HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12632, 20 October 1905, Page 8

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

'The House met at 2.30. FIRE BRIGADE BILL. In reply to Mr MacLaohlan, the Hon. "■Carroll saad he would like to get the Fire Brigades Bill through this session, :uand if possible he would do so. COST OF PARLIAMENT. Sir Joseph Ward presented a return that the cost of Parliament per

day was £48 2s 9d, exclusive of statutory expenses and expenses of Haneard. THE TOTALISATOR. The Public Petitions Committee referred to the Government for ■consideration several petitions praying for the abolition of the totalisator. PUBLIC TRUST AMENDMENT. The .second reading of the Public Trust Amendment Bill, which is chiefly of a technical nature, was agreed to on the voices. METHYLATED SPIRITS. The Hon. Mills moved the second reading of the Methylated Spirits Bill, which is designed to prevent the clearing of methylated spirit for any purpose whatever, and for rendering it fit for use as a perfume, 'beverage, or food for human use. Mr Wilford said he intended to oppose the Bill ait every stage, as_ it would kill every firm manufacturing varnishes and perfumes. Mr Millar moved a hostile amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Sir Joseph Ward said the Bill had been introduced on the recommendation of the responsible officers of the Customs Department. He urged that the Bill should be read a second time, and then let it stand over fill next session. Mr Seddon said the Bill had been introduced because it was stated there had been an evasion of the law and a less of revenue. Mr Millar said he was willing to withdraw his amendment if the Bill was referred to the Industries and Commerce Committee. After further discussion the- amendment was lost by 35 to 25, and the Bill was read a second time and referred to the Industries and Commerce Committee. THIRD READINGS. The Public Trust Office Amendment Bill and Victoria College Bill were put through committee without material amendment and were read a third time and passed. CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT. The Hon. McGowan moved the second reading of the Criminal Code Amendment Bill, which 'he explained was designed to remedy a defect in the law by making defamatory libel by spech liable to punishment in the same way as a printed or written defamatory libel is punishable. Mr Massey said the Bill would not get through Committee in its present form. It opened up a big point, especially on the eve of a general election. Mr Taylor considered the Bill was fraught with the gravest danger, and it might just as well have been termed " a Meikle, Braund, Taylor, or Massey Suppression Bill," or "a Bill to suppress any man who dared to say a word against the administration of the Government." The House should keenly scrutinise any proposal to limit the rights of speech from the public platform. He did not believe the Bill would have been brought down if it had not been for the drastic criticism to which the Government had been subjected from the public platform during the past few weeks. The Bill struck at the root of free speech, and within a few days of the close of the session the Government Was trying to undo the work of centuries.

Mr Seddon denied that the Bill aimed at curtailing freedom of speech, and said it looked as if Mr Taylor, in the speech he had just delivered, was pleading for himself. The Bill was designed to prevent the outrage and license that was indulged in from the public platform by certain persons for private, spleen, and in some cases thfigg people were the nefarious aggSts of other persons. It.was regfiistable that there were Very many men who would be an ornament to Parliament and the colony who were prevented from offering their services to the people by the menace of there unscrupulous mem. Neither Meikle nor anyone else had a right to slander others and take away their character without. taking the responsibility. It seemed as if Mr Taylor had constituted himself a special pleader for Meikle and Binaund. No other interpretation pould.be placed upon the speech of the .member for CThristchurch that afternoon. FREDOM OF THE PRESS. In conclusion, Mr Seddon said he pro- ; posed next session;—if he were in power i -rto ask Parliament to remove the disabilities from the press, so as to give it the right to publish fair reports, but antecedent to that it would be necessary to protect the people against what was spoken. SIR JOSEPH WARD'S TROUBLES. ANCIENT HISTORY REVIVED. Sir J. G. Ward referred at some length to the charges that had been made against him from the public platform in connection with the Colonial Bank —charges which he vehemently denied, and characterised as " dirty, cowardly, and blackguardly." He had been treated iria backguardly manner in regard to his private affairs, and he said that in the country no man or woman was safe from tihe foulest slanderer from the public platform. The only thing a man who was attacked in this fashion could do was to bring a civil action against the elanderer, and the only satisfaction he would have would be the pleasure of paying the slanderer's costs. Sir Joseph went on to say that he was quite willing that his every action an connection with^the Colonial Bank should be proclaimed from the house tops. A certain person had attempted to blackmail him in connection with the Colonial Bank matter. His (Sir Joseph's) answer was to " let the man do his worst; he would not .pay a. penny to chut his mouth." "If I can get at him under the criminal law," said Sir Joseph, " I will do it as sure as my name is Joseph Ward." The debate was interrupted by th^ J 5.30 adjournment. lWhen the House resumed at 7.30, theHon. Seddon referred to the fact that' J the debate on the Loan Bill had been fixed.for that hour, but he moved that the interrupted debate should be allowed to proceed. Mr Herries objected to such a procedure, urging that the Loan Bill ought to be proceeded with. Besides, the Criminal Code Bill was only taken on the understanding that it should only go on till 5.30. Everyone knew that it was not going to pass and that it was only a waste of time to discuss it.

