THE GAGGING BILL

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 3, 19 May 1863, Page 3

THE GAGGING BILL

(From the Daily Age, May I.) Having committed every other possible offence against public moral and good government the Ministry now try their hands at garroting. The Tipperary Bill Sykes plies the "knuckle duster," and Flash Toby Cracket throttles the victim, while Mr. " Gavah" DaWkins, alias the Dodger, heedful of his safety, looks on from a distance and applauds. The attempt to destroy the liberty of the press is a fitting sequel to the previous career of our rulers. They began in violence and Wrong-doing, and it is proper that the should culminate their offences by the destruction of the only check to their misdeeds. They license the press* that they may run riot ; they take bonds for the good behaviour of editors, that they may offend with impunity. It is absurd to fasten the " Gagging Bill 1 ' on the AttorneyGeneral. It is the bill of the Ministry* for which they are collectively and individually responsible. The measure is an outrage on public liberty, so gross that it ought to be met by the immediate expulsion of its authors from the position they disgrace. It is not an ebullition of personal spleen from Mr. Ireland, in revenge for the assaults of the pr«?s on himself. It is the wellconsidered deliverance of a Cabinet Council. They who regard this struggle as between the Attorney-General and the journals narrow the issue to a personal squabble, and divest it of its momentous public importance. The whole Ministry are involved, and they ought together to share the odium. The measnre is merely the development of the policy that had its beginning in the attempt to bribe this and other journals into silence through the Goverment advertisements. It is revenge for the persistent exposure of corruption and fraud. A dishonest Government offer to their dishonest tools the congenial task of punishing those who, in the public interests, have encouraged and pickled their knavish hides. The measure is the emanation of the darkened intellect of the coarse, insolent, priestridden Chief Secretary. He panders to the bad passions of his corrupted hirelings, that he may work out the designs of his masters. When our metropolitan contemporary did lead public opinion, it spoke of Mr. O'Shanassy as being under " the shadow of the finger of Rome." It is a fitting retribution that its tergiversations has brought upon itself, and the institution of which it ought to be the guardian, the baneful influence. O'Shanassy and Duffy, in seeking to bridle the press, but obey their instncts. While it is the instrument of their advancement, the press is fawned upon ; (he moment it is recalcitrant it j must be taught that existence depends on conformity. The position of Mr. Duffy in this malter is an amazing spectacle. Himself a journalist who used his power for the worst of purposes, and who was dealt with by the Government he insulteh with clemeucy that approached to weakness, he now ranks himself amongst the enemies of a free press. His demonaical suggestions frenzied the brains of malcontents, and saddened the hearts of patriotic men. The miscreancy of his journalism has no measure but the depth of his apostasy ,• his career is that of the true demagogue, who, possibly owing his existence to an injudicious economy in the matter of rope, becomes the instrument for preventing the legitimate exercise of those liberties he only has abused. The progress of the measure is, to us, rather a matter of curiosity than concern. We want to see who have the audacity to rote for it, and there our interest in it ends. Whether it becomes law or not, is for the Government and not us. That the law as it stands was not complied with by this journal arose through inadvertance and not by design. Being the law prior to its advent, it was a duty to comply with it, and it has been done, and there the conformity ends. With the requirements of this measure we shall not comply. It is our good fortune to be in bad o*dor with a considerable section of the House — gentlemen sitting on either side. We invite them to take their revenge. Let them pass the bill, and see who is the stronger. All the securities that can be legally demanded are given, and to give more would be to surrender the honor and independence of journalism. The press hag grown into a power through boldly defying iniquitous laws, and we defy this outrageous infringement of British, institutions in its very inception. Corruption, malignity, and Romanism combined may do their utmost — and their worst. The Attorney-General may convert every one of his hangers-on into common informers ; he may prosecute, fine, and imprison, but conformity will not be got from us. It was said of an eminent cosnsel of the Victorian Bar, " that when he could fight his case no longer he lay down on his back and scratched." We shall follow so good an example. If the Government desire to match their strength against the Press, or the discreditable section of the representatives Want revenge, let them go on. The challenge is thrown boldly down— take ia up who dare. It has been said that this measure is to assimilate the law of newspapers to that of England. On the contrary, it removes it further than ever, except in one point. The sureties at present are For the protection of the Crown only, being for the recovery of penalties in prosecutions for sedition. Such was formerly the law in England, as contained in the 60th Geo. 111., chap. $th, which provided that journals published in London should give securities to the amount of £300, and those published in the country of JS2OO, for the payment of fines which might be recovered for the publication " of seditious and blasphemous libels.'' In that

statue there is no mention of editors the whole of the responsibility devolving 1 on the printer and publisher. The introduction of the -word "editor', into the Colonial Act of 3th Geo. IV. (which is substantially a transcript of the Imperial measure), was an innovation. Bnt the term, wheri&ver used, is simply by way of description. Only one person or co- partner has to give the required securities, and he is described as being " editor, printer, publisher, or proprietor.'' To the measure as an enactment little importance is to be attached, being a pro--1 duct of the wisdom of the Council of New South Wales thirtv-fhre years ago. The 11th of Geo. IV., chap. 73, rendered the sureties of newspapers liable for the damages or penalties recovered in trials for libel, and herein is the only substantial difference betwen the colonial and English law. Here the surety is given against State proseeuI tions for sedition only ; in England it extends to libels generally. The sth of Victoria, No. 19, modified the law in some respects, and among others, 1 expressly enacted that the names of editors should not in any case be required. The law of England never did render editors responsible. The early Colonial Act introduced the word editor descriptively, but subsequently prevented the possibility of false construction. Mr. Ireland proposes to go back to the statute of Governor Darling, but uses the word editor in a sense totally different. In the later English statute the Word editor is twice used, but not in a way that implies responsibility, being synonymous with publisher. Indeed, the law forbids any such construction of the term, inasmuch as the publication constitutes the I libel, and until the writing of a libel i without publication is made an offence an editor cannot legally be rendered responsible. This Mr. Ireland proposes to accomplish, but in doing so, ' lie is perpetrating an outrage on the spirit of Fnfflish law as well as on Constitutional Government.