A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 61, 9 September 1904, Page 5

A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

SPEAKER v. MEMBER. TROUBLE Iff THE LEGISLATIVE COOK OIL. The week before last the Hob. J. Rigg g»ye , notice to move in the Legislative Council: "That wltile the introduction of Chinese slavery into South Africa may bo no«b inconsistent with the policy of the British Government, their sanction to the Convention us a menace to the^ welfare of the self -governing colonies and against the best interests of the British Empire." The Speaker altered the word "slavery" to "indentured labour," and Mr. Riggchallenged him to give- his reasons. The Speaker replied that ho acted under the powera conferred upon him. by Standing Order 61,' which provides that the Speaker may refuse to receive a notice of motion.; which is couched in improper language. Mr. Ring accordingly gave notice to move : "That, in the opinion of the Council, the interposition of the Hon. tiie Speaker in regard to the notice of motion given by the Hon. Mr. Rigg on Friday, the 26th August, is an undue restriction "cA the liberty and independence of honourable members." This motion came on for discussion ioi the Chamber yesterday afternoon. After explaining the facts as set outv above, Mr. Rigg stated that he desired to show that the effect of the Speaker's ruling was to interfere with hi» liberty as a member, and he contended that, in striking out the. word 'Slavery," the Speaker lwd struck out the only "word that would* adequately express the offensive character of. the Chinese labour c*qntract. He challenged tiifi opinion that the ; use 4 qf 'iaa word "slavery" would impair the dignity of the Council. The Speaker might consider that it was/ a reflection on the British Government to insinuate that its policy ,had been to introduce slavery intoSouth Africa, but the Speaker was noft required to defend the British Govern-" ment from, any charges brought against it. If this were not the duty of the Speaker* he had no right to interfere with Idb td»' ; tkm. There was a story whidi was told of an over-fastidious lady who put garments on the legs of the grand piano, and it might happen that a similar fastidiousness might &c exhibited by tbo occupant of the Speaker's chair. The motion was seconded by Mr. Scot" land, who explained that be did not approve of the use of the word "(slavery, and that he held that Mr. Rigg was noU justified in imputing to tie Mother Country a deliberate intention to establteln slavery in any pert of the British do* minions. Tho Attorney-General hoped that th* Council would not agree to Mr. Rigg*ei motion. If Mr. Rigg's original motion, had been allowed to proceed, it woukl have infringed the honour of the Council to say that the policy of the British Gov* eminent had been to encourage slavery. Mr. Rigg : So it has. The Attorney-General v : That may be tbt hon. gontleinan'B ''opinion, but it is no* mine. The Hon. W. H. Baillie deprecated taking up an attitude which amounted to saying' to the Imperial Government, "Yon do just as we dictate," and ho adviseol Mr. Rigg to accept the Speaker's ruling. The Speaker then epoko with sonui warmth on the subject. He characterised Mr. Rigg's objection as the weakest and most frivolous question of privilege that, had ever been raised. After dealing with the duty of the Speaker undei Standing Order 61 , and expressing his intention al • ways to fearlessly and firmly do his duty and exercise his responsibility, he proceeded to an attack on Mr. Rigg's metnonl of debate. It was well known, he said, that Mr. Rigg waa in the habit of expressing views on the most extreme lines, and\ he proceeded to quote from a speech delivered earlier in this session by Mr. Riggi in which Lord Milner had been declared a "creature" of Mr. Chamberlain, and im which Mr. Seddon had been stated to bo in collusion with the ex-Secretary of State for the Colonies. Such language au this would be improper in a motion oft tho Oi-dor Paper. Mr. Rigg had also referred in open Council to "stoats and weasels and polecats," and so on. As far ait tho question of privilege was concerned, ho had intimated to Mr. Rigg that hn objected to tho word "slavery, and Mr, Rigg had accepted the alteration. Mr. Rigg should have said that he objected to the alteration, and then be (the Speaker) would have had to take the- responsibility and take action. ".I did not expect yon, Sir, to take up such an attitude «s you have done," said Mr. Rigg, in replying. "You have made some very serious charges against a member of this Council — charges which have no foundation." He pointed out that tho Speaker had referred to a rawt debate oJ' this session, which was contrary to tho Standing Orders. "Further," he continued,, "you liave distorted my speech of las{ year into a charge that I applied to members of this Council the terms 'stoats, weasels, and polecats.' I deny that I ever ap. plied such a term to my fellow-members." 1 " The Speaker had distorted a speech W which ne bad referred ~ "merely to & clasn' of people for whom he had the- greatest contempt. Ho especially regretted that) one in the high position of the Speaker should have m.>de these unfounded charges. The, Hon. H. Scotland bad, oatside the Chamber, declared the- Speaker*!) action to be quite unwarrantable. Finally; he declared that it was a mere quibble to object to the word "slavery" in tho motion. After a personal explanation by Mr. Scotland, who declared that he did nofi remember having said that the Speaker* action was unwarrantrd, the question wan put. There were no voices < given for tho "Ayes.," and tho Hon. W. C. Smith, who voted "No," called for a division. Mr. Rigg protested against Mr. Smith's action, but the Speaker remained silent, and after again protesting, Mr. Rigg announced that he would not 'remain in the Chamber. — - In his absence his motion was lost by 26 votes to nil.