BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

Evening Star, Issue 19711, 11 November 1927, Page 3

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

MEMBER CHARGES CLERGYMAN BIBLE IN SCHOOLS AFTERMATH [Fnou Ode Parliamentari Hepobteb.] WELLINGTON, November 10. "Breach of privilege was alleged by the member for Nelson against the Rev. E. D. Hatchett, Methodist minister, in his comment made on Parliament s treatment of the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill. When the member for Nelson men-, tioned his intention to raise the question of privilege the committee consideration of a Bill had to be at once suspended in order that Mr Speaker be called to decide whether there was a prima facie case on which to proceed. The words complained of by Mr Atmoro were included in an address to the District Synod of the Methodist Church, when, according to a report in the ovqning newspaper, the Rev. latchett (chairman) said: He spoke of the disappointment of all in the rejection by Parliament of the Religious Exercises in State Schools Bill. Ho had contempt for those who put party politics and electioneering expediency before the welfare of the children and the country, while the action of those who pretended to commend the Nelson system only to kill the Bill was hypocritical and despicable. After some discussion regarding procedure the committee adjourned for supper, and on resumption took the necessary steps to report to Mr Speaker, wdio directed the clerk to read the extract complained of. Mr Atmorc then moved that. breach of privilege had been committed. It was felt, he said, by several members, including the chairman of the Education Committee, that some action should be taken. That committee had heard evidence on the petitions regarding the Religious Exercises Bill, and probably every member would feel that the rev. gentleman’s references were uncalled for and unwarranted when explied to men who gave an honest expression of opinion. These references were calculated to lower the prestige of Parliament and make it a byword in the minds of people. He asked Mr Speaker to state whether, prima facie, there had been a breach of privilege. Tho Hon. Downie Stewart: By the newspaper or tho speaker? Mr Atmore: By the speaker. Sir Charles Statham (Speaker oi the House): It is not for me to decide that, though I have to decide whether a prima facie case has been made out. I nave no hesitation in saying that a prima facie case has been made out. PROBABLY MISREPORTED. Mr Jordan (Mannkau) seconded the motion, though ho immediately explained that it was only for the purpose of giving the Rev. Patchett an opportunity of declaring that he did not make tho statement. U I doubt, M he continued, “ whether a Methodist or any other minister would refer to others as hypocritical and despicable, and adopting electioneering expediency. A report has evidently been furnished to the Press by an enthusiast who has not a complete knowledge of the use of words. I am sure our ministers are more tolerant than this report gives them credit for, and it would ho not any loss of dignity or Christian standing for the reverend gentleman to stale that he has been misreported, as _ most public men are from time to time.” Mr Jordan expressed the opinion that the references did not do credit to the Methodist Church or justice to members of Parliament, and ho believed and hoped that the minister did not make references attributed to him. PARSONS AND LAWYERS DAN-. GEROUS. Mr Wright, Minister of Education, counselled Ids follow members not to take the matter too seriously. No doubt tho language, if used, was out of place. Mr Parry (Auckland Central): A little strong. Mr Wright: “Too strong if it was made.” It was clear that tho words had been published; therefore the proper course would bo to set up a committee to got an explanation from the rev. gentleman, also from the editor and publisher of tho newspaper. “ Experience shows,” added the Minister. “ that if the House takes action it only makes n martyr of everyone concerned. If this minister is brought to the Bar of the House on breach of privilege, ho will never get a church big enough to hold his congregations. (Laughter.) “We know such severe language is used, and there are two classes of people In the community vou have always to look out for in regard to libels—the v are parsons and lawyers.” (Loud laughter.) “ 1 have had something to do with newspapers, and everv newspaper man will boar me out in 'this. The minister of the Gospel believes if a thing is true he can say it, and the lawyer sometimes docs the same thing.”

