The Feilding Star. THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1891. The Law of Libel Bill

Feilding Star, Volume XIII, Issue 25, 27 August 1891, Page 2

The Feilding Star. THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1891. The Law of Libel Bill

The Ministry have almost decided, in the plenitude of their wisdoua, to shelve the Libel Bill for this session. This is a measure which the press of the colony has been praying for during many years. Unluckily the Bill is not -a party one, and therefore neither the Ministry when in power, nor the Opposition when out of power, have any direct gain to expect should they make the Bill law. Our contemporary the Post reminds us that the Bill has twice passed through the Legislative Council, under the charge of the late Attorney General Sir Frederick Whittak«r, although " slaugh. tered iv the Lower House with the other innocents. " This session the present Attorney -General, Mr Buckley, has successfully piloted the measure through the Upper House, after the c.reful consideration of the; Revision Committee. The conservative branch of the legislative has thus three times affirmed the propriety, and equity of assimilating the law -of libel iv New Zealand to that of England, and so affording the press of the colony the same protection as is afforded in the Old Country. It is a measure of the greatest importance to the press. Our contemporary appeals, in the name of the press of the c<>!<iny, to the Government and the House to grant ibis ouneessiou before the present session closes. The uufoifcuuate part is that the House, as at present conatilutaU, dues not eveu jirefceud to

be friendly with the press, and we admit that the members undividually and collectively have had the roughest criticism that any N"w Zealand Parliament ever had, and the colony is beginning to find out that whatever adverse criticism has been made, has Neidom or never been so well Reserved. If the press has made no effort to conciliate the members, the latter caunot be expected to do anything for the special benefit of the former. Another point. We have always conteuded that the lawyers in the House were opposed to the Bill becoming law in New Zealand, and the truth of our contention is amply confirmed by the facts of the case. With indifference on the one hand, and implied Opposition on the other the chances of the Bill are very small.