BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1748, 6 September 1905, Page 22

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. DR GIBB CENSURED. “THREATENING MEMBERS OF . PARLIAMENT.” The House of Representatives was occupied for some time on Friday afternoon and evening discussing a question of privilege raised ty tlje member for Hurunui, Mr Rutherford, in respect to certain correspondence he had received from the Rev Dr Gibb, of Wellington. The following correspondence was read TNo. 1.3 St. John's Manse, Wellington, 28th August 1905. Mr A. W. Rutherford, M.H.R. Dear -Sir, —It is my duty, as president of the Bible-in-Schcyols League, to bring under your notice the fact that you have broken your pledge to remit the question of Bible-reading in schools to the people of the colony. The following is a copy of the letter you sent to the secretary of the Canterbury Branch of the League in 1902. rCopy.3 “ Mendip Hills, 19th November, T 902. J. A. Fleeber, Esq., Christchurch. Dear Sir, —Replying to yours of the 11th inst., although generally opposed to the referendum- I think the question of Bible reading in State schools is one which ought to be remitted direct to the people for their decision. Yours truly, A. W. RUTHERFORD.” As soon as the agent reaches your electorate, which he will presently, we shall do our best to make your breach of faith public. Your letter to Mr Fleeher will be read at every meeting we hold in your region, and equal prominence will be given to the fact that % you voted against the second reading of Mr Sidey's bill. Yours faithfully, JAMES A. GIBB. [No. 11.3 Wellington, 30th August, 1905. Rev James Gibb, St. John's Manse, Wellington. Dear Sir, —Yours of the 28th inst. to hand. Upon due consideration, I am -of opinion that the exception I made in favour of Bible-reading in schools, was a grave mistake. However, I would point ont to you that it was not a pledge made to my electors, to whom, so far as I am aware, I have broken no pledge. I have, therefore, to tender you my sincere thapks for your kindly intention to give prominence to the fact that I am opposed to Bible-reading in our public schools, and also to a referendum being taken on the subject. Yours truly, A. W. RUTHERFORD. Mr Rutherford said he wanted to draw attention to the fact—although it might not. be material to the question of breach of privilege—that his pledge was in connection with Bible-reading in schools. Mr Sidey’s bill was with the object of teaching the Bible in the schools. So he had broken no pledge. What he objected to was the threat in |.)r Gibb’s letter, which lie was advised was a breach of privilege. He under-

stood that some other members had received similar theatening letters. Mr Seddon said if the Speaker ruled that a breach of privilege had been committed, then he (the Premier), as leader of the House, would move in the matter. Mr Rutherford: 1 would draw attention to cases on similar lines in the British House of Commons. The Speaker: I don’t think I want any precedent. It is not the duty of the Speaker to give any expression of opinion, or to rule whether the letter received by the hon member is a breach of privilege or not. That is for the House to determine. Mr Seddon quoted from “Hansard” to show that when Sir John McKenzie complained of a letter written by Sir Walter Buller, it was ruled by Sir Maurice (TRorke, then Speaker, that a breach of privilege had occurred. The Speaker: Does the hon member propose to move any motion? .' Mr Seddon: It is my intention to move a motion. Mr Witty said he had received a similar letter. An hon member: What reply did you make? Mr Witty: My reply was silence. Mr Seddon said he followed precedent, but deeply regretting the necessity there was for the motion he was about to move. He thought the House would he wanting in its duty to itself, and wanting in the protection of iter privileges, if they allowed this matter to pass unnoticed. Hon members had very properly brought those letters before the House. He, therefore, moved that a breach of the privileges of the House had been committed by the Rev Dr Gibb in addressing these letters to the hon members mentioned. Sir William Russell said he was not inclined to agree to the motion. Was this really a breach of privilege? Newspapers were constantly violating the privileges of the House, but were they to take notice of every instance of this kind ? Surely, no breach had been committed in this case. It was purely a comment of what they had done in Parliament. - Mr Rutherford : It is a threat. Sir William Russell: No; it is omy a proposal to represent to his constituents what r the hon member has done. I don’trknow, I am sure, about the prominence that is being given to the action of the hon member in this House. It may not have been good taste on the part of his correspondent, but I think we should pause before we rule that this is a breach of privilege. If that is logical, then we should take notice of every article commenting upon the actions of this House.

