FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume I, Issue 20, 18 May 1867, Page 3

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

It is the duty of the colonial press — one they owe to them selves and one they owe to the public—to give tiie widest publicity to the following case tried before the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Queens Bench on the last Monday in November o t last year. Mr. Field Q.C. moved onbehalfofMr. Doulton M.P. for Lambeth, for a rule calling on the “ Daily Telegraph ” to show cause why a criminal imformation should not be filed against the printer of that paper, for a libel Mr. Field thus stated the case for his cliant.— Mr. Doulton, on whose behalf he moved, had been for some years M.P. for the borough of Lambeth, and also a member of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was returned for Lambeth as a supporter of the late Lord Palmerston’s government, and he continued to support that and the subsequent government, with the exception of voting for the late Reform bill That gentleman, with many others, conscientiously objected to certain portions of that, hill, and for what they did in consequence they had received the name of Adullamitcs. For any strictures on his public character he did not and would not complain, however severe, unless they imputed to him dishonesty of conduct likely to aftect his private character. Believing, therefore, that the article complained of went beyond the former and attacked the latter, he felt bound to come forward and ask their lordships to grant this rule. The article, which was a very long one, appeared on the 20th November, and commenced by referring to a speech delivered by Mr. T. Hughes, the other M.P. for Lambeth, on the previous evening, at the Walworth institution, which meeting Mr. Doulton did not attend, because it was called by Mr. T. Hughes without any reference to him (Mr. Doulton). The article, after praising Mr. T. Hughes for his political honesty, proceeded to animadvert in very severe terms on Mr. Doulton for Ms conduct in parliament. The learned counsel then read the article at length, and the following are some of the passages complained of by Mr. Doulton:— “ Representative ” has come to mean in certain mouths a senatorial personage who on false pretences embezzles a seat with hypocritical addresses, in order that he may misrepresent his electors on the flimsy plea of independence.” “ Those who mouth the word ‘ independent ’ while they swindle the people, to give them a stage for their political knavery to strut upon would do well to note two passages in the address (Mr. Hughes’s) delivered on Monday night at the Walworth Institution.’’ “ Dare any of the spurious independence of the time say such things in such a position ? Their own measures and scales are vile, with to much self-interest—fraudulent, with too many hidden makeweights to allow it. They have to st >p at home like Mr. Doulton, because the new fashioned honesty of the present House of Commons passes muster there, but is found out and called a sham in less delicate assemblies.” “He represents Ms potteries, and not the borough, and his proper place is among them.” “If the borough possessed a dock for political swindlers his proper place would be easier to point out and then he would have a good right to be heard.” “ This new Judas of the modem potter’s field crept into the confidence of Lambeth in the days of Palraerstonian promises and petty performance—picked the pockets of the Lambeth men of their votes —embezzled the seat for the borough, and then made it a

sort of branch establishment for his own private opinions and ends." “ The wisest tiling that man has ever done since be filched the appendt age of M.P. has been to give up saying one word to palliate his conduct.” The lord chief justice said it was a discussion of Mr. Boulton’s public conduct, and did not attack his private character.—Mr. Field said it imputed improper conduct to Mr. Boulton who had retired from his pottery business, in order the better to discharge his parliamentary duties. —The lord chief justice said the article meant that Mr. Boulton came in on certain expressed principles, which the electors really assumed to be held by him, but instead of that he voted against the Reform 'hill of the lalo government, and had thereby violated his pledges to the electors. The court would be lowering the character of its summary jurisdiction in matters of libel if they granted a rule on this article.—Mr. Field submitted that the article charged Mr. Boulton with acting for his private ends.—The lord chief justice said that meant politically. Public men must not be so thin-skinned. All came in now-a-days for their share of public censure or praise. The court could not entertain the application. —Application refused;'