Attack on the King.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume III, Issue 150, 16 May 1901, Page 1

Attack on the King.

1 London, May 12. The Times says tho newspaper Irisfe People was sezed after publication, an<J many copies have been sold. It container! a foul unci obscene attack on the King in connection with Archbishop Vaughan and the English Catholic? recently presenting a loyal address. Thj libel was comparable in falsehood and bad taste to the wor-t outbreaks of tho Fee:.ch gutter press during tho Fashoda period. In the ff< n- of Commons Mr Wyndham said the seizure tvan affected w thou* warrant under the common law which authorised the preservation of ovidenco end tho -proven ring of crime by the farther of seditious libel. M: John Dillon, to moving tho idjournmont of'the House, did no£ attempt f o justify the language used by the paper, bur. con«>);v>d the snppres-don. of freedom. The Viceroy of Ireland, Mr Wyndra-n. nor the Honsa of Common? were competent to judge what was sedition. Ic wes a question for the Court . Mr Redmond,-in seconding the motion, said the Executive was in rea'ity at.empung to suppress the United Irish League. Mi- Wyndham, replying, claimed personal in tiuive and responsibility for the SHizn-e of the publication. It was a gross and sc -ndalous libel, and he would no soil his lips by reading the outrageous, scandalous, scurrilous, and loathsome Mse atucks on the King, and offend the ears of members of the House i( or wound t,h« feeding-of millions of th 6 King's subje its ! h ou o 'hoafc the world. Not only would tho Government suppress it, hut it was the duty of any loyal subject to intervene. The libs? was couched in language fouler than any used abroad in regard to the late revered Queen, and a prosecution wouhS probably do more harm than good. In the Irish Peoples debate in fciis Home of C'omm ms Mr Balfour, in the coun-6 of his speech, asked: "la thf publ cation of an obscene libel 5. necessary weapon of political agiration? v The question was received with angry Nationalist protests. Mr Balfour continued, "Why, then, did they, what ig described >is the leading organ, sti;cp to tho use of the foul aud poisonous weapon of • edifcious and obscene libel ? v Owing to bis very high position the King was less able than any of hip subjects to repel attacks. A gross offence against decency and morals had boen committed. The suppression 0$ navscom attache on t ! ;e private character of the Sovereign did not affect; the groat and sacred cause of freedom ,cc <\v* press. Mr Asquith re-echoed Mr Balf ui's sentiment. The motion for adjournment was negatived by 25? against 64 Ten Radicals voted with the Ministry, and a number of Liberals and Radical abstained from voting, objecting to Mr Wyndham acting judicially, andthe police not being furnished with. warrants'. The bulk of the \ot'-d with tho Government. The Irish; People has made a long series of on the Government and the Empire, and there is a concensus of opinion that the latest articles will create antagonism between t'-e English Catholics and thj! United Irish League.