MINISTER AND COUNSEL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16560, 8 June 1917, Page 6

MINISTER AND COUNSEL.

FREE SPEECH AND SEDITION.

SIR JOHN FINDLAY'S REPLY.

The member for Hawke's Bay, Sir John Findlay, has replied to the AttorneyGeneral's criticism of his address in Court when defending P. C. Webb on the sedition charges. "The Attorney-General," states Sir John, "ignores, or misses the fact that the observations made by me which ho condemns were no attack upon the War Regulations, but an attack upon the construction which Mr. Raymond, K. 0., acting for the Crown, insisted was the true construction of these regulations. He contended that it mattered not whether tho words alleged to bo seditious were true or not, whether the motive was good or not, whether the words were fair comment or not. My contention, in reply, was that the regulations must be read with some such qualifications for the protection of bona-fide, reasonable, free speech as appeared in respect of seditious utterances in our Crimes Act, and in common law in England. 1 proceeded to say that if the Crown's construction was correct, and these regulations were to be interpreted literally, then such despotic power 1 would be placed in the hands of the Government as would be beyond the dreams of an Oriental potentate. "I contended, and would repeat the contention to-morrow, that if these regulations wero to be interpreted as the Crown insisted they should be interpreted, then in New Zealand to-day there would be a drastic and despotic restriction 01 reasonable free speech in criticism of the Government that has no parallel in England, Canada, or Australia, perhaps even in Germany itself. I regard the first duty of a barrister engaged in his profession in defence of a man's liberty to place clearly before the Court such construction of the law or regulations under which a man is being tried as may be reasonably nd fairly presented in his defence, fearlessly to maintain that defence, even though it should incur the displeasure of tho Attorney-General himself*

" How far the Attorney-General deems it consistent with his office as official head of the legal profession to attack a fellowbarrister for making the best defence he can for a man who has entrusted the safeguarding of his liberty to him, must be left to those who know Mr, Herdman better than I do."

The ground on which the Hon. A. L. Herdman condemned Sir John Findlay's utterances was that they were calculated to revive the spirit of disaffection and un« rest that was beginning to exhibit itself in formidable shape in New Zealand after the anti-conscription triumph in Australia. He believed that tho speech %as harmful because it had been delivered by an eminent barrister, who was also a member of Parliament and an ex-Minister of the Crown, who had been honoured by his Sovereign, and because it would be misunderstood. As an instanco of how the speech had been interpreted, the Attorney-General mentioned that in an advertisement of a Socialist lecture on " Divine Right of Free Speech" in a Christchurch newspaper, extracts had been published as follows:!-" Hark to Sir John Findlay, M.P. * There was far greater freedom of speech in England to-day than in New Zealand.' ' The safety of the people depended upon tho liberty of the subject." "