Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Sir W. Buller and The Minister of Lands.

ANOTHER BREACH of PRIVILEGE CASE. THE MINISTER of LANDS REPLIES TO SIR W. BULLER. THE MINISTER THREATENS TO RESIGN. ] Per Press Association.] Wellington, October 26. In consequence of the attack on Sir Walter Buller by the Minister of Lands last night the former has addressed a letter to the Premier asking him whether Mr McKenzie'B remarks have the authority or approval of himself or his colleagues. Sir Walter Bnller adds a categorical statement, denying he has been a party to any sales by natives of land in the Horowhenua Blqck, except that of two small sections, eight and four acres, for which he paid Major Kemp £10 per acre in October of last year. He advanced Kemp £'500 on mortgage to enable him to test the Horowhenua Block question in the Supreme Court. Sir Walter Buller has also written to Mr McKenzie, challenging him to repeat his statements in some way not covered by Parliamentary privilege in order that he may have an opportunity of justifying himself and falsifying the statements.

Wellington, This Day. The House met at 11 a.m. The Hon. John McKenzie rose to a question of privilege respecting a letter he had received from Sir Walter Buller, regarding the Horowhenua Block, and he asked the Speaker whether or not it was a breach of privilege. The Clerk of Parliament then read Sir W. Buller's letter to the Minister of Lands. The Speaker said in a breach of privilege the House was involved, but it was for the House to take any action it thought proper in the matter. The Hon J. McKenzie then moved that a breach of privilege had been committed. He said if this sort of thing was allowed no member would be free from threats of the kind made by Sir W. Buller. He asked the House why he should be called on to defend out of his private means an action arising out of anything he might i say in the House in his public capacity. What he said in the House he said in self-defence. The reference he then made respecting Sir W. Buller was a general one, and he had heard similar statements all over the colony. Since making these statements he had received letters from several gentlemen thanking him for having made them, and he commented severely on Sir Walter Buller's action with respect to it. He would now make Sir Walter Buller an offer, and that was, if he (Buller) would agree to have a Royal Commission Bet up to enquire into his action respecting certain native blocks, he (McKenzie) would consent to make a most humble apology to Buller for any statement he had made regarding him. If the House did not declare Buller's letter a breach of privilege he should have to resign his seat in the House. Captain Russell commented on the fact Mr McKenzie had addressed the House as a private member and not from the Ministerial Benches. Was this to be taken as an indication that the Ministry did not endorse Mr MeKenzie's action. Respecting this affair he thought it very undesirable that outside persons who had no means of defending themselves should be subjected to violent attacks, such as that made on Sir W. Buller. Mr McKenzie had said he was speaking in self defence on Friday night, but it was not against any attack made on him in the House. The Minister had just now made a most unfortunate attack on our whole judicial system, and had even gone so far as to say that the Judge of the Supreme Court before whom he would have to defend his statements against Sir Walter Buller mignt be a judge who he (Mackenzie) had had occasion to admonish from the public platform. That was a most unfortunate statement to come from a Minister of of the Crown, and if there had been any malpractices such as Mr McKenzie had referred to, an impartial tribunal, like the Supreme Court, was surely the proper place to have them heard. His opinion was Sir W. Buller had acted wisely in addressing a most temperate letter to the Hon. Mr McKenzie, and j that the latter had adopted a most injudicious course over the whole matter. (Left sitting).

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/FS18951028.2.14

Bibliographic details

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 102, 28 October 1895, Page 2

Word Count
718

Sir W. Buller and The Minister of Lands. Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 102, 28 October 1895, Page 2

Sir W. Buller and The Minister of Lands. Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 102, 28 October 1895, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert