Breach of Privilege.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 5298, 15 August 1888, Page 2

Breach of Privilege.

THE AUCKLAND HERALD AND THE

HON. MR LARNACH,

[PARLIAjrENTAUY REPORTER, j

Wellington, Last night. It was current gossip in the lobbies today that, when the House met the Hon. Mr Larnach would draw attention to an article in a recent issue of the Auckland Herald reflecting on himself as a breach of privilege. This proved to be tho case, and tho article was discussed in very warm terms. The article was read, and when the clerk came to the clause rofei-ring to Mr Larnaoh's action as a shameless excuse for plundering tho country, there were cries of " Shame !" from all parts of the House. Every mention of Mr Hobbs, on whose action the article was based, was greeted with ironical laughter and jeering remarks.

Mr Larnach said he wished to draw the attention of tho House to a most libellous and scurrilous article in tho New I Zealand Herald, a paper published at Auckland. It would be in tho recollection of members that he recently had suddenly to go to his home in tho South in consequence of illness iv his family, and this paper had taken up a circumstance which occurred while he was away in a most scurrilous way, referring to him as though his absence was on business, and that his statement about illness in his family was only an excuse to be away attending to his own affairs. Ho was detained in the south until a very serious operation had been performed. To his surprise, when he returned he found that this article had been published. He was leaving New Zealand shortly, and if tho article were to be published in the papers of Australia, where be intended to reside, it would do a very great injury to his character. He had, therefore, brought the matter before the House, and asked that tho article of which ho complained should bo read by the clerk.

Tlie clerk then read the article, being frequently interrupted by members expressing disapproval of its statements. It was based on a question asked in the House by Mr Hobbs as to -whether Mr Larnach was to draw his honorarium while he was in Australia. Tho article assumed that Mr Larnach had really gono away on business, and said Mr Hobbs deserved tho thanks of Now Zealand for bringing the matter forward. (Hisses.) Mr Larnach remarked that during the twelve years he had been in the House ho lad never drawn his honorarium when he was away from the country, and ho thought that whore there was sickness in the family such a question should not have boen raised. (Hear, hear.) He moved, "That a breach of tho privileges of tho House lias been committed."

Mr Hobbs said he had, when ho found

what was tho causo of Mr Larnnch's absence, at once telegraphed expressing regret, that he had brought the matter up, and received from Mr Larnach a telegram accepting his apology. Hon. members had read the telegram. Mr Hobbs Baid it was not. at all gentlemanly, but he was sorry he had not got it with him. Mr Larnach : I can give yon a copy. Mr Hobbs, continuing, said he regretted very much that he had mentioned Mr Larnach's name with respect to the question. He should make further enquiries with a view of finding out whether other members had done tho samo thing. Tho Premier said there was no doubt this was a shameful and gross libel, and Mr Larnach had done right to bring it up. He should be very glad to assist the lion, member in clearing his character if it was necessary, which ho did not think it was. The hon. member was too well and widely known for any explanation to be necessary. Ho thought Mr Hobbs was unfortunate in

the way ho brought tho matter up, for it was not for a private member to toko these steps. Wo should not be always foaling- our om nest—(cheers) —and that- was what ho objected to in tho press of tho colony. There seemed to bo a sort of desire to hold up public men to reprobation. They could not so much complain of that sort of thing if tho members of tho House utavtcd it. Anything the lion, member did he would assist him in, but what ho should like to see was the House declare this a breach of privilege, and then Mr Larnach could bring an action against the paper. Mr Downie Stewart censured Mr Hobbs for bringing the matter up originally, but he did not think it would be well for the House to go any further into tho matter. Mr Vernill suggested that Mr Hobbs slvjuld.be given—(A voice: " Six months.") No, time to apologise. Mr Bruce expressed deep regret at tho base and cruel charges which were here made against a gentleman so respected as Mr Larnach, and ho ventured to say tint when the lion, member went to his new home in Australia lie would carry with him the respect and esteem of every member of tho House. (Cheers). Mr R. H. J. Reeves spoke in a similar strain, censuring Mr Hobbs. He read the telegram in which Mr Larnach accepted Mr Hobbs's apology as follows :—" Sir, whether on public or other grounds, your reference to my short absence was unfriendly, unmanly, and contemptible, but as a fleeting shadow of delicacy has passed over you, I accept your apology." Such was the magnanimous way in which Mr Larnach accepted tho apologies. (Laughter.) He suggested that the correspondent and his satellites be brought before the bar of tho House. Mr Lcvcstam hoped the Houso would not allow the matter to drop, but that an example would bo niadi of the member for

tho Bay of Islands (Mr Hobbs). Mr Allen did not suppose there was a man in tho House who had more generosity about him than Mr Larnach. Ho thought, on the other hand, that this affair would have a good effect iv arresting what ho called tho downward progress in the House, and putting them on a higher aud more gentlemanly feeling. It. was then resolved that the article was

a breach of the privileges of the House. Mr Larnach then moved, " That tho proprietors of tho paper, Messrs William Scott Wilson, Joseph Lisbon Wilson, and Alfred George Horton, be ordered to attend at the bar of the Houso at 2.30 p.m. this day week."

