BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Opunake Times, Volume III, Issue 139, 1 November 1895, Page 2

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

In fhe last hours of the session the House of Representatives is becoming quite seusatioual in its developments. Mr Rhoderick McKenzie, who has figured several times during the session as a fractious member, kicked over the traces, and had to be named. The Premier, not wishing to be hard on him, moved that his apology be accepted, as in the last moments of the session he did not wish to move his suspension, and Mr McKenzie was accordingly let off with a caution. The Minister for Lands also produced a sensation by hurling very serious charges at Sir Walter Buller over his connection with certain native laud transactions, in which he was reputed to be interested. Sir Walter wrote to the Minister and challenged him to repeat the charges outside of Parliament, where he would not be protected by privilege, so that the truth or falsity of the charges could be tested in the Supreme Court. Mr J. McKenzie treated this letter as a breach of privilege, and the House, upholding this contention, Sir Walter was called on to appear before the bar of the House. When he appeared he entered into the charges at length, and denied that there was any truth whatever in those made against him. The matter was then allowed to drop, and Sir Walter was discharged from custody. It is quite right that members, when dealing with public matters, should have liberty of speech granted them, and that they should be protected from outside influence, but having such an immense power conferred on them there should be some means of checking their abusing it. Members in the heat of debate, or on being goaded by those in opposition, may allow their tongues to run riot, and introduce other people’s names and reputations into the debate who have thus no means of justifying themselves. This, under the name of Parliamentary privilege, appears to us remarkably like license. The mam feature of the question, however, arose in the statements made by the Minisof Lands and the Premier, both of whom cast very serious reflections on our Courts of Justice. The Minister of Lands declines to place himself in the grip of the Supreme Court, although he asserted that everything he stated could be amply proved, because he knew he could not expect justice from a Wellington jury, and it might be that the judge whom be bad admonished might be sitting on the case. The Premier concurred in this view, and also said it was well known that a poor man would have a poor show against wealth in the Supreme Court. If these statements are correct what becomes of our boasted English justice, which is commonly supposed to protect, equally, the meanest subject of Her Majesty as well as the highest. Mr McKenzie is probably the first Minister in the colony who has publicly taken to admonishing judges. In doing so he knew he was quite safe, and he might also have known that the judge whom ho was admonishing was equally safe, as Mr McKenzie fortunately had not the power to remove him. Therefore, his admonition was only a waste of breath. The admonition has reflected on himself, as he would not risk himself under that judge’s jurisdiction. It proves very clearly that our Courts of Justice should be quite independent of political influence, and the agitation for placing District Court Judges on a similar footing to that of the Supreme Court had good grounds. Taking the logical alternative, if Mr McKenzie were quite satisfied that he could secure a judge an I jury partial to himself, he would be quite prepared to cross swords before that tribunal with Sir Walter. He offered him a Royal Commission, whom ho could appoint himself, but Sir Walter very wisely declined. Such a Commission might possibly be composed of men whom the Minister would have the power to reward or punish according to the verdict returned, whilst he is totally powerless to influence a Supreme Court J edge. If we cannot commend his methods, we can admire his sagacity.