PARLIAMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1590, 21 October 1905, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

A STONEWALL. (Per Press Association.) Wellington, yoßterdßy. On the ITouso rcuming at 7.80 las* night Mr Seddun refurrod to the faot that the debate on the Loan Bill bud been fixed for that hour, but bn movod that tho interrupt :d dobalo on tho Criminal Code Bill should bo altovvod to procood. Mr Horrii.n objected to suoh n proposal, urging that the Lean Bill ought to bo proceeded with. Besides, the Criminal Code BUI was only taken on the underst Hiding that it should only go on till 5 80. Evcryono know that it was not going to pass, end it was only a waste of time to further discuss it. Mr Ma**oy made a etmilar protest, ana pointed out that tbo postponement of tbe Loan Hill hud boon made for the Premier a convenience. The present proposal was a distinct breach of faith. Mi- Soddou urged that under ibe circumstances it would bo advisable to go on with this Bill. .. The motion lo postpone the Loan cm was carried by 41 to 22, No other member rose to speak, ana Mr McGown replied. Liberty, bo said, was not interfered wilh by the Bill. It WM license tboy proposed to interfere with. At present a man could use tho harshest language, and if he had no means there was no way of getting at him. He could not see how such a Bill could be dangerous, except to a dangerous men. Ho 1 desired to keep the greatest liberty of speech aud of tho press, but he wanted to ) do away with tbo liberty of abuse, and if - this Bill was passed they would be able to ■ give greater liberty to the press. Tbepro* I p;j«cd Bill was tbo law in England and 1 Queensland, and should be the law be™* t Tho second reading was carried by 48 t 0 Bill was then considered in Com* - mittee. Some discussion took place as to - the nossible effects of the Bill, Mr Moss

Hue pUBBLUiO DUCUUO Wi. - suggesting that it was designed to frighten candidates at the general election from indulging in too much freedom of speech. It was pointed out, too, that an ill-judgeu or hasty remark at a mothers’ meeting might render the speaker liable to a criminal prosecution for defamation. Sir W. Russell contended that under this proposal a person who used hasty words in a fit of temper could be criminally prosecuted and sent to gaol. Mr Seddon replied that it was only to exticme cases that criminal prosrcuiion would be taken, where people who had nothing to lose deliberately made rash statements, and not only that but declared they would continue to do so unless largo *nm3 of money were paid them. Every respectable newspaper met with such cases. If they passed this Bill he was quite prepared to ask the House to put the press on a better footing as regards the law of libel. In tbe interests of tbe 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 Duthie did not think there wbs any need for the Bill at all, either in regard to speakers or the press. Bills suoh as this 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 Fisher opposed the Bill, which, he said, proposed that a man might be prosecuted on the word of two scoundrels for using words whieh he never uttered. If, as was proposed in the Bill, a man oould be made liable far udng words in a conversation on a street corner it was an 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 out tbe difficulty of making spoken words a defamatory libcL Words were so oapable of being misunderstood, so difficult to remember, bo difficult to swear to accurately. By passing such a Bill members would be striking at ths rocts of their own liberties and right, in order to meet an exceptional case, Mr Seddon admitted tho diffioulty of proving what words were used, but pointed out that the same difficulty occurred in actions for slander at present. There was, ha also admitted, a danger of two people conspiring against a third, but tho .magistrate and toe jury would be sufficient safeguard in such oases. Mr Bautne suggested an amendment providing that spoken words should not constitute criminal defamation unless they were spoken in tbe presence of not less than ten persons. Mr Herdman asked whether there had been any publio demand for the Bill, There was no proof either of a demand or a necessity for tbe Bill. It was one of the most important Bills introduced during the session, and yet it was introduced in the last few days. Mr Tanner moved to amend clause 2 (tho operative clause) by adding a proviso to amend the 1901 definition of " defamatory libel " in tbe direction of excluding from that definition matter likely to injure a man’s reputation by exposing him to ridicule.

Mr Moss moved a prior amendment to strike out the first word of the clause, with the object of rejecting the olause. Mr Taylor said that a comprehensive Libel Bill should be brought down nest session. The. question was not one to attack pieoemeal, and the present Bill should be held over. At 10.55 Mr 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 publio place within the meaning of the Aofc of 1884.

After the telegraph offioe closed the Criminal Code Amendment Bill was further considered in Committee. The discussion on olause 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. If two or throe members thought they were going to coerce the House they might as well postpone tho end of the session for a week. He offered as a compromise to amend the olause to make it provide that' defamatory libel in spoken words shall not exist unless Buoh words ate spoken at a meeting to which persons are invited by letter, notice or advertisement,or in a publio road, street, park, wharf, Dali or room, or within the hearing oi a given number of persons.

Mr Herries objected to this, on tbs ground that it did not proteot Parliamentary candidates in the forthcoming campaign, who might adversely criticise tho Government administration, ri Towards 7 B - m ‘» Messrs Taylor and Bedford wore principally responsible for carrying on the disoussion, which was still proceeding at 8 a.m. The sitting was continued in Committoe.

j At 11 a.m. Mr Herries’ amendment to postpone the operation of the B 11 was lost £ d J. tO 17- At 11.30 Mr Allen entered Iho discussion, followed by Messrs Duthie, [ tierdman and Massey, ah on the motion to report progress. At 12.15 Mr MoNab le.ioved tho Chairman. At 1p m . the Chairman adjourned the sitting for lunoh ou tbo voices. The Council met at 11 a.m. Several looal Bibs passed second readings and Committee stages. At noon, owing to the death of the Hon. Mr Peacock, the Counoil adjourned until <6 OU.

AFTERNOON SITTING. * „ Wellia ßton. lasi night. The stonewall on the Criminal Code Amendment Bill proceeded throughout without any progress being EVENING SITTING. The Council resumed at 7.30, [ The Work vs Dwellings Bills was read I a seoond time. STONEWALL CONTINUES. The House resumed at 7 30. The stouewali on tho Criminal Code Amendment Bill was oontiuuei throughout the evening, and at midnight there wero no sigua of a compromise being artived at, 6