HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12633, 21 October 1905, Page 5

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

, After ; the Telegraph Office closed the Criminal Code Amendment Bill was further considered in Committee.

The discussion on clause 2 dragged on for hours, the principal speakers being Messrs Moss, Harding, and Fisher. At 4.40 a.m. Mr Seddon said there was no intention whatever of adjourning, and if two or three members thought they were going to coerce the House they might as well postpone the end of (the session for a week. He offered, as a compromise, to amend the claus^e 'fco make it provide that a defamatory' libel in spoken words shall not exifst unless such words are spoken at a meeting to which persons acre invited by letter, notice, or advertisement, or in a public road, street, park, wharf, hall, or roam, or within the hearing of a given number of persons. Mr Berries objected to this on the ground that it did not protect Parliamentary candidates in the forthcoming campaign, who might adversely criticise the Government administration.

Towards 7 a.m. Messrs Taylor and Bedford were principally responsible for the carrying on of the discussion, which was still prooeding at 8 a.m. THE STONEWALL CONTINUES.

In the House of Representatives the sitting was continued in Committee at 11 a.m.

Mr Henries' amendment to postpone the operation of the Bill was lost by 31 to 17.

At 11.30 Mr Allen entered the discussion, followed by Messrs Duthie, Herdman, and Massey, all on the motion to report progress At 12.15 Mr McNab was relieved from the chair.

At 1 o'clock the Chairman adjourned for luncheon on the voices.

The House resumed at 2.30, and the stonewall proceeded on the .Criminal Code Amendment Bill.

Mr Herries argued that progress ought to. be reported on account of Trafalgar, a great battle fought for the liberty which the Bill sought to ciroumsribe.

Mr Taylor, following on the same line, said among the Bills on the order paper which ought to be preferred to this one is the Naval Defence Bill, which is an outcome of the Trafalgar spirit. *Mr Laurenson urged the necessity for passing tine Bill, to prevent penniless adventurers from getting on a platform and vilifying the personal character of public men. For his pairfc if anyone vilified him and he could not reach the vilifier by legal process he would get redress some other way, if necessary by bullet or knife.

Mr Hecrdman condemned the appointment of the Judges to be Commissioners on the audit case as subversive of the public liberties.

Sir J. Ward pointed out that newspaper proprietors were amenable to the criminal law for publishing statements of persons not so amenable. Mr Dufchie urged that men in the position of Mr Meikle would suffer injustice if the Bill passed. Mr Fisher said he was perfectly pre-

pared to go on till Saturday night, and, after Sunday's rest, go on fresh for the whole of next week. During the sitting Messrs Graham and Hawkins were namecl for interjecting, apolgised, and their apology was accepted. Mr Graham's explanation was that he only repeated another member's interjection in obedience to a request from one of the speakers who had not heard it. Mr Hawkins pleaded inadvertence. Mr Buchanan and Sir W. Russell questioned the ruling of the chair. Sir Joseph Ward and Mr Hall Jones asked the Caimn'itte© to support the chair. Mr Miller explained that he had determined to strictly enforce the order against interjections on account of the unusual circumstances of the case. He warned hou. members that he would also enforce the standing order 177 against wilful obstruction, whenever he felt satisfied there was obstruction. The House adjourned till 7.30, on the voices, for the sake of the health of hon. members. The House resumed at 7.30, and went on with the discussion of the motion to report progress on the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. Mr Bedford, speaking of the compromise of the previous morning, said he was prepared to accept the first part referring to public meetings, and meetings by invitation or advertisement. Mr Seddon replied that there were public places in tie chief cities in which thousands congregated, and there slanderers must be stopped. Regarding the proposal made by Mr Herries, he declined to make any distinction in favour of any citizen. There was, however, no danger, for clause five of the Criminal Code Act , with which this Bill would if it passed be read, offers a complete safeguard against abuse, and the Bill went fui-ther by providing that before there can be a prosecution a magistrate must 'be satisfied that there had been a defamatory statement. The discussion was continued after supper.