THE Marlborough Express. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1868. THE PRESS-GAGGING ACTS!

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 150, 26 December 1868, Page 3

THE Marlborough Express.

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1868. THE PRESS-GAGGING ACTS!

“ Givr me tlie liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all other liberties.” —Milton.

During the last two years, tyranny and despotism have been making rapid headway in this Colony, as if, because we live at the Antipodes, we were bound to act politically in exact opposition to the movements at Home. First, the postage tax on newspapers was inflicted here to the great detriment of newspaper proprietors, and putting them to large additional expense and loss in the conduct of their business, besides preventing a large amount of circulation which they' previously enjoyed, and consequent loss of publicity, while at home a movement is fast gaining ground in favor of reducing the postage rates on ,'newspapers to a halfpenny. In the late Session, it was attempted by those by knew by painful experience how easily a journalist may get into trouble—by accurately reporting what is said at public meetings—to get an Act passsed to relieve them. The Libel Act was devised to enable aggrieved persons, libelled at a public meeting, to obtain a remedy from the author, instead of the journalist who rneiely recorded what took place. This just measure was however thrown out in a dhinority of 2, on the motion of Haughton, the ex-Gaol Commissioner, and Government whip, because, we presume he had felt the lash of the press occasionally for his own misdeeds and sayings. The next step in order to bring the press into subjection was the introduction of the Printers and Newspaper Registration Act. This was concocted and introduced by Mr. James Crow Richmond, once a newspaper writer himself, aided by Colonel HaultainJ both members of the notorious Stafford Ministry, of which the Bill is worthy. The former, in introducing it, said “ the penalties were not excessive, £2O being the highest !” Instead of this being the truth however, they are exceedingly oppressive for the most trivial faults or errors, varying in amount from £5 to £SOO ! Thus the printer is required to affix on every copy of his paper, or even an extra, the-Christian and surname, place of business, and resisidence of each proprietor, the printer, and the publisher, as well as the sign of his house, the street, town, &c., besides not merely the date when issued, but the day of the week and month! Should “any part thereof ” —say by accident—be omitted or even incorrect, it is in the power of any person to act as a common informer, and sue for the penalty, one-half of which he is to have for his trouble ! The fine is to be not less than £5, or more than £2O, for every copy he can produce up to 25 ! Thus the penalty for one offence, which injures no one, now first created by this atrocious Act, may be multiplied any number of times, and is to be not less than £125, nor exceeding £SOO ! !

Besides these are a number of forms and ceremonies to be gone through by Printers. Their possession of types and presses for printing must he duly registered with the Registrar of the Supreme Court under a penalty of £5 to £2O. If he possess them

in any other place than that stated in such notice ; or omits to obtain a certificate that he has registered them, a like penalty. If he prints any paper or book, omitting to affix his name thereon; or any person publishing, dispersing, or assisting to disperse any paper so deficient, whether for hire or free, is equally liable with such printer. A copy of each job or paper printed by any person shall be kept filed for six months, upon which shall be written the date, and the name and place of abode of those who employed him. Upon failure to do this, dr to exhibit the same to any Justice of the Peace who may require to see it within the ensuing six months, he may be called upon to pay not less than £5, or more than £2O. Any error of description of the place of abode of the printer in his imprint ; or selling any newspaper which has not been registered, will render the party liable to a penalty of £2O. Indeed any person who shall sell, or give, or offer to do either, or even expose to public view, or even expose to public view any printer’s name does not appear, may be seized by any other person, and handed over to a constable, to be taken before a Justice of the Peace, for the purpose of of obtaining the fine. Search warrants may be issued in case of suspicion of unregistered presses and types; and power is given to “ seize, take, and carry away every printing-press found therein, and all the types and other articles thereto belonging, and all printed papers found in such house or place.” Another singular, provision of the Act is that the simple production of any paper printed by him, with a different imprint to that registered in the Supreme Court, will be sufficient evidence to convict the poor printer, without its being necessary to prove that it was “ purchased at any house, shop or office of the defendant, or his servants !” This abominable Act comes into force on. Friday next, and it only remains to ask for what earthly object it was passed, if riot intended to gag the press % The introducer stated that it was only a copy of an English Yet. We pressurae he alluded to the 39 Geo. 111. cap. 79, intituled “An Act for the more effectual suppression of societies established for seditious and treasonable purposes, and for better preventing treasonable and seditious practices,” but the resemblance is very slight, and that measure has long been obsolete, while singularly enough, the English mail succeeding the passing of the Act now under review, brought the intelligence that John Bright, Milner Gibson, and other leading reformers had initiated a movement for the removal from the English statute book of that illiberal law, as being oppressive and unjust. That is the only English law in existence on the subject. In it, instead of any person being placed at the mercy of any spiteful person who chose to turn informer, no proceedings can be taken under it, except with the sanction, and in the name of the Attorney-General. Will it be believed that this iniquitous measure was passed through both Houses of the Hew Zealand Legislatui’e without a single voice being raised against it 1 And

this too in the Empire City, containing at least three newspaper proprietors, not one of whom interfered to oppose it!