PRIME MINISTER FACETIOUS. Mr Potter (Roskiil) differed from the Minister, of Education. Ho considered that the honesty and integrity of those who voted against the Bill in all honesty of purpose should bo uphold. He was not concerned whether or not the rev. gentleman got an advertisement; nor',' for that matter, whether he got liis church lull for the first time. (Laughter.) . The Prime-Minister, wdn a smile on his face, expressed surprise that so much notice should have been taken of what a newspaper report sard. It seemed like being thin-skinned. Personally he would be satisfied if the rev. gentleman got his church full, if the member for Roskiil would go along also. (Laughter.) A Member: Would the Prime Minister go? Mr Coates: “I certainly would go to the first service after the case had been dealt with.” He thought the best course might be to set up a committee to consider the matter and report back. That had been done many times before. He did not believe it mattered a great deal what had been said. Honesty of purpose would win out all the time. (“Hear, hear,” from all sides). -Mr Savage (Auckland West) convulsed the House when he said he had never yet met the clergyman who had said things about him such as Reform organisers had said during election campaigns. If anyone wanted to see the words complained of _ excelled ho should wait till next election. It was doubtful whether the rev. gentleman had ever used tho words. Mr Hudson (Motueka), chairman of the Education Committee, said he gave way to no one in his honesty of purpose and in his belief that the children should be taught about their Creator every day. As he heard the evidence on the Religious Exercises Bill before the committee he bad become more and more convinced that tho Nelson system was tho best. Too much had been said against those who favored the Nelson system. THEY SAY—LET THEM, SAY.

Mr Wilford (Hutt) said tlie principle to go on in political life when attacked was “They say—what do they say—let them say. The question was did the newspaper have a reporter present, or was the report supplied by some rev. gentleman who imagined that what he wrote was what the first rev- gentleman had said. (Laughter.) Mr Fraser (Wellington Central) thought it possible for Parliament to bo touchy. If any rev. gentleman felt angry because certain members had frustrated his pet scheme ho should bo

allowed to express himself in an oldtime sentence.

Mr Waite (Clutha), as a young member of Parliament, said lie was in some trepidation as to what would happen to the rev. gentleman if the committee returned an adverse report. He had consulted May’s ‘ Parliamentary Practice’ and found that one Floyd brought before Hie Bar of tho House long years ago had been sentenced —“ That ho was incapable to bear arms as a gentleman; that ho ride twice to tho pillory with his face towards the horse’s tail, and holding tho tail in his hand; that he be branded with tbo letter K, whipped at the onrt’s tail, fined £5,000, and bo imprisoned in Newgate Prison for life. (Uproarious laughter.) Another man, Thomas Bight, in 1666, who absconded from tho custody of the Sergeant at Anns, was fined £I,OOO. Mr Veitch (Wanganui) feared an attempt ivus being made to ridicule the point of order. Mr Armstrong said that il some members of tho House had been associated with the Labor movement as long as he had, they would bo accustomed to such words, and very much worse. Lu answer to Mr Harris (Waitemata), who inclined to the view that no action bo taken, Mr Speaker said unquestionably such words as had been used were a breach of privilege, but it was for the House to decide.

CHURCHS’ FIRE INSURANCE. \ Mr Howard (Christchurch South) said he must support Mr Speaker in maintaining tho privileges of the House. Ho thought that this church had a sense of humor, because immediately thov dealt with this question it was reported that tho firt insurance, fund was well in hand. They knew where this resolution would carry them. (Laughter.) Tiie Hon. J. A. Young: The church is an insurance against fire, is it not?

Mr Howard: Yes. Mr Bell (Bay of Islands) urged members not to make a laughing stock of themselves. The time had long passed when such statements should be taken seriously, though there had been a period when this unfortunate gentleman ivould have been tied to tho cart tail and whipped, and probably even worse punishment would have followed. Mr Bell declared he could not vote for the motion. Air M’Comhs (Lyttelton) declared that the dignity of Parliament would suffer by the matter being brought up, and the method of doing so, though as it had been raised, it was the duty of members to stand up to the Prime Minister in his motion.

Several members expressed themselves as dubious over taking the matter too seriously. Air Forbes (the Nationalist Leader) said the duty of the House was clear. It must uphold tho Prime Minister, If any members were thin-skinned over harsh words they were in for hard times, though they must protect the reputation and prestige of Parliament. Further debate was discouraged by cries of “Vote.” The House formally decided that there‘had been a breach of privilege, and the Premier moved to set up a committee to investigate the matter, and report within five days, the committee to comprise Air Fraser, Air Seddon, Sir John Luke, Air J. B. Ala,son, and Mr E. P. Lee.

The motion was agreed to without division.