THE WELLINGTON PRESS ON THE ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9137, 20 August 1888, Page 5

THE WELLINGTON PRESS ON THE ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE CASE.

[by telegraph.—special correspondent.]

Wellington, Saturday. The Press, under the heading ."The Privilege of Self-Contempt," had the following leading article on Thursday last:—

Perhaps the House of Representatives are never so undignified as when they are engaged in resenting a supposed encroachment on their privileges, except when they themselves pl a y skittles with those privileges. They do not appear to have the vaguest notion of what their privileges are, while the officers whose duty it is to guide them in such matters either dare not perform that function, or are in as great a tog about the matter as the newest member. The truth is, that the dignity of the House is a thing of the past, and the elected branch of the New Zealand Legislature, who were formerly by far the ablest and most dignified Chamber in the colonies, are fast degenerating into a disorderly body to whom the people cannot possibly look up, and for whom they are coming to entertain a positive contempt. The decadence of the House of Representatives has been more rapid during the present Parliament than ever before. It is shown by nothing more markedly than this, that while the most important business of the country is under consideration, there are seldom half the members there, and most of these seem to be there merely because they have nowhere else to go and nothing else to do. They 101 l about and chat so loudly that it is not easy to hear what is being said upon the question before the House, and only a very few really attend to the business. But the moment any personal matter rises, or any disturbance occurs, or any buffoonery is begun or expected, members come trooping in until every part is tilled, and they remain until the excitement is over and business once more under discussion. Nothing draws them like a " breach of privilege question." Members, who could not bo induced to stay in the House or to keep awake whilst a Bill affecting tho welfare of the whole colony was being debated, rush in all agog, at the first signal of a row. There has never been such animation since the fracas between Sir Julius Vogel and the Speaker last session as there was during that miserable affair on Tuesday, when an article in the Herald reflecting on Mr. Larnach was declared a breach of privilege, and the House were with difficulty restrained from ordering the proprietors and publishers to appear at the Bar. A more ridiculous scene could hardly be imagined, or one more lowering to the House, if they could only have realised the effect it had on others.

The article complained of was obviously no breach of privilege at all, and not a single argument was used to show it was a breach of privilege The wliolo of the debate, if such a discussion may ha called a debate, went in a personal direction, and all that was even alleged was that the article was a scurrilous and libellous attack on an individual member. There was nob a word said about the liberties of Parliament having been menaced, or their privileges infringed. The article was offensive to Mr. Larnach, and its statements were untrue, therefore it was held to be a breach of privilege, and a resolution to that effect was accordingly carried unanimously. To add to the absurdity of the thing, if that were possible, a further resolution was carried expressing sympathy with Mr. Larnach. This later resolution, it will be observed, did not even pretend to have any connection with the question of privilege or with any Parliamentary business whatsoever. It was simply an expression of personal feeling, such, as might be tendered, and doubtless has been tendered many times to Mr. Larnach by friends meeting him in the street. The article was certainly offensive, and it was inaccurate as to fact, though this appears to have been from error and misunderstanding rather than from intentional untruth. So far, clearly, Mr. Larnach was an object of personal; sympathy. It may have been libellous in the legal sense, and in that case he has his remedy at law, if he thought it worth his while to pursue it. But it was not in a rational sense a breach of the privileges of Parliament, and if fifty such articles had appeared every day for a month it would have been impossible to show that they interfered with (he lights or freedom of the House in any way. If the statements made in the article had been true they would have been quite justifiable. It surely cannot be contended by the most rabid champion of privilege that a newspaper may not complain of persons taking public money which they are not entitled to, merely because those persons are members of Parliament. As it happened, the statements were not true ; but that did not render the article a breach of privilege, though it might have rendered a libel. Yet the House solemnly declared that it was a breach of privilege, and the Speaker said nothing to the contrary, and gave the House no guidance in the matter at all. Mow let us pass on to the next day, and sec; how the Ho,use treats their own privileges. One of the most important and necessary of these is that members shall enjoy absolute protection from molestation, reproach, or annoyance on account of anything that they have said or done as representatives. Yesterday a member who has incurred some unpopularity by his manner of resisting a Bill which his constituents had charged him to oppose, came into the House and complained that two members, one of whom was a Minister, had assailed him in the lobby and called him "a devil." There can be no more flagrant breach of privilege than this, for having occurred within the precincts of the House, it was as grave a Parliamentary offence as if it had occurred in the Chamber itself. Yet no notice was taken of it} beyond a remark by the Chairman of Committee that such language was "improper." The injured member got no sympathy, no protection, and nobody seemed to see that in him the whole House had suffered intimidation. Later in the day the Chairman of Com mittees himself shared the fate of thai, member. Having had occasion to call Mr. Moss to order, Mr. Moss persisted in his disorderly conduct, which consisted in addressing the chair whilst another member had the right of speaking, and the chairman, thereupon, ordered him to sit .d,flo"ut Mr. Moss at first obeyed, thou^ 1, ' after a disputing the chairman 'a n 'repeated his pause }, f'. c,,,1 -!' v "i" fc 2 o nductrandon the chairformer disorder , m n •ytojSSRS, chairman's authority. He even wem, *„ far as to challenge him to report him to the Speaker, and railed at him violently for having, as he declared, accused him of saying what was not true. .Again and again ihc. chairman attempted to" exercise his authority, bub again and &"-ain Mr. Moss, defied him. ■ It ended by ]\fr. Moss having his say out, though another member was in possession of the chair all the while, and abusing that member to his heart's content. The chairman simply surrendered, and the House made no movement to support his authority or assist him in any way. Yet the Chairman of Committees, when in committee, is supposed to embody the privileges and authority of the House as fully as the Speaker himself. This is how the House show their respect for their own privileges within a few hours after having formally declared a newspaper article to be a breach of privileges which never attacked or menaced their privileges in the remotest way. .