THE PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5684, 18 June 1879, Page 3

THE PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT.

The adjourned case of Regina v, Kinross was proceeded with yesterday in the , .esident Magistrate’s Court, hut all that was done was in the direction of legal argument on the privileges of Parliament both as regards members and officers. It will be remembered that perjury is alleged to have been committed by Dir. Kinross, when giving evidence before a select committee of the Legislative Council in 1571. Evidence as to the falsity of the statements made having been given, Mr. Stowe, Clerk of the Legislative Council, was subpmntted to produce the Journals of the Council, and to give evidence on certain matters. The Hon. Mr. Mantel), M.L.C., a member of the committee, was also subpoenaed, from whom evidence was expected as to the administration of the oath to defendant. Both gentlemen, however, refused to give evidence on the ground that they had not received the Council"# permission to their doing so, producing the Standing Orders and Parliamentary Privileges Act, 18G5, as their authority; thus the prosecution was debarred from giving evidence as to the materiality of the statements made by Mr. Kinross, and also as to whether any oath was ever administered. Mr. Rees, who was unavoidably absent at Napier when these gentlemen’s objections were allowed, now urged that privilege had not been sufficiently shown. The production of the Standing Orders and the Parliamentary Privileges Act only showed that the Council claimed some powers exercised by the House of Commons, but there must be proof as to the possession of that power, which could only be given by producing the Journals of the Holise of Commons. He altogether disputed the povyer of any House or Council to throw its ccffis over a person swearing falsely against a third party. It was altogether unconstitutional. So much for that point. But, as the Court was no doubt aware, Sir William Fitzherbert had on Saturday been appointed Speaker of the Legislative Council, and ns the Speaker of the of Commons had power during the Parliamentary recess of permitting members to give evidence, and as a rule gave that consent whenever asked for it, he (Mr. Bees) intended writing to Sir William Fitzherbert at once asking him to give his consent. That given, the difficulty would be at an end.

The Resident Magistrate : I shall feel myself bound to take official notice of the Standing Orders of that Council, Suppose the Journals were produced, and Mr. Kinross was to say, “ I never was sworn,” would the production of the Journals be sufficient evidence ?

Mr. Bees : It would be prima facie evidence; whether sufficient, a jury would have to find, under the direction of the Judge. Mr. Travers objected to any further adjournment. He doubted very much if Sir William Fitzherbert would take it upon himself, never having met the Council, to exercise powers the Council had never had the opportunity of delegating to him. The Resident Magistrate : He is the best judge of that. Mr. Travers :No doubt. But I object to the delay. Sir William Fitzherbert very likely would say he would consult authorities, and so the thing might be hung up for weeks, a great injustice being done to Mr. Kinross meanwhile.

The Resident Magistrate : I think it probable: he will say, “As the Council will be in session at once, I don’t wish to taSce upon myself the settlement of this point.” ' ' Mr. Travers : No doubt; he is an extremely cautious man, and it is improbable he will do anything to commit the Council, and, X ask, is it reasonable that defendant should be kept here any longer ? There is absolutely no evievidence of the oath having been administered; bone of the preliminaries are proved. Mr. Rees; I put in the Journals. Mr. Travers objected (Ist) that the Journals were only evidence when produced by an officer of the Council—that the only effect of the Official Documents Evidence Act was to do away with tho necessity of producing MS.?, of the Journals ; and (2nd) that the proceedings of this Select Committee, and tho record of the evidence taken by it, did not form part of the Journals of the Council, but part of the Appendix to the Journals, a very different thing from the Journals. Mr. Rees urged that any printed copy, or any document purporting to be a printed copy of the Journals of the Council, must, under the Official Documents Evidence Act, be admitted, even if produced by a person other than officers of the Council, and cited authority to show that in England it had been held that it was not even requisite to prove that such printed copy had been purchased from the King’s printer. The Court would allow a barrister to quote from any printed copy of the Statutes, and so it was with official documents which had been printed by the Government Printer. As to the Appendices, all authorities would tell the Court that the Appendices were part and parcel of the Journals—they were printed with the Journals,-bound up with them, and always treated as the same. Mr. Travers ; With the House of Representatives they print the Appendices separately. Mr. Rees : That was for the sake of convenience. Would any one say the printed roll of members in the Appendix was not part of the Journals ? Clearly it was ; so was the Index to the Journals.

The Resident Magistrate : I don’t think so. Discussion ensued on this point, but The Resident Magistrate did not change his opinion. Good authority must be produced to him before he would hold that the Appendix formed any part of the Journals. The Journals of the House were completed each day as the Speaker signed them, and could be a record of the proceedings of the House. An adjournment to Thursday was then granted, Mr. Rees undertaking to endeavor to get a reply from Sir Wm. Fitzherbert by that date.