Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 73

Evening Post. — The Triumph of Truth

Evening Post.

The Triumph of Truth.

Although, as we pointed out yesterday, the vindication of Sir Walter Buller is as perfect as the discomfiture of his traducer is complete, the late privilege case raises many important issues which cannot be lightly or hastily dealt with. There are points which deserve the greatest consideration, as affecting the liberty of the people and the honour and dignity of Parliament. The first question which arises is whether there was any breach of privilege committed. With all due deference to the ruling of Sir Maurice O'Rorer we venture to say that Sir Walter Buller's letter to the Hon. John M'Kenzie in no way infringed the privileges of the House of Representatives. There was no semblance of threat contained in it. All that Sir Walter Buller did was to say to Mr. M'Kenzie:—"You have accused me of crime rendering me unworthy of the honour my Sovereign has conferred upon me, and which you say should have subjected me to penal consequences. That accusation cannot be tested or the charge tried where you have made it. Neither can I rest under such an imputation. I ask you to make your charge where you can bring what evidence you have in support of it, and where I can meet and endeavour to refute it—before the ordinary tribunals of justice which you say should have already death with me." To construe a letter such as the one under notice as being a breach of Parliamentary privilege is absurd. There is absolutely no precedent for any such construction and Sir Walter Buller could not, as a man conscious of his innocence and jealous of his honour, have adopted any other course than the one he did. It was impossible that he could remain silent, or do otherwise than court enquiry. And here let us give a word of warning to the House on the subject of privilege generally. In almost every instance in which it attempts to stand upon its dignity and invoke privilege it simply renders itself ridiculous, and excites contempt. It almost always comes second best out of the contest It has done so notably in this case. A lot of high-faultin' nonsense was talked by Ministers about Parliament being the highest Court of the realm. So it is in a sense, but, thank God the House of Representatives is not Parliament. The House possesses privileges, but they are not inherent as are the privileges of the House of Commons. They are merely the creation of statute, and the House is as much bound by the limits of the statute as any private individual is. If the House ever unduly extends its privileges by arbitrary page 23 action it will probably find that it is not the highest Court of the realm, and that it is amenable to the ordinary tribunals of law, even in the interpretation of its own privileges if these illegally conflict with the rights of Her Majesty's subjects. Let us now return to the incidents of the case particularly under notice. It is evident from the correspondence witch we published yesterday that the Premier was heartily ashamed of the vile conduct of his colleague, the Minister of Lands, in making the false and scandalous charges he did gainst Sir Walter Buller. Mr. Seddon's letters go as far in the way of apology as could perhaps be expected. The incident had evidently caused him regret and anxiety. It is evident that he did not read unmoved Sir Walter Buller's manly and straightforward letters. But the Premier's professed objection to personalities is not, unfortunately, consistent with his practice. No man in public the in this colony is more utterly reckless in the statements he makes, the accusations he hurls at political opponents, or the discreditable motives he is ever ready to attribute to them. His attempt to excuse Mr. M'Kenzie on the ground of provocation given by Mr. Bell, is puerile and utterly illogical. Mr. Bell said nothing whatever to justify any such reprisal even on himself, much less an attack on a third party who was not in a position to defend himself. If Mr. M'Kenzie had attacked Mr. Bell he would have been net on equal ground, and would probably have been worsted in the conflict. But Mr. M'Kenzie did not dare to tackle Mr. Bell. He preferred to attack Sir Walter Buller, Whose mouth was shut. It was the action of a coward, finding its parallel only in the case of a big bully at school who surreptitiously punches the head of a little boy whose big Brother, the real offender, he is afraid to stand up to on equal terms. Mr. M'Kenzie's own attempt in the House to support his charges and justify his having made them, signally failed. He was unable to adduce a single tittle of evidence in either direction, and when he sat down he was self-convicted of utterly reckless, unwarranted, and most brutal slander, Although the House was at first evidently inclined to support the Minister, and distinctly hostile in its majority towards Sir Walter Buller, its faith must have been shaken greatly by Mr. M'Kenzie's