LIBELLING THE KING.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12538, 27 June 1901, Page 4

LIBELLING THE KING.

The offence for -which Mr Findley ihas been punfcibed "by tie Vrotarnan PsriaaMteat musfc '))8 heinous dndeedi if i* justifies the' esteems measures adJopted by his felcnvHrembers. The libel on the King publidbied! by the "Irish People" is diesarihed as a particularly outrageous promotion, and its republication, after the punishment of -.the person originally responsible, is a very grave misdemeam'our. But wa are not concerned just now either -with tho character of the libel or the degree of the author's guilt. W© have little sympathy for Mr Findley, -who, as the publisher of the paper, is legally responsible for its articles, but the method of his punishment raises an important question of principle. Mr Findley -was mot proceeded against for libel in the ordinary way, we presume, because a Court case would cause the wider publication of the offensive article, and the Victorian Parliament simply constituted itself his judge. There are precedents in the British House ocf Commons for the expul'sion. of a member for an offence which has not been prowd against him, but they are rare, and belong to itiiQ more passionate days of the eighteenth, century. Expulsion, according to Erskinei May, is generally reserved for offences which render members unfit for a seat in Parliament, and which, if nob so punished, would bring discredit on Parliament itself. Had Mr Findley been morally, as well as legally, (responsible for the publication of the libel on tibfl King there could have been no question concerning the justice of Ms expulsion. But everyone knows that •&© moral and the legal responsibility for the publicataoik of articles are two vastly different things. As often as not it happens that the registered: publisher of a newspaper has no cognisance, indeed, can have none, of the mature of the matter printed. If Mr Findley's statement of his position ss .correct, he had no control over the matter published in his paper, and when he had declared his allegiance to the King, had! repudiated all knowledge of %he publication, had stated bis entire diisapproval of the sentiments, complained of, and had; nouncedi Ms intention of severing his connection with the paper, the legislative Assembly might reasonably have accepted his declaration. It could not, in the circumsfjsnoes, hold him guilty of "conduct unbecoming the character of a gentleman, 10 nor could' it regard him l as unfit to hold a seat in Parliament. It might have marked its sense of displeasure at Mr Findley's connection with the newspaper by suspending him for a period, a pundshment that, to our mind!, would! have been quite heavy enough. But the mearbars of the Victorian Assembly seem to have allowed their feelings to get the better of their judgment, affected probably by the wave of perfervid loyalty that is sweeping over the colonies just now. The Assembly should, we think, have idistmguished between tide moral and legal lespanabdiEties in the case. As it is, its action proves that justice is not obtainable, even in the Assembly of th© people's representatives. The Assembly alone oannob create a new disability, so that there is nothing to prevent Mr Findley seeking re-election, and we pr«3ume that he will adopt this course. The electors, «fter all, are tho onlypeoplo competent to decide whether he is fit to represent them or not, amd Victoria is poor indeed if sts people 'have no better appreciation of theaneaning of juslicejtlhaa the -ma|orit^of^.ithe.^twfce'^Ae w y