THE "MAIL" BREACH OF PRIVILEGE CASE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 407, 17 August 1877, Page 2

THE "MAIL" BREACH OF PRIVILEGE CASE.

[By Telegraph, from our own Correspondent.]

GEORGE JONES TO BE ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE BAR OF THE HOUSE. On the House meeting last night, the Attorney-General rose to a question of privilege. He wished to bring before the Houseman article which appeared in the Oamaru Mail of the 13th August, reflecting upon him by stating that he was bringing in the Native Lands Court Bill in order to validate his purchase of 200,000 acres of land in the Waikato. He had no personal feeling in the matter, and had never been libelled before in his life ; but, looking at the action taken on the Bill, and the fact that others concurred with himself, it was necessary to refer to the subject. The article was damaging to the Government and the House. °lf accusations so corrupt as those stated in the paper were founded, it was a serious reflection on the House, and they should be cleared of the imputation. He would subsequently move that George Jones be brought before the Bar of the House. Mr. Whitaker then read the article, and at the conclusion denied the truth of any of its statemens. He then moved that this House considers that the publisher and editor committed a breach of privilege. Mr. Wakefield said that the House could not hear five words of what was said. It was hardly fair to smash up a paper before the ins and outs of the matter were known. Members often mistook personal libel for breach of privilege. The House should not be asked to de°cide whether it was a breach of privilege before they had an opportunity of hearing the article clearly read. Mr. Stout said that the line between personal l : bel and breach of privilege was very fine. If the House was going to deal with every libel, there would be no time for other business. During the last two months there had been, in New Zealand, particularly in Wellington, many almost as gross libels as that against the Attorney-General. Certainly these articles ought not to have been published, but he°was content himself, and believed that the whole House would be contend with Mr. Whitaker's denial of the various statements. Even a denial was unnecessary, as no one would believe the hon. gentleman would use his position for the purpose alleged. He deprecated taking action in the matter, as, at the most, the offender could only be imprisoned till the House was prorogued. Mr. Rees objected to the House being satisfied with agreeing that a breach of privilege had been committed. That would be offering a premium to others to libel members of the House. He thought the Aetu Zealand Times should also be brought up for gross libels on Sir George Grey. He thought that the statements in the Mail should be investigated on account of a certain course the Government took when the Provincial Council of Auckland was investigating matters relative to certain land transactions. _ Dr. Pollen had at the time given a witness named Major Green instructions not to give evidence. If the writer of the article in question believed he had some ground for the statements he ought to be heard, and prove tham, or else be punished. Mr. Fox, referring to the libels in the New Zealand Times, said that they were childish articles, and reminded him of the saying that "the devil finds some mischief still for idle hands to do ;" but the libel in the Mail was of a more serious character. The person who made those wicked charges ought to be made answer for them. Mr. Gisborne thought that if such things were to be done with impunity, it was no use in having privileges at all. Mr. Thomson could not see any necessity for arraigning the publisher at the Bar of the House. He had never seen any good come of such a course. He was quite prepared to take the ij)se dixit of the Attorney-General. The motion was carried, and Mr. Whitaker moved that George Jones be brought before the Bar of the House. Mr. Wakefield seconded the motion, as, having heard the article read, ( he thought it a scandalous libel and that the writer ought to be punished to prevent future attacks on the members of the House. Mr. Stout, while expressing repugnance to libel, said he thought it would be a great mistake to carry the motion. Mr. Travers hoped that the motion would be carried, and that an apology even would not be accepted Ly the House. i\ ewspapcrs throughout the Colony went in too far for scurrility. Mr. Rees objected to the latter statement, as papers could be found in the Colony as respectable as the Home journals. He regretted that the Mail had followed suit with a certain paper in Wellington. The motion was then put and carried. Unprincipled people state that the move is to gain sympathy and support for the Government from the Opposition, and to win over wavering members.