LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.

Inangahua Times, Volume IX, Issue 1425, 1 August 1884, Page 2

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.

(S?.+m'day Re v ie w. ) The Lord Chief Jostice lias during the last week or ten clays tried a remarkable case of libel. What is the limit of permissible criticism is an inquiry which at once suggfisrs almost innumerable shades of doubtful disputation. Yet it is not so very Ion? since 12 or 15 judges met to decide what an assault really \va?, and succeeded only in putting us all to ignorance again ; while every text-book on the law of torts or crimes will glibly inform the inquisitive reader that a libel is a writing, printed matter, picture, or sign which holds any one up to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. Dr Johnson has induced " the palladium of British liberty " to set its heel, if it has one, upon the. freedom of the Press. It would be difficult, indeed, to exaggerate the loftiness of the position, which " twelve men in a box " have, assigned to Dr Johnson. They have elevated him above criticism, and made it, if not a Star Chamber, at least a Queen's Bench Division matter, to find fault with him. Dv Johnson, whose very name we write with fear and trembling, is the Coroner for Canterbury ; and it is, as we now gather, the function of the Kentish newspa« pel's, if they presume to mention him at all, to speak of him in the language of unqualified e^Ogium. " Please lot it be all praise," said the very sincere lady to Mr Hay ward when she asVd him to review her book. "Mind it is nothing but praise," says Dv Johnson to the journalists of Kent ; and his opinion is approved and sanctioned by the unanimous verdict of a special jury. If Dr Johnson is about to hold an inquest, the Press must say '" 11 aura raison." While he is engaged in that solemn task, it must mutter, if it presume to break the silenoo, "11 a raixon" When he. has finished, it must say as a sort of grace, " 11 avait raison"

The Kentish Observer either did not understand, or refused to follow, this ■ latest version of " Crownei''a Quest Law." It presumed to suggest that Dr Johnson likes to pose as a coroner," and, " puffed up with the supposed importance of the position he holds, is determined that the - ovld shall soe how ridiculous it is possible even fov a professional man to muke himself vv'ieu vanity takes the pla.ee of common - sense." Exceptiou might easily be taken on liierary grounds to this lucid and melodious sentence. The derivatives of the verb ponere are a? conspicuous by their presence- at sim.-le and straightforward English is by ii,s absences That, however, was noli the qaeslion which the jury hud to decide. Dr Johnson is a public ofiioutt, and the mauuer in which he discharges his duties is a matter of general concern. No doubt a coroner is a vevy groat man especially in his own estimation ; but the kind of sacro-sanctity which he claims for himself, and which a jury has by implication. admitted that he possesses, is something new in English law. " Terrible thiugs, and the strongest of all," tays the Greek poet, I " yield authority/ The English Press, j 6u\6k^\Q^Ayk pttlie Areepagi'lqa, has had a chequered and aHroublsd history. Ifc has successfully defied the Cou.-t. the House of Lords, the House of Commons, the? judges of th<? land, to curtail its privileges or weaken its power. Is the '* liberty of unlicensed pointing " uestiued to fall before the attack of the Govoner for Canterbury add Depatycoroner for West Kent ? Dr John ton seems to be one of those coroners who think that they might to know all about it. Another coroner held an inquest not long since in the neighbourhood of London co ascertain whether a medical man had committed suicide, aud. as there was no doubt about the fact, proceeded to spevid the public time in inquiring what had beeu the poor man's relations with his parL.ier, and what was the truth about a charge against his moral character. Dr Johnson had to investigate the cause of a poor woman's death who had declined to cuter the workhouse, and had been refused outdoor relief. He thought the opportunity favourable for a denunciation of the poor-law, and for some good sound rating of the Canterbury Guardians. The Guardians not unnaturally objected to this, and their objection was supported by the Tu*vn Council, which memorialised the Lord Chancellor, who would Mot interfere. Iv these circumstances the Kentish Observer took up the matter, and exhorted the impenitent 'coroner with so j much force that he brought his action I for libel. The opinion expressed by the Kentish Observer was that Dr Johnson was unfit for his post. T«iat may be an erroneous view. Similiar strictures wave often passed upon the late Lord Beacon sh'eld, and are constantly being directed against Mr Gladstone. Yet actions of libel did not and do not ensue. The famous instance of the statesman who was described as " a political cheapjack, only anxious to obtain a public appointment," was mentioned by Lord Coleridge. That was held to be a fair criticism, though certainly much more severe than anything said by the Kentish Observer of Dr Johnson. "Kidicule," said Lord Ellenborougli with sense and truth, " is often the fittest weapon that can be employed to expose the follies and errors of another. A man may make use of ridicule in such cases ; where would ' be the liberty of the Press if it were the ground of action V Lord Ellenborough was not the. man to lay undue stress iipon popular rights; quite the contrary. But he was a robust, soundminded Englishman who hated cant, and despised the querulous mawkishness that resents plain speaking as a grievance. Sydney Smith expanded with characteristic irony the meaning of Lord Ellenborough. " There is nothing,*' says that worthy Canon in the third of his immortal letters to Archdeacon Singleton, " there is noth ing pompous gentlemen are so much afraid of as a lit. le humour. It is like (the objection of certain cephalic anhnalciila to the use of small-tooth combs, • Finger and thumb, precipitate powder, or anything else you please, but for heaven's sake no small-tooth combs." We hesitate to say it after what has occurred, but surely Dr Johnson's fitness for his post is, after all, like the fitness of Mr Gladstone for his, a matter of opinion. In the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, who is, we believe, chief coroner of Eng : gland, Dr Johnson has "certainly shown great ignorance of the duties of his office." Yet for saying so the Kentish Observer has to pay Dr Johnson a hundred pounds, besides all the costs of the trial.