FOUL LIBEL ON THE KING.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 13 May 1901, Page 4

FOUL LIBEL ON THE KING.

(PER PRK93 ASSOCIATION. —COPYBIGHT.)

London, May 12,

The Times says that the ‘lrish People’ was seized after the publication and many of the copies had been sold. It contained a foul and obaence attack on the King in connection with Archbishop Vaughan and the English Catholics recently presenting a loyal address. The libel is comparable in falsehood and bad taste to the worst outbreaks of the French “gutter Press” during the.Fashoda period. In the House of Commons Mr Wyndham said that the seizure was effected without a warrant under common authorism for the preservation of evidence and the prevention of crime by the further dissemination of seditious libel.

Mr John Dillon in moving the adjournment did not attempt to justify the language used in the paper, but censured the suppression of the freedom of the Viceroy of Ireland. Neither Mr Wyndham nor the Commons were competent to judge what was sedition. It was a question for the Courts.

Mr Redmond in seconding the motion said that the Executive were in reality attempting to suppress the United Irish League. Me Wyndham in replying claimed the personal initiative and responsibility for the seizure. The publication was a gross and scandalous libel, and he would not soil his lips by reading the outrageous, scandalous, scurrilous, loathsome fal-e attacks on iho King and offend the ears of the members of the House and wound ihe feelings of millions of his subjects throughout; the world. Not only would the Government suppress it, but it 'was the duty of any loyal subject to intervene. The libel was couched in language that was fouler than any used abroad in regard to the late reverend Queen. A prosecution would probably do more harm than good. In the Irish People debate in the House of Commons the Hon Mr Balfour, in the course of bis speech, asked—ls the publication an obscene libel necessary as a weapon of political agitation ? (The question was received with angry Nationalist protests.) Mr Balfour continued —Why, then, did what is described as a leading organ stoop to the use of the foul and poisonous weapon of seditions and obscene libel ? Owing to his very high position,

the King was loss able than any of his subjects to repel attacks. A gross offence against decency and morals had been committed. If the Nationalists were aggrieved the courts ' - re open to them. The suppression of attacks on the private character of the Sovereign did not affect the great, and sac cd cause of the freedom of the Press.

Mr Asquith re-echoed Mr Balfour s sentiments.

The motion for the adjournment was negatived by 252 against 64.

Ten Eadicals voted with the minority. A number of Liberals and Radicals abstained from voting, objecting to Mr Wyndham acting judicially with the police not being furnished with warrants.

The bulk of the Liberals voted with the Government.

The “Irish People” has made a long series of attacks on the Government and the Empire, and there is a consensus of opinion that the latest article will create antagonism between the English Catholics and the United Irish League.