PUBLIC MEN.

Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 181, 3 January 1877, Page 2

PUBLIC MEN.

Sir William Stawcli j.® orally bits the right nail on the head (says the Melbourne Fu ch ), and he did so the other day in summing' up tiie libel action Broadbent v. Small, when the Chief Justice is reported to have said that “ public men and public measures were public property, and it was the privilege of the public to discuss these men and those measures, as it was termed, without actual malice. This was a privilege which they must ail cherish. No doubt these criticisms were occasionally not pleasant. Courts of justice came in occasionally for attadTJfcJ censure—whether justly or unjustly JPPP was not necessary for him to sy. Judge ~ ' were censured, and even learned c nmsel did not escape. Perhaps when those attacks were first read in the morning, they were not very agreeable. IP they were deserved, why they must be borne ; if they were undeserved they could do no harm, and they probably served to amuse some people. Unless public criticism was allowed on public men and public m asures, the community would lapse into a condition which would be irksome to the public generally. If discussions were not allowed, why the community would be in a state of perfect slavery.” This i; the language of common sense and sago experience. And none but fools and knaves stand in dread of honest criticism, of just censure, and of fearless satire