The Premier hoped the hon. member would not press this motion. Ho pointed out that this mode of proceeding had been tried before, and had never had any good result. At tho same time, he should have to vote for the motion if it was pressed. Sir John Hall also hoped the motion would not be proceeded with. If he thought anything further was needed to clear the hon. member's character he would not for a moment object to it.

Mr Fulton thought that, even if Mr Larnach's character needed any vindication, that had been done by tho motion affirming the article to be a breach of privilege. Dr. Fitchett thuught it necessary that the House should maintain its dignity in this matter.

Mr Samuel said tho proprietors would, if this motion was passed, appear at tho bar and giveau explanation, and tho Houso would then consider what should be done. There were various courses—a reprimand, committal to prison, and a prosecution. It would bo iv the recollection of tho older members how all the cumbrous machiiiory available had beenbrouglittobearagainstaiiiudividual with the result that that individual was returned as a member of the House. Ho thought that it would ho best to drop tho matter now, for there was a danger of making martyrs of a certain class of people if they went on with it. Mr Turubull thought the person to blame was the member of tho Houso who bad given the information on which tho article had been wriltou. Captain Russell thought a man of Mr Larnach's established position could defy

such a libel as this. Moreover, he thought tho punishment the member who hud originated this libel had undergone that afternoon was very much more than they could inflict on tho proprietors of the paper. Mr O'Calhighan pointed out that when Mr Hobbs prayed for the members of tho Houso ho added that ho would not sit in the House if it were not the will of the Lord he should do so. (Laughter.)

Mr Larnach said that, after hearing what was said by tho Premier, he would leave himself entirely in the hands of tho Houso, and would withdraw tho motion if members wished it.

Mr Barron suggested the adjournment of the debate till next day. Mr O'Connor expressed an opinion that the article in question was a degradation to the press of the colony, but he thought that to bring the proprietors before the House would be to give them undue notoriety. The better course would bo to allow the authors to be judged by tho press and the people. Mr Fitzlierbert suggested that tho paper should be given till that day week to apologise, aud that if no apology bo made the proprietors should then be brought to the bar of the House.

Mr Moss said that, knowing tho proprietors of the paper, he was certain that no one would more regret this affair than they did. At the same time, thoy must remember that Mr Hobbs was a gentleman surrounded by the odor of sanctity as leader of a religious movement, and that such a gentleman would not act the part of Paul Pry. (Laughter.) Ho was certain the people of Auckland would not endorse this attack.

Mr W. P. Reeves, as a newspaper man. knew the way these things got into newspapers, and was sure the proprietors would not endorse it. He doubted whother those gentlemen ever knew anything about tho article till it was in print. Knowing the proprietors of the New Zealand Herald, he fell, sure that they would at once apologise, and he suggested a motion to the effect that (he article was untruthful and improper, and that the attention of the. proprietors be called to the matter.

Mr Lance advised Mr Larnach to withdraw the motion.

Mr Hobbs denied that ho had supplied information to newspaper correspondents in Wellington. Ho denied that he had said members were past praying for. What ho said at a meeting at Wellington some timo ago was that members were " not past praying for.*' (Laughter.) Mr Larnach said he would go further now, and ask leave to withdraw tho motion. (Cheers.) The motion was withdrawn. Mr Seddon thought the House should express its .sympathy with Mr Larnach, and he moved, " That this House expresses its M-inpathy with the hen. member for the Peninsula, and regrets that such an mi-

truthful and libellous article should have been published in the newspaper in question." This was seconded by Colonel Fraser, ana carried.

Mr Lawry said he had reason to know that tho article was written without the knowledge of the proprietors, and tho ■writer expressed regret next day forhavuigpoitiifd. it.

Mr J. B. Why to : He wrote oao quite as bad two days after. The discussion then ceased.

Mr Hobbs gave notice to move for a return giving the names of mom bora'of the general Assembly who have, during the past seven years, drawn their honorarium when absent from tho House through or during illness hi their families.

The motion was received by tho House with expressions of disapprobation.