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