A SCURRILOUS AND SEDITIOUS IRISH JOURNAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 100, 13 May 1901, Page 2

A SCURRILOUS AND SEDITIOUS IRISH JOURNAL.

* PER PTJESS ASSOCIATION. Kcceived 11, 4.39 p.m. London, May 11. In the' Irish People debite in the House cf Commons Mr. B.ilfour, in the cour.-e of lis speech asked " It the publication of an obscene libel a, neeeg«arl7 weapon of political agitation ?" The question was rec9ived v.iUi angry N:ii ioualist protests. Mr. Balfour con:.it.u d " why, tli"D, did what is described as Lho hading organ stoop to use such a foul, poisoaous weapon u seditious and obscene libel ?" Offing to Lis very high position the King was If ss abls than any of h's fubjects to •ep 1 such attacks. A grots offence n«sinst de."f"cy and morals had been committed. If iho Nationalists were aggrieved the courts when open to them. T ho suppression of nauseous nt'acks of a piv.ite character on the Sovereign did not aflect the great sicrod ciuso of freedom of the Press, Mr. A qji'.h ra-ichood Mr. Bi.l'our's sentiments. The. motion for adjournnienfc wait negative I hy 252 agiinst 64. voted wilh the minority aud a nuuob;r cf Liberals and Radicals phstainod from voting, otj«cting to Mr. Wyndbam acting judic : »lly and to the i) lice i o bfing furnished with 'warrants. The bulk of the Liberal) voted with tin Government. The Jrith People li;i- undo a long series of attacks on t.'irt Govcinm r nt mid die Empire, and then n h c >n< en-.us 'pin'on cbat the lutost Hi'tifle will create antagonism ' etween English Catholics and the Uni ed liish Leag'ie. K ceived 12, 4.39 p.m. London, May 13. The 7imes says the Irish People was -(ized after publication, ar.d many copies sold contained a foul obscene attick oi* the King in confection with Arch' isliop Vuughan and th» English Catholics reoeut y presenting a loyal address. The libel is comparable in falsehood and bad taste to the worst outbreaks of tho French gutter press during the Fashoda period.

In the House of Commons Mr, Wycdham said the seizure was effected without warrant under the common law which authorised the preservation of evidence and the proven'ion of crime by further disstmiba'ion of seditions libel.

Mr. John Dillon moved the adjournment c-f the House. He did Lot attempt to jtis'i f y the language used in the paper, but cersured the fuppreesien of freedom. Neither the Viceroy of In land, Mr. Wyndham, cor the flouts of Commons w*re competent to judge what whs sedition. It was a question fortheCVurtft.

Mr. H'duionJ, in se;-on<finj{ tbe motion, Bftid !,Le Jjxt-t'u'ive in leility were at'empting to suppitsa the United Irish LcHguo, M'. Wyndham, rrplyiug, claimed a personal initiative in the i espousibility for tbe seizure. The publication was a gross, fcundalouß libel. He would not soil lv's lips by reading it. It was outrageous ar.d t-csndalnus that such scurrilous and loathsome false attacks should bj made en tU> Kiiijr, and that. ofl'endoi s .should be membeis of the Tl'.uso. It would wound the f<j< lines of millions of the King's cubjoets th'ouj>hcut tins woild. Not only would tho Government suppress it, but it was tho duty of 1 yd subjo.-t? to assist. The libel was ci uch d in language ■onb 1 tbiiii ai>y usk'l abroad with reg.ird to tho into reveal A piosecii'.ion wi uld probably dj more .'Hi in ti'UM gojd.