial Hansard, page 166, in the course of a discussion on the Glenbeigh evictions, Ireland, the following took place :

"Sir John Colomb: Sir, I rise to order. I wish to ask whether it is in order, when one honourable member puts a question, for another honourable member to ask whether he is not ashamed of himself for doing so.

"Mr. Speaker: It is clearly out of order. The expression did not reach me, or I should have taken notice of it; but it is an improper and unparliamentary expression.'

He

"Now, in face of the fact that I was aware that there were these authorities, upon the question being put point-blank to me as to whether the statement that the honourable member ought to be ashamed of himself was parliamentary, I submit that I was bound to rule that it was unparliamentary. But, having so ruled, I took no further steps as Speaker. Neither, it will be observed, did my illustrious compeer the Speaker of the House of Commons take any further proceedings. merely ruled that the words were unparliamentary so did I. But the Premier, in the exercise of what I conceive to be his undoubted right, asked that the words be withdrawn; and immediately, if my memory serves me, the honourable member for Waikato said, 'Then I shall decline to withdraw them. And, Sir, there are members of this House' - I am speaking now solely from memory-'who, Mr. Speaker, bow to your ruling: that is to say, they do so in the letter but not in the spirit. I am not one of those. I shall adhere to the words I have used and take the consequences.' That is my recollection. Now, I know that the honourable gentleman is one who pays the most punctilious regard to the Chair as a rule. I have never known him to show other than the most perfect obedience to the Chair, and I gladly testify that in his position as leader of the Opposition he has always been most courteous, considerate, and kindly towards myself. I say that distinctly. But, notwithstanding that, the honourable gentleman on that occasion did what I have never known him to do beforeclearly intimate that if he were called upon

"Hon. MEMBERS.-Order, order.

to do so by the Chair he would not withdraw | The other side appears indisposed to listen to the words which had been used by him, and the defence of an injured man; but I thank which had been ruled unparliamentary. There you for allowing me to put the question to you. fore I did not at the moment follow that state- I am not going to say whether honourable ment up by a demand for the withdrawal of members ought to be ashamed of themselves the words, because I foresaw that such a de- or not, but I wish to put a matter to you, Sir. mand would be met by a positive refusal, with I am sure you would not willingly pass over the consequent unpleasant necessity on my a point which I raised without alluding to it part of naming the honourable member. But in your decision. In fact, it was the main what immediately occurred was that, the Pre-point, or one of the main points. I asked mier having asked that the words be taken whether, the words being trivial ones, there down, I asked the pleasure of the House in the should not have been delay in taking them matter, and stated that the honourable gentle- down. That aspect has not yet been dealt man was within his right in demanding that with. I relied upon the triviality of the words; the words be taken down. Then some honour- but the triviality is proved by your own words able member, sitting near where the honourable at the timemember for Mount Ida sits, got up and said, 'Should not some other words be taken down? What were the words?' The Premier said, 'The words are, that the Premier ought to be ashamed of himself.' 'But,' said some one on my left, there were other words.' I allowed time to ascertain what the other words were. Certain other words were suggested. I have taken them down from memory, and I believe they were these: for relying on a technicality.' There was a dispute as to whether these words had been used, or, at all events, whether they were actually uttered or merely intended to be uttered. Then I instructed the Clerk to take down the words as stated by the Premier, those being the words, The Premier ought to be ashamed of himself.' I see by our Standing Order 133

"Mr. M. J. S. MACKENZIE.-May I interrupt you, Sir, to ask a question?

"An Hon. MEMBER.-Order, order. "Mr. M. J. S. MACKENZIE.-I only wish to ask you, Sir, whether you are now leaving the first point of order.

Mr. SPEAKER. I am dealing with the first point of order. I have stated as clearly as possible what led up to this matter, and I have shown the reasons which led me to take the action which I took. I have said the words were not challenged by myself, but were taken down at the request of the Premier, when I had ruled that they were not parliamentary. As to the argument submitted that the words were trivial, and the contention that therefore no further proceedings should have been taken, I do not say whether, had it been left to myself, I should have deemed it necessary to take further action or whether I should not. Suffice it to say that I did not take any action myself. I was appealed to as to whether they were parliamentary or unparliamentary words, and I ruled that they were unparliamentary; and the next step was taken by the Premier, who moved that the words should be taken down.

"Mr. M. J. S. Mackenzie rose to speak. "Hon. MEMBERS.-Order, order. "Mr. M. J. S. MACKENZIE.-If you, Sir, refuse to listen to anything I have got to say

"Mr. SPEAKER. I do not refuse to listen to

you.

"Mr. M. J. S. MACKENZIE.-I thank you, Sir,

"Mr. M. J. S. MACKENZIE.-I have the permission of the Speaker to speak upon the point of order, and I shall do so. The statement which has not yet been alluded to by you, Sir, is this: that you yourself said the words were only technically, and not in practice, unparliamentary.

"Mr. FISH.-Can I speak before you pro

ceed?

Mr. SPEAKER.-I think not.

"Mr. FISH. It is a most unparliamentary proceeding on the part of the honourable gentleman that he should interrupt the Judge when he is delivering his judgment.

"Mr. M. J. S. MACKENZIE.-Have you never heard of that being done in a Court?

