A BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 36, 7 September 1905, Page 6

A BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS METHODS

We take the following from the Dunedin ' Evening Star ' of September 1. It was supplied by our local evening contemporary's Parliamentary reporter :— Dr. Gibjb, president of the' Bibie-in*schools League, recently wrote to Mr. A. W. Rutherford an-d Mr. Witty, who voted against Mr. SiWey's Bible-im-sohiopls Bill, stating that they had broken their pledges to the electors regarding the Bible in schools, having stated that they would support a referendum on Bible-reading. The writer istatieti that the League's organising secretary (Mr., Myers) would visit their electorates anid publish Messrs. Rutherford and Witty's broken Dledge throughout both coms'tituencies. The matter will be brought up as a breach; of privilege this afternoon by Mr. Rutherford, in view of the threat at the end of Dr. Gibb's letter. Asi a matter of fact, the members for Huruntui awi Riooarton stated that they would support Bible. readtagt, while Mr. Sidey's Bill provided for teaching. Mr., Rutherford has written a reply, stating 1 that he has txrodcen no pled^B, and sarcastically thanking Dr. Gibb for hils promise. The following correspondence has passed between the Rev, Dr. Gibb and Mr. A. W. Rutherford, M.H.R., this being the letter on which Mr. Rutherford bases his motion for breach of privilege. A similar letter 'has been received by Mir. Witty from Mr. Gdlbb :— 1 Dear sir, — It is my duty as president of the Bible-in-schaols League to hiring to your notice the fact that you have broken a pledge to remit the question of BibHe-readimlg in schools to the peoole of the Colony. The following is a copy of the letter yoiu sent to Mr. Flesher, secrejt&ry of the Canterbury branch of the League, in 1902 :— ' <"' Dejar sif ,— Replying to yours, ajUhoiKgjh generally opposed to the Referendum, I think that the /question of Bi'bltet-rea'ding in the State schools is one which o-uigflit to b£ remitted direct to tho people for 'decisioln.— Yours truly, A. W. Rutherford." ' As< soon as <oiur agent reaches your electorate, which he will presently, we shall do the best to make vomr ttfreacih of faith public. Your letter to Mr. F.les•her will tola read at every meeting we hold in your region, and ekflual prqminemce will be given to the fact that yqu Voted against the second roadling of Mr. Sid/ey's Bill. — Yours truly, James Giblb ' To this Mr. Rutherford replied :— ' Upon due consideration, I am of opinion that the exception I made in favor of Bible-read ing in schools was a gtrave mistake. However, I would point out Mat it wag not a pledge made to my electors, to whom, so far aa I am aware, I have broken no pledge I have therefore to tender you my sincere thanks for your kindly intention to give prominence to the fact ttat I am opposed to BiHle-'read'ins; in the rnnblic schools, also to a Referendum being taken on the subject —Yours truly, A. W. Ratherforci ' In Parliament. Tho further course of the affair is described as follows by the Parliamentary reporter of the Dunedin •' Evening Star ' in its issue of September 2 :— During the course of yesterday afternoon's business, Mr. Rutth'Orfiorid said he had received a lc tier (published yesit-erday 1 ) from the Rev. Dr. Gi'Jjb, which he proceeded to reajd, also his reply thereto. Although not, material to a breach of privilege, he would ( point out that his pletlgje was not. broken. What he objected to, and what he had been advised was a breach of privilege, was the Threat Conveyed in Dr. Gibb's Letter. He understood that another member of the House had received a similar letter. The Premier asked for a ruling as to whether there had beemi a- breach of privilege. The Speaker said that Uhat was for the House to decide. The Premier said there could not be much, doubt on the point, and ho quoted a case where Sir Maurice O'Rorke, as Speaker, had ruled, that a letter addressed by Sir Walter Buller to the late Sir John M'Kenzie was a breach of privilege. Mr. Witty then read the letter received by v him from Mr. Gib'b, which was similar to that received 'by Mr. Rutherford, except that it was stated that Mr. Witty's letter to Mr Flesher ' would be reatd to meetings in his (Mr. Witty's) district, with appropriate comments.' * Your reply ? ' asked several hoti. members ; but, Mr. Witty's reply was silence. The letters were then bandefl to the Speakers

