A “ SUFFICIENT ” REPLY

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3340, 5 October 1911, Page 7

A “ SUFFICIENT ” REPLY

ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND CORONATION FESTIVITIES. LEGISLATIVE COUNCILLORS AG- \ [ GRIEVED. [PEE. PEESS ASSOCXATIOH.I WELLINGTON, Oct. .4. The Council met at 2.30, when the Hon. C. H Mills moved: That the Council is dissatisfied with the answer given by the AttorneyGeneral in reply to questions on the order paper of 28th September,. on the subject of the Coronation invitations, and regrets the refusal given to a request to lay on the table any papers, cables, or correspondence relating to them. The rnovej* strongly contended that the first invitation to members of the Dominion Parliament included the Council, and should have been submitted to the Council. The second invitation from a joint committee of the House of Lords and Commons was for eight members of the Council, and the Council had not received these invitations, and had a right to have an explanation. The object of his motion was to get the matter cleared up, and he felt more hurt at the reply given iby the Attorney-General than at a reply coming from anyone who did not know better. . The Hon. J. B. Callan, who seconded the motion, expressed himself as deeply disappointed at the manner in which members of the Council were treated. The Hon. W. F. Wigram supported the motion with regret, on account of the fact that the Attorney-General had endeared himself to the Council by his courtesy in the conduct of its business. One straying away from this could he overlooked, but he felt it his duty to approve of the motion. The Hon. G. Jones contended that in view of the great services rendered by the Premier and his colleagues to the Dominion that they might well overlook the oversight on the part of Ministers in this matter. He would vote against the motion. The Hon. O. Samuel, while declaring his determination at all times to speak his mind freely, said he refused to believe that any discourtesy to the Council was intended by the Attorney-Gene-ral. However, there was no doubt that the second invitation was to eight members of the Council, and they had a right to know why the invitation had been suppressed. The reference to Hansard was not satisfactory, and reasons should at least have been given why the correspondence was not laid on the table. The Hon. R. A. Loughnan moved an amendment making.the motion read: That the Council hopes the Goveniment will explain the manner of the Coronation invitations to the Council. The Hon. J. E. Jen&inson indicated that he would he prepared to go further and insist upon the correspondence being laid unon the table, except that marked confidential. He preferred Mr. Loughnan’s amendment to the. original motion, as under that they might get something definite. The Hon. W. Beehan did not think any discourtesy to the Council was intended by SirJ. G. Findlay’s reply, to Mr. Mills’ question. . The whole thing was a storm in a teapot. The Hon. C. Louisson favored Mr. Jenkinson’s suggested amendment. The Hori. C. M. Luke considered that those responsible for tor warding, the invitation to the Council failed in their duty in not doing so. . The Attorney-General said that he had, in his reply, adopted the practice of the British Parliament in giving a sufficient reply. The Premier , had taken the responsibility of explaining the position, and he (Sir J. Findlay) had nothing to add to that. There could be no discourtesy in following the recognised practice in replying to a question. Mr. Loughnan’s amendment was carried.