'Mr. SPEAKER.—Order. I think I have possibly omitted to make my meaning plain upon the point indicated by the honourable member for Mount Ida, and I will try to make it perfectly plain. The words first ruled as unparliamentary-namely, the words taken down on the motion of the Premier, 'The Premier ought to be ashamed of himself -those words I have shown to the House were clearly unparliamentary; and I subsequently said, and I still maintain, what I have said all through, that, if the remaining words-namely, for relying upon a technicality'-had been used together with the previous words which were taken down, they would to some extent have reduced the weight of the previous sentence; because the House will see that, if a charge is brought against an honourable member that he ought to be ashamed of himself, it may be for all sorts of shameful reasons, but when those words are limited by the statement that he ought to be ashamed of himself for relying upon a technicality, it appears that the original words have not so wide a scope as they otherwise might have had. That is perfectly clear. But, when the honourable member for Waikato returned to the chamber, after the resolution had been passed, he said-I am, of course, quoting from memory-that if he had been allowed to complete his sentence he would have said that the Premier ought to be ashamed of himself for relying on a technicality to prevent an honourable member from having the opportunity of clearing himself of a charge of disgraceful conduct.' The addition of these last words would have undone the

minimising effect of the second statement, and must have again put back the words into the position of charging the Premier with doing that of which any honourable man ought to be ashamed. Then, next, as to the point that the motion ought to have been put formally that the words should be taken down, I cannot find that that is so in the practice of the House of Commons. The words were taken down by my direction, after ascertaining, as I think I did, that it was the general wish of the House that they should be taken down. Our Standing Order 133 says,

"When any member objects to words used in debate, and desires them to be taken down, Mr. Speaker, if it appear to be the pleasure of the House, will direct them to be taken down by the Clerk accordingly.'

"It appeared to me to be the wish of the House that the words should be taken down, and I directed that they should be taken down. | In May, at page 377, we find these words :"Whenever any disorderly words have been used by a member in debate, notice should be immediately taken of the words objected to; and, if any member desire that they may be taken down, the Speaker or Chairman, if it appear to be the pleasure of the House or the Committee, will direct the Clerk to take them down.'

"Mr. FERGUS.-How is the pleasure of the House ascertained?

|

far as my memory serves me, rose in his place and said that these were not all the words, and that he had intended to conclude the sentence by adding the words 'for relying on a technicality.' Having said that, at any rate, he left the chamber. The fourth point is this: that if the explanation given by the honourable gentleman had been deemed sufficient no further proceeding was necessary. That is perfectly clear; it is quite true. The honourable member's quotation is entirely correct; but if he goes a little further he will see this at page 372 of Bourinot :

"The member who spoke the words has the right to read them or have them read to him by the Speaker; and he may then deny that those were the words he spoke; and if he does so the House may proceed to consider his explanation and decide by a question whether he had or had not used the words. If he does not deny that he spoke those words, or when the House has itself determined what the words were, then the member may either justify them or explain the sense in which he had used them, with the view of removing the objection taken to them. If his explanation or apology be deemed sufficient by the House, no further proceeding is necessary.'

"The honourable member did not deny using the words. He distinctly admitted it. "Mr. M. J. S. MACKENZIE.-No, Sir; only half of it.

"Mr. SPEAKER. If there had been any "Mr. SPEAKER. He acknowledged using objection I should have taken means to as- those words as well as other words. He did certain what the pleasure of the House was; not deny that he used the words. If the but no objection whatsoever was made, and honourable gentleman had wished to justify the words were taken down, as I understood, them the Chair would certainly not have inwith the unanimous assent of the House. terrupted him. I should have been very glad There appeared to me to be a general desire to hear him, and I am sure the House for the words to be taken down, the only dif- also would have been glad to listen to him. ference of opinion being as to whether certain I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot sustain other words should be included. Then, the the points of order raised by the honourable third point raised by the honourable member gentleman. Up to the present time there has is that the words taken down should have been been no failure to conform to the proper read to the honourable member whose words method of procedure in this matter, and all were taken down. Those words were read that remains to be considered is this: that, to the honourable member for Waikato; and unfortunately, during a debate in this House the honourable member for Waikato, having certain words were used by the honourable heard the words read, made a statement, as member for Waikato, words not in themselves I understood, in explanation, to the effect that of anything like a highly disorderly nature, but these words did not constitute the whole of words which, according to modern authorities, the sentence; and I think he went so far at-and only modern authorities, dating within that time as to say that he meant to conclude the sentence by saying, 'for relying on a technicality; and then he left the chamber.

"Mr. M. J. S. MACKENZIE.-Was he then allowed to make an explanation?

"Mr. SPEAKER.-Yes, he was quite at liberty to do so, and I think he did, in the manner which I have described.

"Mr. M. J. S. MACKENZIE.-As to the words for relying on a technicality'?

"Hon. MEMBERS.-Order, order. "Mr. M. J. S. MACKENZIE.--I am putting a question to the Speaker.

"Mr. SPEAKER.-I have said already, and I say again, speaking from memory-and I think it is correct that I read the words to the honourable member; and the honourable member, as

the last four years, are declared to be out of order. Within the last four years it has been authoritatively laid down that such words are unparliamentary, and I had no alternative but to rule them to be so when as Speaker I was called upon to give a ruling. If the honourable gentleman had then said that he would withdraw the words, all would have ended happily and pleasantly. I say most sincerely that I hope it may be possible for some action to be taken which will get over this unfortunate difficulty. Speaking for the Chair, I should be most happy to take action in that direction, in accordance with what I believe to be the wish of the majority of the House. I do not believe that there was a desire on the part of a majority of the House to pass a vote of

severe censure on the honourable gentleman, | first line, insert the words 'takes any oysters.' and, if it be possible for us to restore affairs Omit the words 'for any species of oysters, to their normal condition within this House, takes any oysters of such species.' there is no one who would be more pleased "Government House, than the Speaker. For myself I can only say that as Speaker I am willing to do all that I can to bring this about, and I voluntarily offer my services to the House in that behalf."