FREEDOM OF SPEECH. J. Grattan Grey's Dismissal.

Free Lance, Volume I, Issue 4, 28 July 1900, Page 6

FREEDOM OF SPEECH. J. Grattan Grey's Dismissal.

WHAT a satire it is upon our boast that New Zealand is the most advanced Democratic country in the world that a man with an honourable record of twenty- four years' public service has been dismissed from his appointment by a Democratic Parliament because he dared, in his capacity as a journalist, to' write •opinions that were contrary to Government policy and the popular sentiment of the hour. For this is what the summary dismissal of Mr J. Grattan Grey from his position of ■Chief of the Hansard staff amounts to. It is- idle to pretend, as Mr Seddon somewhat shamefacedly endeavoured to do, that the punishment was for contumacy and defiance of Parliament. It was simply because Mr Grey, exercising the privilege of freedom of speech that is cherished as an inalienable right by all true Democrats, condemned the labour policy of the Oovernment in the first place, and the inflammatory war spirit of the Premier in the second. * # • In neither matter, do we sympathise -with the opinions expressed by Mr Grey in his letters to an American newspaper, but we nevertheless hold that to callously deprive him of his living "because he dared to disagree with the sentiments of the multitude is simply to establish a parallel with the unreasoning brutality of a French mob in the days of Robespierre, or to resort to the malignant methods of hide"bound Toryism in the past history of <jreat Britain. To our shame as a people be it said that this cruelty was perpetrated in the name of the Democracy. Surely a one-eyed Democracy, that will admit only one side of a question, and an intolerant Democracy, that will allow no opinion but its own, be the other opinion ever so erroneous. % * # It has been said that there is but one step between a Democracy and an Autocracy. Recent events, and the

disciplining of Mr Grey amongst them, serve to show that we have already taken that step. It has become high treason to differ from the Autocrat of the hour, and woe be to the newspaper or individual who dares to voice his conscientious convictions when those convictions disagree with the sentiments and policy of the Right Honourable K. J. Seddon. This is what Democracy in New Zealand has come to. Mr Grey perpetrated his first and chief indiscretion when he condemned Mr Seddon's labour policy in the American press. For that indiscretion, he was threatened by Premier Seddon, and the dismissal resolved upon last Thursday shows that Mr Seddon was ms good as his word. # • • So far as Mr Grey's opinions upon the war in South Africa go,' what do they amount to at the best ? They are simply the views of one man amongst many. And are we so doubtful of the justice of our cause that we dare not allow one man to open his lips or use his pen by way of criticism ? Surely not. Of course, the verdict of the multitude is the same unreasoning, frenzied one that it was nearly nineteen hundred years ago — " Away with him ; crucify him." Grattan Grey has been crucified in all conscience. But amongst other Democratic people to-day, and by the future Democracy of our own country, it will be spoken of to our shame, that we took away from a man his living because he ventured to hold and express opinions that were not the opinions of the multitude. We have made an arrogant and arbitrary misuse of our power in suppressing that acknowledged right of all British people — freedom of speech. * • • Let it be remembered also that these opinions of Mr Grey's concerning the war— though we do not share them — are identical with the opinions expressed in England by Lord Coleridge, Sir William Harcourt, John Morley, Herbert Spencer, Sir Wilfred Lawson, John Burns, Labouchere, Stead, the Hon. James Bryce, and other leaders of advanced thought. Who in England would venture upon reprisal because such men, from honourable motives, disapproved of and condemned the war policy of the Empire ? Here in New Zealand, however, it would appear that we are to be robbed of freedom of conscience and opinion. Mr Seddon thinks for the country, and every man in the country must think with Mr Seddon, or take the consequences. Is this an exaggeration ? Let the removal of Mr John Hutcheson from the Harbour Board, because he disagreed with the Premier, be the answer. And it is but one example amongst many. # * * It is alleged that Mr Grey was a civil servant, and therefore in no way entitled to express opinions contrary to the sentiments or policy of the country. But even admitting the soundness of such an argument, Mr Grey was in no sense a civil servant. His engagement was for the session only, with the right to engage in journalism during the recess, and because of this concession the salary was reduced from £600 to £iOO per annum. Without expressing any opinion upon the articles he wrote in the American newspaper, those articles were Avell within his functions as a journalist, and if there was a fault in the matter the fault lay with Mr Seddon in conveying in the notice of appointment the degree of latitude that has brought about all this trouble. For these and other reasons, the House would have pursued a dignified, merciful and just course if it had adopted Mr Atkinson's motion recognising that these articles were within Mr Grey's technical rights, and affirming, for the future, the undesirableness of the Hansaul staff participating actively in New Zealand politics. • * * No one who has watched the progress of political events during the past few years can doubt that the sacrifice of Mr Grey was because his principles and sentiments were hostile

to the Government. If he had been content to play the servile part of a clacipter to the Right Honourable R. J. Seddon, no exception would have been taken to his articles, but, on the contrary, he would have basked in the sunshine of Mr Seddon 's friendship and patronage. Moreover, how can Mr Seddon have the effrontery to punish Grattan Grey for being a political partizan in the face of the fact that at every election civil servants enjoying large- salaries are openly and shamelessly touring the country at the -public expense, organising Mr Seddon 's followers, traducing his opponents, and lauding the present administration to the skies. » # # Unpatriotic sentiments are irritating anrt disagreeable even in times of peace, and we like them as little as any one, but nevertheless it is a tyrannous thing that any individual should be subjected to martyrdom in an alleged democratic country for the frank expression of his conscientious opinions, so long as those opinions are not treasonable, and do not bring him within the reach of the law. Mr Seddon poses before the world to-day as a leader of the Democracy. Let the world know him by his own acts as a spurious Democrat, swollen with the pride of. autocratic power, and trampling under foot the inestimable liberty of freedom of speech.