The Globe. MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 876, 16 April 1877, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1877.

Another of the Canterbury members of the House of Representatives —Mr Rolleston —lias issued the usual invitation to his constituents to meet him on Wednesday next. Though somewhat late in the held, Mr Rolleston's address will, we are sure, he looked forward to with great interest, for more reasons than one. During the past session, he took a leading part in the affairs of the country, and his constituents will iie anxious to hear the reasons which

actuated his votes. But, beyond this, ifc will afford Mr Rolleston an oppori unity—of which, no doubt, he will trail himself —to explain the true character of the position, up to recently held by him in connection with the General Government. A great deal of capital has been made by Mr I .Rolleston's opponents of this matter, the more so, as from the very nature of things, no explanation could be made. !Now, however, this restriction has been removed, and it is due to Mr Rolleston that he should take the pre--1 >«ent opportunity of putting the matter I before the public in a proper light.

The dispensation by the municipal authorities of charitable aid appears to have come to an untimely end in Wellington, owing to some dispute between them and the Government. Since the refusal of the former to undertake the duty, it has been handed over to the Inspector of Police, a course which seems to us to be open to some objection. Our object in referring to the matter is to point out what is being done here. The dispensation of charitable aid is in the hands of the G-eneral Grovernment, who, through the Immi-

gration Officer, kindly disburse assistance for which the ratepayers will have to pay. jXot that the Government are in any way to blame. They very plainly told the City Council that if they did not do the work the Government would, and deduct the amount from the subsidy payable. Therefore, we are now in the position of having to pay for something over which we have no direct control. This is an undesirable state of things, and should not be allowed to continue. As we have to pay, it is ouly right that the administration should be in the hands of a local body, responsible to the citizens for the manner in which it is conducted.

The return of the Registrar-G-eneral for the month of March has heen issued, and the position of Christchurch as regards healthiness is matter for congratulation. Hitherto the death rate has heen high, and compared unfavorably with that of other boroughs of the colony. On this occasion however it is different, as Christchurch stands lowest but one. The Thames registers "So, and Christchurch comes next with '94. This low rate is still more satisfactory when compared with that of the others. For instance, Hokitika is G - 20 (an exceptionally high rate) ; Auckland, 1*91; Nelson, l - 62 ; Dunedin, 1'55, and Wellington, 1*43. While, however, so low a death rate is matter for congratulation, it by no means follows that our efforts in the matter of drainage should be relaxed.

At this particular juncture, when actions for libel against newspapers are somewhat rife, it may not be uninteresting to note a most important point recently decided by the Court of Appeal in England. The action in the Court below was brought by the medical officer of a Board of Guardians against the Manchester Courier. The alleged libel was that the members of the Board having made remarks imputing to the medical officer maladministration, cruelty, &c, the defendant published the same in a report of the meeting. The plaintiff thereupon brought an action against the paper, being precluded by law from doing so against the Board, he being their servant. A compromise was made, a verdict being taken for plaintiff by consent, subject to a point of law raised whether the report was privileged. The matter came before the Court of Appeal, and the result of its decision is that, with the exception of the proceedings of Parliament and the proceedings of the law courts, a newspaper giving a full report of what takes place at meetings runs the risk of an action for libel. If the ruling of the Court of Appeal as to the law of libel be correct, it is certainly true that an alteration should take place, or the vaunted freedom of the Press, of which we hear so much, will be but an empty boast. We should be the last to wish to see wilful and malicious libel sheltered in any way, but it seems to us that such restrictions as the decision above referred to imposes on the discharge of the duty of a journalist, are likely to act prejudicially to the public interest. Many things are said and done at public meetings which it is highly necessary for the welfare of the community should be publicly known. But a journalist with a fear of innumerable actions for libel constantly hanging over him, will take care that the report published shall not expose him to the pains and penalties of the law. The result will be that emasculated reports, and a glossing over of unpleasant truths, will be the journalism of the future, unless the Legislature step in. The only remedy is an enactment whereby, whilst giving every protection against malignant attacks, the journalist, in the discharge of an important public duty, shall also be secured from legal pains and penalties.