The Star. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1902. THE LAW OF LIBEL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7504, 11 September 1902, Page 2

The Star. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1902. THE LAW OF LIBEL.

With member* of the House of Representatives feverishly counting the Ibours which intervene between now and the early end of a- brief session, it is useless, presumably, to hope that time will be found for any legislation "save that of the most urgent character. It is one of the beautiful commentaries on our political system, that, through a long line of precedent, Parliament should have come to be looked upon/as of practically a fixed duration, sessionally. It is roughly regarded as " a six months of the year," function, and should it ran over this tacitly allotted span. 1 , tberepresentatives of the people, who are paid a 'substantial annual honorarium, actually imagine that they have a grievance against the Government, and pose as martyrs to the necessities of an unfeeling country. If The House were to sit, as it ought, as long as there was business of importance for it to transact, the sessions would probably last very little longer than they do now, for there would be less disposition on the part of unruly members to talk " Hansard," and more attempts 'at honest legislative work. The undignified scramble for the loaves and fishes of public works which we shall witness in a few days will be follow* ed by the inevitable scuttering scatter to the constituencies, where electioneering campaigns have to be vigorously prosecuted. There will be the inevitable slaughter of the innnocenta, several crying reforms will be quietly ' labelled * '' by-and-by," and dropped into the political ?• hellbox," and a number of subjects, upon Which the country could we'll do with a little live and discreet legislation, will not eveni be mentioned. Probably the law of libel will be included in this category. The most that has been heard upon this subject this sessicn/ has been, the-discussion wfoich b;a« centred round Mr Fisher's abominable Bill which, if placed upon the Statute Book, would practically clofce the nroubh of every newspaper in the colony. In the light of some of Mr Fisher's privileged' utterances within the sanctuary of Parliament, it is easy to understand 'his repeated tirades against the Press and (his anxiety to see decent journalism* gagged as effectually as .possible. ■ Indeed, his opposition to any reform of the law of libel is • i» reality one of the strongest arguments in its favour. Neither the Press nor the politician has demanded any so> extensive an alteration of the existing law as would foster the growth of any violent form of yellow journalism', and, as a matter of fact, if all that were asked were granted it would! be the public quite as much as the newspapers vAu> wotild reap the advantage. AH measure of protection against mem of straw and the right of reporting proceedings ofl public interest is surely not_rauch, to ask ofl a country which ha« placed equally grave responsibilities with justifiable confidence in far less experienced hands. 'Several suggestions have been made for alterations irt the existing law, the most ready of which would be a revival of the Hon H. Feldvrick's Defamation Bill, a law which' is stated to have worked eminently, satisfactorily in other colonies, ■and which is simplicity itself. Even a hurried House might find time to consider a short measure upon it« lines, and if the Government should take the initiative it would not be its least wise action of the session.