Mr Massey made a similar protest, and po: nted out that the postponement of the Loan Bill had been made for the Premier's convenience. The present proposal was a distinct breach of faith.

Mr Seddon urged that under the circumstances it would be inadvisable to go on with this Bill.

The motion ifco postpone the Loan Bill was carried by 42 to 22. No other member rose to speak, atttd the Hon. McGowan replied. Liberty, foe said, was not interfered with by the Bill. It ivfis license they proposed to interfere with. At present a man could use the harshest language and if he had no means there was wo way of getting at him. He could not see how such a Bill oould be dangerous except to a dangerous man. He desired to keep the greatest liberty of speech and of the press, but he wanted to do away with liberty of abuse, and if this Bill was passed they would be able to give greater liberty to the press. The proposed Bill was the law in England and Queensland, and should be the law here.

The second reading was carried by 46 to 21.

The Bill was then considered in Committee.

Some discussion took place as to the possible effects of the Bill, Mr Moss suggesting that it was designed to frighten candidates at the general election from indulging in too much freedom of speech. It was pointed out,

too, than an ill-judged or hasty remark at a mother's meeting might render the speaker liable to a criminal prosecution for defamation.

Sir W. Russell contended that under this proposal a person who used hasty words in a fit of temper could be criminally prosecuted and sent to gaol. Mr Seddon replied that it was only in extreme cases that criminal prosecution would ba taken, where people who had nothing to lose deliberately made rash statements, and not only that, but declared they would continue to do so unless large sums of. money were paid them. Every respectable newspaper met with such cases. If they passed this Bill he was quite prepared to ack the 'House to put the press on a 'batter footing in regard to the law of libel. It> only had the protection of a civil action. What remedy 'was that against a person without means? Mr Dut'hie did not think there was any need for the Bill at all, either in regard to speakers or the press. Bills such as this should be passed to deal with a necessity arising out of our common life, and not for some special

occasion

Sir Joseph Ward urged that no magistrate would allow the law to be used in an improper manner. Mr. Fisher appo-sed the Bill, which, he said, proposed that a man might be prosecuted on the word of two scoundrels for using words which he never uttered. If, as was proposed in the Bill, a man could be made liable for using words in a conversation on a street corner, it was mterferenoa with the freedom of speech. If the Minister would alter the Bill to make it apply to a public speech made on a platform to a group of people, well and good. Mr. Taylor pointed out the difficulty of making spoken words a. defamatory libel; words were so capable of being misunderstood, so difficult to remember, so difficult to swear to accurately by passing such a Bill. Members would hs> striking at the roots of their own liberties and rights in order to meet an exceptional case. Mr. Seddon admitted the difficulty of proving what words were used, but pointed out that the "same difficulty occurred in actions for slander at present. There was also a danger of two people conspiring against a third, but the magistrate and jury would be sufficient safeguard in such cases. Mr. Baume suggested an amendment providing that spoken words should not constitute- criminal defamation unless they were spoken in the presence of not less than ten persons. Mr. Herdman asked whether there had bean any public demand for the Bill. There was no proof either of a demand or a necessity for the Bill. Mr. Tanner moved to amend clause 2 (the operative clause) by adding a proviso to amend the 1901 definition of "defamatory libel" in the direction of ■ excluding from that definition matter likely to injure a man's reputation by exposing him to ridicule. Mr. Moss moved a prior amendment to strike out the first word of the clause, with the object of rejecting the' clause. Mr. Taylor said that a comprehensive libel Bill "should be brought down nex! session. The question was not one to attack piecemeal, and the present Bill should bo held over. At 10.55 Mr. Duthie moved to report progress, which was lost by 46 ■votes to 23. Mr. Seddon intimated that .he-wa^ prepared to accept wCri"" amendment, ".That the clause refer to words spoken in a public place, within the meaning o? the Act of 1884."