PRIVILEGE.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19155, 11 November 1927, Page 8

PRIVILEGE.

AN OFFENDING SPEECH PARSON'S HARD WORDS RESENTED. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TAKES ACTION. [THE PRESS Special Serriee.] WELLINGTON, November 10. Remarks attributed in to-night's "Post" to the Rev. E. D. Patchett, chairman of the Methodist District Synod, were called in question in the House to-night, when, after a debate Mvhich was relieved with a little levity, the House carired a motion that the words alleged to have been used constituted a breach of its privileges.

A Committee of Privilege was appointed to enquire into the. circumstances, and to report to the House within live days.

The words attributed to Mr Patehett and to which exception was taken were:

"He spoke of the disappointment of all in the' rejection by Parliament of the Religious Exercises in State Schools Bill. He had a 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."

Mr Atmore said the item appeared to him to constitute a breach of privilege. He did not know of any Committee that had gone so thoroughly into two sides of a question as had the Education Committee. The statement complained of was uncalled for, and was calculated to lower the prestige of Parliament. Mr Speaker explained that it was not the duty of the Speaker to decide whether a breach of privilege had been committed—that was for the House to decide —but for him to state whether a prima facie case had been made out. "I have no hesitation,'* said the Speaker, "in saying that a prima facie case has been made tfut, and Mr Atmore would be in order to submit a motion to the House that a breach of privilege had been committed."

Mr Jordan (Manukau) seconded the motion in order to give the clergyman an opportunity of declaring, that he did not make the statement. He doubted whether any clergyman would make use of such language. The report as published did not do credit to the Methodist Church, or any other Church. The Hon. Mr Wright, Minister for Education, said there was no doubt that the language used was uncalled for, and out of place, if it was used, Mr Parry (Auckland Central): A little strong! The Minister said it was too strong. Before members could record a vote they must be sure that the words were used.

Mr Speaker pointed out ' that the words had been published, and the editor and publisher were liable. The Minister considered that if the motion were passed it would make the clergyman a martyr. "And if he is brought to the Bar of this House, you will not be able to find a Church in New Zealand big enough for him," he added.' "We all know that the persons who must be watched most carefully are parsons and lawyers. (Laughter.) I have had something to do with newspapers, and I know, and every editor will say the same thing." Mr Potter (Eoskill) said the honour and integrity of the House must be maintained. The Prime Minister (Mr Coatee) said he felt somewhat surprised at the concern displayed by some members as to what the newspapers were- saying about them. "I am beginning to wonder if I am thin-skinned,' ne said. "I wonder if we are not making too much of the case. Perhaps if the parson did fill his church, and Mr Potter went along, it would be worth while." (Laughter.) Mr Sullivan (Avon): Would you go? lire Prime Minister: I think, I would, on the first Sunday after the case has been disposed! of. Mr Coates added that the Speaker having ruled that there was a prima facie case, it was for the House to\ allow the case to go to a committee for enquiry, and then tho committee would report back to the House. This would be the fairest thing to all concerned—the clergyman, the editor, and the publisher. In - his opinion members of the House, in spite of the criticisms of them, would win out every time. Mr Hudson (Motueka) said he hoped the parson would be able to inform the Committee of Enquiry that he had been misrepresented!. "I give way to nobody in my honesty of purpose to give the children of this country an opportunity to be brought up with 'a knowledge of- their Maker," said the member, who added that his experience during the committee's enquiries had convinced him that the Nelson system was the best. « The debate was continued on similar lines, some speakers suggesting that members were over-touchy, others that the question should be referred to a committee, and others that it should be dropped. Replying to Mr Harris, Mr Speaker repeated that it was for the House to say whether a breach of privilege had been committed. He would go so far as to say that if the House ruled that the words did not constitute a breach of its privileges it would be establishing a precedent. The motion that a breach of privilege had been committed was carried unanimously, the committee appointed being:—Sir John Luke, and Messrs P. Fraser, T. E. Y. Sedldon, J. Mason, and E P. Lee.