PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN SYDNEY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5360, 1 June 1878, Page 2 (Supplement)

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN SYDNEY.

(From the Australasian, May 18.)

.Our friends in Sydney have been in trouble over the question of Parliamentary privilege/ Hitherto they have abstained from taking any special powers in this matter, and have contented themselves with such powers .as the common law allows. But we air know what disturbance the presence of even one or "two drunken ruffians creates in a meeting of respectable men, and unhappily the Sydney Legislature seems to' have been particularly, wealthy in such characters. Ona recent occaf slon a worthy, who rejoices in the patronymic of; MoElhone, not only indulged in foul language, but was anxious to gratify within the Chamber itself his irresistible desire for punching heads. It was thought that' such conduct ought to be noticed in some sharper manner than in simple removal from the Chamber, and accordingly, the Ministry, in compliance with the . wish of tho Assembly, addressed itself to the work of legislation. ; We do not care to inquire whether that power of removing disorderly persons which the law allows to every meeting is or is not sufficient for the meetings of the Legislature. But if in its case additional powers be unfortunately required, they ought not to go beyond the occasion which has necessitated them. There is no- objection to tho House arming itself with all the terrors of privilege against its offending members. But why should tho innocent public be made the subject, of new penal legislation ! The disorderly conduct of members of Parliament is surely no reason for imposing new duties or severer penalties upon every other citizen. Some such notion appears te have occurred to tho mind of the Premier, In moving the secoud reading of his Bill, ho suid that “the Bill had been framed with' a desire to Interfere ms little as possible with the outside public. A very brief Bill might have been introduced- giving 'to this House all the powers of i the House of Commons, but the Government did not think it would be wise to do so, but rather preferred to bring in a milder Bill,; which would most the wishes of the House, and be sufficient to preserve order and’protect the privileges of that House.” But Mr. Parnell's ideas of “a mild Bill" are somewhat ; eccentric, His Bill defines tho following acts to ho contempts of Parliament, ■ whether committed or attempted by a member of Parliament or any other person, viz.: — ; 1. Assaulting, insulting, menacing, or inciting to' a breach of the peace any member in his coming to or going from tho House, or in his place therein, or whilst in the precincts thereof, or on account of his conduct in Parliament. -

2, Challenging any member to fight. ; 8. Offering a bribe ■ to, or attempting to bribe, any member. 1 4. Obstructing any member in going to or returning’ from the House, or endeavoring to compel-any member by force or threats to 'declare himself in favor of or against any proposition then depending or expected to bo brought before the House. ; Por-these offences it was proposed that Parliament might l inflict a fine not exceeding £IOOO, or imprisonment during the session, or both fine and ; imprisonment. ■■■■■ Hud this Bill,. therefore, become law, - a man’who had a quarrel in a stage coach with a member of Parliament who happened to be on his-way to town to attend his Parliamentary duties, would have been liable - to ! be fined £IOOO. , If, in consequence of that quarrel,-ho invited 1 the; M.P.; on their stopping to ■ change horses, to step dowliand have it out with him, a second offence would have been committed, and a second’penalty incurred. And if; being an elector of 1 tho district, he told the member that hd Would do his best to have him defeated at thb next election if he did not vote for the Ministry on a motion then either pending or talked about, another £IOOO would, at the diaore■tion of tho House, bo.forfeited to her Majesty. We cannot, therefore, wonder at .the fate of • tho’Bill. Itwas read a second time and went Into committee, 1 where it was amended fn.atrnly wonderful mtnner,- .Like the Irishman a -pistol, it was supplied with a new look, stock, and barrel, Execpt tho words of ■’enactment, nO part of the old Bill was unamended.* There 'was a new- preamble ; the twenty clauses wore reduced to two ; another two were' entirely novel! In other words, the committee re-

jected the Bill, and substituted for it the Victorian Act, In these circumstances it is needless to offer any further criticism on the rejected measure. . A good opportunity has been lost of reducing to a written form the principal rales of Parliamentary law. Such an undertaking, however, would ’J oquire much greater care than this unfortunate Sydney Bill appears to have received. As to the measure wliioh has been adopted in its place, one of the principal arguments urged in its favor was that it was very rarely used in Victoria. We can/only. hope that, if it.becomes law in Sydney, its use there, will be still more infrequent. i .»■