PRIVILEGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 274, 19 November 1927, Page 17

PRIVILEGE.

METHODIST MINISTERS OUTBURST.

WHAT WILL PARLIAMENT DO?

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, Friday

There was an evident tendency to forget the matter as soon as possible when the Select Committee appointed to consider an alleged breach of privilege by the Rev. E. D. Patehett reported the result of its deliberations to the House of Representatives this afternoon.

Mr. E. P. Lee read the report, which showed that the committee had called before them the publisher of the "Evening Post," in which the condemnatory paragraph appeared, and had also heard the editor, who had explained that Unreport was supplied by the Rev. F. B. Lawrence, who was the official reporter of the Methodist Conference, and who was not an accredited reporter of the newspaper. The sttement was published in good faith, and there was no intention to offend against the privileges of Parliament. The Rev. E. D. Patehett had appeared before the committee and had claimed that the report was of so bald a nature that it did not adequately convey his meanii/g, as it did not give the context. He spoke from notes which were at the disposal of the committee, which considered that they did not differ materially from the published statement. The reverend gentleman had since written the committee requesting that he be completely exonerated from censure, and that all imputations made against him in the House as a minister of religion be withdrawn, or. as an alternative, that he be permitted to make his defence before the bar of the House.

The last statement was greeted with laughter from members.

Mr. Lee added that the committee had left it to the House to decide whether a breach of privilege had been committed, and he merely moved that the report be received.

Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition. suggested that a good deal of time had been unnecessarily wasted over the matter. Undoubtedly the references came within the scope of privilege, but the same sort of thing was said every day by people about members of Parliament. It would, however,- be unwise to curb the utterances of even such j irresponsible persons as Mr. Patchett, [and the House should go no further, j (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Atmore (Xeelson) said thta the previous speaker had voiced the opinions of those who believed that the prestige of Parliament should be maintained. The reverend gentleman's utterances were unfair and irresponsible, and this would be realised by those who knew the services rendered bv the chairman of the committee which had considered the petitions on the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill."

"The very extravagance of the reverend gentleman's language shows that he lost his head," commented Mr. T. M. Wilford. "Having lost his head, he beeame a silly man instead of a sen : sible man."

The committee's report was adopted, find action was postponed until next sitting day.