Mr Duthie- agreed with the last speaker. It was really a trivial proceeding. What did it matter? A member of Parliament should not whine about a thing of this sort. Mr R. McKenzie: They haven’t all got hides like you. Mr Duthie: We have all to submit to .being misrepresented and made to look ridiculous. I hope this resolution will not he put upon the records of the House.

Mr Ruthei'ford regretted that the standing-oi'ders did not permit him to use language sufficiently strong to characterise this matter. He protested against this threat by an arrogant, intolerant, religious bounder such as the Rev James Gibb. (“Oh’s.”) This threat would not have the slightest effect, and he could send down to his (Mr Rutherford’s} district, and do the worst he could. If his constituents did not like to return him, let them get someone else. This man ought to have lived two hundred or three hundred years ago, when he -would have been privileged to roast them as his Presbyterian, ancestors would like to have done. (“Oh’s.”) He thought an act of Parliament should he passed to prevent these people writing to members of Parliament and making these threats. The Noxious Weeds Act ought to he amended, and all persons of this sort brought under the first section. Political parsons were the curse of the country. Mr Witty explained that he had broken no pledge. If members allowed this sort of thing, as the hon. member for Hurunui had said, they were simply going hack to the Dark Ages. “We’re simply being ruled by fanatics, if we allow such men to have their way.” Mr Massey regarded these proceedings as simply a waste of time. He doubted whether any breach of privilege had been committed. According to May,- their Parliamentary authority, this was not a breach. Mr Seddon: It is a menace.

Mr Massey: I fail to see where it comes in, and I don’t think it was intended as such by Dr Gibb. I can-un-derstand the hon. mem box's feeling strong about the mattei*, hut their experience in Parliament has been somewhat limited. If one-tenth of what has been said about me by some newspapers who support the Government, since I have had the honour of occupying a front position on these benches, had been said about them, then they might have had some cause foi* complaint. Mr Laurenson: What about me?

Mr Massey: In order to stop this w aste of time, I move “the previous question” (the closure). Mr Seddon said the letters contain-

ed a threat. He hoped they had been sent inadvertently, and that Dr Gibb did not realise what he was doing. If it had been a clergyman of another denomination who had sent these letters, there would have been no hesitation about the matter amongst hon. members in regarding it as a breach of privilege. They would have brought him before the bar of the House, and fined him. Mr Hawkins: And sent to gaoL Mr Seddon: Probably that. There should be no distinction. He had hoped that in a matter of this kind the leader of the Opposition would have assisted him. Mr Massey: When you have a good case," I will assist you. It is absurd. Mr Seddon said he had no intention of moving a drastic resolution. It was not absurd for the House to express its regret for the occurrence that had taken place, and that was as far as he intended to go. The leader of the Opposition, who had talked so much about freedom, was now applying the gag—just exactly what Dr Gibb would do. The gravity of the situation was created from the fact that Dr Gibb held a very high position. As leader of the House, he was hound to protect hon. members. He regretted that the first motion moved in that House for many years to apply the closure should have been moved by the leader of the Opposition. Mr Massey’s amendment was lost-my 36 votes to 2-9. The Premier’s motion was then put, and carried by 37 votes to 27. _ The Premier: The House having affirmed that a breach of privilege has been committed, I don’t intend to proceed further with the matter. (Hear, hear.} Mr Massey: Can I say a word or two? The Speaker: Not unless you move a motion. Mr Massey: Then I move this, “ That a breach of privilege has been committed which is so slight that it is not worthy of further notice.” He thought the Premier would have been consulting his own dignity and the dignity of Parliament very much better if he had, so far as the breach of privilege was concerned, ignored the letters received by two members of the House. He was just as anxious to regard the privileges of Parliament as the Premier, but he could, not say there was any interference with the privileges of Parliament in this case. Mr Seddon: It is not at all slight. It' strikes at the freedom of debate. Mr Hardy: Why don’t you proceed further with it, then ? Mr Seddon: I don’t intend to make any martyrs. The punishment has already been given by the resolution of the House. But the leader of the Opposition, in his motion, affirms that breach of privilege has been" committed. Mr Wilford, at five minutes to 8 o’clock, moved “ That the question be not noiv put ” —practically, the closure. This was carried by 37 votes to 31. On being called upon, no member of the Opposition would act as teller, and two supporters of Mr Wilford’s motion acted for the opposing side. Mr Fisher asked if it would he in order for him to move that the report of the proceedings on the privilege question should be expunged from “Hansard.” The Speaker: You will have to give notice of such motion. That ended the matter.