LIBELLING THE QUEEN.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2256, 10 June 1880, Page 2

LIBELLING THE QUEEN.

SECOND EDITION

A SCENE IN THE VICTORIAN ASSEMBLY. On Tuesday, May 25, a somewhat lively scene occurred in the Victorian Assembly, Two of the members, Clark by name, are proprietors of the “ Williamstown Advertiser,” and the discussion arose through Mr Zox calling attention to a paragraph which appeared in that journal. The paragraph was as follows : “ We are now fully supplied with a list of the new (Gladstone) Ministry, and the further intelligence that the result of the elections has completely upset the plans of Her Gracious Majesty and the Prince of Wales, inasmuch as, 1 suppose, they have fully calculated on a release of the great Jingo party that has succeeded during its term of office in bringing the nation into contempt and disrepute. What a blood-red page the renegade Jew mountebank lias written in the history of our country. A seven years’ bountiful harvest for the reaper of Death ; and the net results, titled distinction to the charletan, an obese, not overburdened with brain, old woman dabbed Empress, Zulu murders, Afghan massaces, and millions added to the national burden !”

Cries of “ Shame !” followed the reading of the paragraph, and Mr Zox asked Mr Clark, the member for Williamstown whether lie was willing to undertake the responsibility of those opinions, expressed in a paper of which he was rcprietor.

Mr A. T. Clark (in answer to the hon. mem tier) —I desire to ask how much he paid his creditors in the pound. Mr Zox said his reason for asking the hon. member for Williamstown whether he assumed the responsibility of the paragraph was to give him an opportunity of making the explanation which an}' honorable man or any Englishman would desire.

Mr Clark—l pay 20s in the £. (“Shame.”) Mr Zox said that any man who had (ho slightest feeling of patriotism would have risen at once, and have denied in a straight-forward way that such a disgusting article had ever appeared in his paper. (Cheers.) His creditors had pronounced an opinion upon him by returning him to Parliament twice despite Ids commercial misfortunes; but if Williamstown was loyal, and if it believed in Her Majesty, it would never send that bon. gentleman back to represent—or misrepresent—its intcrcsst. This was a question of very great importance. Here was a gentleman occupying the position of a member of Parliament, of one of Her Majesty’s justices of the peace, and of an officer in a volunteer corps, disseminating, in Ids newspaper rag, such opinions and such sentiments as had been read with respect to Her Majesty. To put himself in order, he moved the adjournment of the House.

Mr Clark replied that the printer and publisher were responsible. Would it astonish the bon. member if he (Mr Clark) were to produce an English print containing the exact expression which was complained of, and show that it was an extract from a paper published in London ? (Laughter.) He would engage to show the lion, member a copy of “ Bradiangh on the Royal Family,” which contained matter much worse than this paragraph ; and although Bradiangh was a member of the House of Commons, lie had not seen that any member of the lion, member’s (Mr Zox’s) persuasion had asked him whether he was the author of that book.

Mr W. M. Clark (brother of the previous speaker) said he accepted the responsibility of the article. Mr Nimmo, Mr Carter, and Mr J. Jones expressed their disgust at the paragraph, and their opinion that the answers of the lion, member were nnsatisfactorv.

Mr Francis suggested to the hon. member for Williamstown that ho should now in Ids cool moments admit that the language in question was unwise and in exceedingly bad taste.

Mr A. T. Clark—l call it gross impertinence to refer to my private affairs. On the following day Mr W. M. Clark expressed regret that the paragraph had appeared in his paper • (hear, hear) —and had he seen it before it appeared, ho should certainly have struck it out. Mr A. T. Clark said he Saw no cause to apologise to the House, which had no right to hold him responsible for what appeared in the paper in question. He was free to admit, bowerer, that be did not for one moment justify the use of such language, and under an}r circumstances he would! never think of using such language about any woman, whether she were the Queen of England or any other woman. It was well known his views were republican, but be would never write a line against any woman in the press.

Mr Zox said that if the hon. member had spoken in this strain on the previous evening, he would have been quite content.