absolute failure to adduce other than the vaguest hearsay evidence in support of his case. When Sir Walter Buller appeared at the Bar, and, although speaking under the disadvantage of short time for preparation, eloquently defended himself from the Minister's foul aspersions, boldly met every imputation, and conclusively proved the falsity of each count in the indictment against him, the revulsion of feeling in the House was apparent to the most casual observer. Sir Walter Buller carried home to the hearts of his hearers conviction of the great wrong which had been done him. It scarcely needed the cross-examination which followed to completely exonerate him and to convict his accuser of slander and false witness. When Sir Walter Buller retired there was a locus penitentiœ open to the Minister of Lands. Had he possessed one spark of the high and chivalrous sense of honour so erroneously attributed to him by the Premier, he would have frankly admitted the error he had made, and have offered such reparation as was in his power by full and ample apology to the man he had so wantonly assailed and so grievously injured—such apology as any gentleman, in conservation of his own honour, would make to anyone he had inadvertently wronged or misrepresented. What Mr. M'Kenzie did is on record. Sullenly, with a boorishness and apparent vindictiveness which can scarcely be characterised as other than malevolent, he practically repeated his charges. No wonder the House cried shame, and that deep disgust stamped itself upon the features of members—an expression which became intensified when the Premier attempted to cover his colleague's discomfiture by utterly frivolous references to the large fees received by Sir Walter Buller in native land cases. Possibly neither Mr. Seddon nor Mr. M'Kenzie ever heard of the £100,000 fee paid by an Indian Prince to the late Sergeant Ballantyne. No one impugned his honour in receiving it, and what is ten guineas a day compared to such a reward? We have no doubt that Sir Walter Buller's services to his clients were well worth the fees they paid. There have been no complaints from them. There are still one or two other points in Mr. M'Kenzie's defence to which allusion must be made. His sneering references to the Supreme Court Bench and the ordinary legal tribunals of the colony were utterly contemptible. His talking of having "admonished" Mr. Justice Conolly was a piece of superlative impudence. What authority has a Minister to "admonish" a Judge? None. The Judges are responsible to Parliament alone. Mr. M'Kenzie's preference for a Royal Commission, selected and appointed by himself, rather than a Judge and jury, to try his case, is easily comprehended. He could appoint blind partisans, whose pay would depend on him, and who would know they were liable to be "admonished" or called fools, if their judgment was not satisfactory to the Minister himself. If anything could be in worse taste than the allusions to the Judges, it was the slur he threw on the probity and honour of the special jurors of Wellington. Ministerial testimony of any kind is of little value, but still we are glad to have Mr. M'Kenzie's admission that 90 per cent, of the most intelligent section of the Wellington public, who enjoy special opportunities of observation as to how the Government is administered, coincide with our views as to the discreditable conduct and injurious policy of the present Ministry. But however strongly such views may be held, Mr. page 24 M'Kenzie wantonly insults the special jurors of Wellington when he assumes that they would be false to their oaths and their honour in regard to the administration of justice, or allow political feeling to influence or affect their judgment in the jury-box. Mr. M'Kenzie judges others by his own measure. He knows that no consideration of fact, no amount of evidence, no regard for truth, equity, or justice, would for one moment mitigate the rancour of his political animosities, lead him to an impartial judgment, or dispose him to a generous act or thought towards an opponent. He, no doubt, thinks Wellington jurors are built on the same principle, and would do as he would do. Fortunately he is mistaken, and we can but pity the warped and distorted mind and conscience which can seriously entertain such unjust and ungenerous ideas. Summing up the whole case, we can only say that Mr. M'Kenzie, like one of his colleagues in a recent case, stands convicted in public opinion of unfounded slander, baseless libel, reckless disregard for truth, and personal virulence and ferocity of a malignant type. He has brought the position he holds into discredit and contempt, and has abused the privileges of the House of which he is a member. If he were not pachydermatous he would, as the only atonement in his power towards the House he has shamed, the country he has disgusted, and the man he has attempted to injure, retire from public life, so that his conduct might in time be forgotten, if it cannot be forgiven.