New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, OCTOBER 2.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4845, 2 October 1876, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, OCTOBER 2.

It is to be hoped that what may be called the Wakefield and Timaru Herald incident may not leave erroneous impressions, or cause any false idea as to the position of Parliament and the Press. The second article in the Timaru Herald was of so thoroughly coarse and unjustifiable a kind, that nothing was; left but the vindication of its character which Parliament extorted from one of itsmenibers. That vindication was tolerably satisfactory toParliament, and cannotbut be regarded as almost disastrous to Mr. Wakefield, whether as a member or •as a journalist. As a member the utterances w;hich he may make in the future even himself cannot imagine will be considered from his own estimate of lofty independence; and as a journalist the undoubted power of the Timaru Herald as a leading provincial paper must suffer, because its most outspoken leaders will be open to the suspicion of being written in petulance and unjustifiable assumption. But whilst this udll be the case, it is as well that Parliament (or rather certain .members) should be at once assured that so far as the Press of the colony is concerned their relative positions are in no way altered. It is too frequently the habit of honorable members, to consider any newspaper comments on their actions as things that should not be tolerated. Because they choose to imagine themselves to, be in the right, they are apt to mistake all criticism of their proceedings for scurrilous abuse, and to attribute the worst and most mercenary motives to all who dare to find fault with them, or to refuse their own estimates of their worth. Now, in this 1 respect the majority of members are pretty sensible men, but there are several whose habit it is to continually speak of newspaper criticism as of some privileged or tolerated nuisance, simply because they find themselves the subjects of that criticism. It is from gentlemen of this description that the expression has been heard during the last couple of days that the Press has been taught a lesson. The Press, it may be safely though somewhat vulgarly said, “ cannot see it.” A member of the House, many of whose speeches have been conceived in the worst possible taste, and who happens to be a member of the Press, has been taught a lesson certainly, but no more of a lesson than the Press' itself, by its comments on the indecency and low abusiveness of the articles which the House complained of, has' taught him. Let there be no mistake. The Press owes no responsibility to Parliament.. The offence which Mr. Wakefield committed was as much an offence against the public as_ it was against Parliament, and has met with consequences ■ from the public, if not as direct, quite as severe, as any it met with in the House of Representatives. The Press has a constituency wider, more im-. portaut, and whose feelings and interests have to be consulted by it far more than those of the electors have to be consulted by Parliament. It is to. its constituency that the Press is responsible, and that responsibility is the best protection Parliament can have against its committing a breach of privilege. It would be well if members would bear this, in mind, and themselves learn a little from it. The blackguard manner in (Which the Timaru Herald's article expressed itself as regards Mr. Joyce has elicited from the Press and ; public the most severe condemnation of its writer. But Mr. Joyce himself should remember .'that the_ worst taste in writing or in speaking is exhibited by a want of care for the feelings of'others. Not so long since in. the House; he; in effect said that the sooner the pew Government offices were burned

down the better. Parliamentary privilege may protect him, and. his own insignificance as a member has caused his words to have been treated with contempt, but they were none the less in :bad, taste and in bad feeling. . And since then he’ has spoken of pastoral tenants as one would speak of some unclean thing. In the same Assembly with him, and amongst its most respected members, are pastoral tenants, yet Mr. Joyce had not the good taste or gentlemanly feeling to recognise that whilst he might be opposed to the system which permits a pastoral tenancy of large areas of land, he had no right to speak of squatters as people whose occupation of land was more objectionable than the occupancy of it ‘by what are almost vermin. This kind of language may be parliamentary, and indeed may not seem to Mr. Joyce and others objectionable, but then it should be considered that a man is not the beat judge of what is or is not objectionable in his own language, and that he should be careful to consider in this respect the opinions of others. In fine, it is just as well that members should learn that as a matter of practice nowadays they are not privileged above their fellow men, and that the offence which Mr. Wakefield has just apologised for was an offence against the public, and not alone against Parliament.