TheJPremier said that while he deeply regretted the necessity for the motion he was about to nmke, he thought the H'ouae would be wanting in its duty to itself anil in its protection ol free speech,if they allowed what barf transpired to pass untaoticed. Tbe members for Purunui and Riccartpn toad very properly brought the letters under the notice of the Hbuse. The present case was exactly on all-foairs with that ruled on by Sir Maurice O'Rorke when Sir W. Buller wrote to Sir John M'Kenzie, except that in the latter case stronger language fwas used. He therefore moved that a breach of the privileges of (the( the House had been committed by the Rev. Dr. Gibl), fois Resolution reading—' That the letters addressed to Messrs. Rutherford (member for Hurunui) and Witty (member fox Riccarton) by the ReV. Dr. GLbfo on 28th August, 1905, are a breach erf the privileges of this House. 1 Sir William Russell asked if this was really a breach of privilege. If this were constituted a breach of privilege, would they not also -have to notice the comments of newspaper correspondents on the way that members of the House voted ? Mr. Witty : It is a threat—a threat to defeat me at the next election. Sir Wm. Russell disagreed, and said that if notice were taken of it the House should take notice of newspaper articles also. Mr. Diuthie said that the matter -was a trivilal one. His own actions in the House had ifteen commented on ad\ersely from the pulpit, but he never took any notice of that. Dr. Gibty's action was, he admitted, very indiscreet) anid improper, but it was not woxth noticing. Mr. Rutherford (warmly) : ' I protest against being dictated to by an arrogant, intolerant, religious bounder suah aa Hie Rev. James Gityb. He can send his agent ta my district, 'and do his best. He should halve lived 200 or 300 years ago, when he would have had the, privilege of roasting us, ais his Presbyterian ancestors did, or would have liked to have done. I think an Act of Parliament should be passed to prevent these people from writing to members of Parliament.' Mr. Rutherford concluded by saying that the Noxious Weeds Act should be amended, and sudh parson? brought unfertile first schedule. ' Political Parsons,' he went on to say, ( are the curse of this country, and the curse of any other country.' Mr. Witty : ' They are trying to go back to the Dark Ag-os, to be threatened by a fellow like that. They are Igjoimlfj to make appropriate oonMnients. No doubt they will if they are like the rev. gentleman. The Lord help those who are under such men as the so-called Dr. Gibib.' After reading extracts to snow he had not broken Ins pledge, Mr. Witty said : ' Let them threaten me outside Wo are simply going to 'be ruled by fanatics if we allow them to have their way. As my fellow-member says, he's a regular clerical bcxuinider.' Mr. Massey : I don't think a preach of privilege has been committed. The Premier : It was a menace. ' Mr. Massey : 1 don't think it was intended as a threat toy Dr. Gibib. Mr. M'assey proceeded to tj/uote May in support of his contention, and said that' if the matter in! the letters were as strong as what some Government i newspapers had said about himself, they would hiaiva somcthin'g to talk about. Mr. Laurens-on : What about me ? Mr. Massey moved the previous question, witSi the object of preventing anything foci'ng done in the matter. Mr. Rhodes secorsded. The Premier (speaking to this amendment) said that Ih-a letters contained >a menace by a gentleman leading the agitation upion the Bi'blle-iTi-schools question. The high position held by Dr. Gibb should not cause tho members to forfeit their freedom. He only intended to go as far (as to sec that the House expressed its repjret >at the action of D,r. Glttb. Mr. Mtejssey, by moving ' that the 'question lie not put up,' was applying the gag. which, afti'ded the Premier, is exactly what Dr. Gibb would do. In days gpne by it would to folVowed by the IlmflLrisitiom and |the rack. It was prem edit/a ted, and he could show in the newspapers where this had been threatened. He was sorry 1o ha,ve to Ho caSlrtl oai to do this, because some httlo time ago he had had some disagreement with Dr. Gibib, and it might be held that this present action had been caused by that" past friction. Mr. Massey's motion was then pait, and lost by 36 to 29, and the Premier's motion affirmed that

(Continued on page 15.)

(Concluded 'from page 6.) A Breach of Privilege had been Committed, he dM not intend to proceed any fiqrtfher in the matter. Mr. Massey asked Mr. Speaker if he could say anything further in the matter. Mr, Ruttoecfopd .n Don't waste any more time. Mr* Massey mowed that the breach of privilege was so slight that it was not worthy of notice. It was the most childish and trivial iwcwiqnt he had come across during his twelve years' experience of Parliament. The Premier denied that it was a slight breach of privilege, Mr. Hardy : Then why don't you proceed further with it, and bting him to the bar of the House. The Premier said he did not want to make martyrs of anyone. The punishment of having the action declared a breach of privilege was sufficient to one in Dr., Gibfo's position. Finally, after farther discussion, Mr. Wilford moved the closure of Mr. Massey 's motion, and this was carried by 37 to 31.