House of Representatives.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 8278, 20 October 1905, Page 6

House of Representatives.

The House met at 2.30 p.m

the COST 01' parliament. Sir Joseph Ward presented a return showing that the cost of Parliament per day was £46 2s 9i exclusive of statutory expenses and expenses of Hansard. the totalisator. The Public. Petitions Committee referred to the Government for consideration several petitions praying for the abolition of the totalisator. , second readings. The - second reading of. the Public Trustees Amendment Bill which is chiefly of a technical nature was read and was agreed to on the voices. The Hon. C. H. Mills moved the second reading of the Methylated Spirits Bill, which is designed to prevent the cleaning of methylated spirit for any purpose whatever and for rendering it fit for use as a perfume, beverage or food for human use, Mr T. M. Wilford said he intended to oppose the Bill at every stage, as it would kill every firm manufacturing varnishes and oerfumes.

Mr J. A. Millar (Dunedin) 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 recommendations of a resoonsible officer of the Customs Department. He' urged that the Bill should be read a second time and then let it stand over till next session. Mr Seddon said the Bill had been introduced because it was stated there had been evasion of the law and a loss of revenue. Mr Millar said he was willing to withdraw his amendment if the Bill were 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. BILLS PASSED. The Public Trust Office Amendment Bill and the Victoria College Bill were put through Committee without material amendment, and was read a third time and passed. LIBEL. The Hon. J. 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 speech liable to punishment in the same way as a printed or written defamatory libel is punishable.

The Leader of tie Opposition 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 T. E. Taylor considered the Bill was fraught with the gravest clanger, and it might just as well have been termed " A Meikie, 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 spc?ch 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 fiw days of the close of the session the Government were trying to undo the work of centuries. "Mr Seddon denied that the Bill aimed at curtailing the freedom of speech and Said it look-id 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 publicplatforms by certain persons from private spleen, and in some cases the people were the nefarious, agents of other persons. It was regrettable that there were very many men who would be an ornament to Parliam?nt and the Colony who were prey, nted from offering their services to the people by the menace of these unscrupulous men. Neither Mr Meikie or anyone else had a right lo slander others and take away their character without taking the responsibility. It seemed as if Mr Taylor had constituted himS2if a special pleader for Messrs Meikie and Braund. No other interpretation could be placed upon the speech of the Member for Christchurch that afternoon. In conclusion, Mr Seddon said he proposed next session, if he were in power, to ask Parliament to remove the disabilities'from the press so as to givj 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 referred at some length to the charges that had been made against him from the public platform in connection with the Colonial Bank shares, which he vchemen'ly denied and characterised them as " dirty, cowardly and blackguardly." He had been treated in a blackguardly manner in regard to his private affairs, and he said that in this country no man or woman was safe from the foulest slander from the public pLtform. The only thing a man, who was attacked in this fashion, could do was to bring civil action against the slanderer and the only satisfaction he would have would be the pleasure of paying the shnderer's costs. S.r Jtseph went on to say that ho was quite willing that his every action in connection w.th the Colonial Bank should be proclaimed from th i house-tops. A certain person had attempted lo blackmail him in connection with the Colonial Bank matter. Sir Joseph's answe; was to let the man do his worst.. He would not pay a penny to shut his mouth. " If I can get at him under the criminal law," paid Sir Joseph, " I will do it as sure as my name is Joseph Ward."

When the House resumed at 7.30, Mr Seddon rcfeired to the fact that the debate on the Loan Bill had been fixed for that hour, but Ii- moved that the interrupted debate shculi be allowed to proceed.

The motion to postpone the Loan Bill was carried by 41 to 22.

No other member rose to speak, and the Hod. J. McGo.'.an replied. Liberty, he said, was not interfered with by the Bill. It was license they proposed to interfere with. At present a man could U3e the harshest language, and if he had no means there was no

way of getting at him. Ho could not sco how-such a Bill could bo 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 the liberty of abuse. If this Bill were passed, they would be able to give greater liberty to tho Press. Tho proposod Bill was tho law in England.and Queensland, and should be the law here. .

The second reading was carried by 46 to 21.

Tho Bill was then considered in Committee,

Some discussion took place as to the possible effects of tho Bill, Mr Moss suggesting that it was designed to frighten candidates at tho gcnoral election from indulging in too much freedom of spoech. It was pointed out, too, that an ill-judged or hasty remark at a mothers' meeting might render the speaker liable to a criminal prosecution for defamation. Sir William Russell contended that under this proposal a person who used hasty words in a lit of temper could bo criminally prosecuted and sent to giol. Mr Seddon said that it was only in extreme cases that criminal prosecution would be taken, where paoplo who had nothing to lose deliberately made rash statements, and not only that, but declared they would continue to do so unless largo sums of money wero paid them. Every respoctable newspaper met with such cases. If they passed this Bill ho was quite prepared to ask the House to put tho Press on a better footing as regards the law of libel. In the interests of the women of the Colony such a law as this was needed. At present a woman who was slandered only had the protection of a civil action. What remedy was that against a person without means ? Mr J. Duthie did not think there was any need for the Bill at all either in regard to speakers or the Press. Bills such as these 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 or Judge would allow the law to be used in an improper manner. Mr F. M. B. Fisher opposed the Bill, which, he said, proposed that a man might be prosecuted on the word of two scoundrels on a charge of having used 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 interference 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 cut 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 be striking at the roots of their own liberties and rights in order lo meet an exceptional case. Mr Seddon admitted the difficulty of proving what words were used, but he pointed out that the same difficulty o:curred in actions for slander at present. There was, he also admitted, clanger of two people conspiring against a third ; but the Magistrate and'the jury would be a sufficient safeguard in such a case. Mr F. E. Baume (Auckland) suggested that spoken words should not constitute criminal defamation unless they were spoken in the presence of not less than ten persons. Mr A. L. Herdman (Mount Ida) asked whether there had been any public demand for the Bill. There was no proof either of demand or of necessity for the Bill. It was one of the most important Bills introduced during the session, and yet it was introduced in the last few days. Mr W. W. Tanner (Avon) 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 E. G. B. Moss (Ohinemuri) 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 next session. The question was not one to attack piece-meal, and the present Bill should be held over.

At 10.55 Mr J. Duthie moved to report progress, which was lost by 40 votes to 23.

Mr Seddon intimated that he was prepared to accept an amendment that the clause refer to words spoken in a public place within the meaning of the Act of 1884.