REDS OVERSTEPPED BOUNDS OF LIBERTY

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 2312, 3 December 1925, Page 7

REDS OVERSTEPPED BOUNDS OF LIBERTY

Criminal Conspiracy Against Constitution HR MacDONALD’S PLEA FOB FREE SPEECH FAILS [By Electric Cable —Copyright.] [Aust. and N.Z. Cable Association.] (Received- Wednesday, 8 p.m.) LONDON, December 1. In the House of Commons, a Labour member, Mr. W. Adamson, who persisted in Ignoring the deputy Speaker's ruling that he could not ask an urgent question, was, amid disorder, on Mr. Churchill’s motion, suspended by 260 votes to 01. An angry scene ended in Commander NVcdgewood Benn moving a private Bin providing that no person shall be convicted for expressing an opinion Tbe Hill was a read first time. Mr. MacDonald moved a censure motion upon th 6 institution, of the Communists’ prosecution as a violation of human rights and freedom of speech. His party were not Communists. but actively opposed to the Communists. It was not a question of the soundness or unsoundness of Communist doctrines, but whether the prosecution was a service or a disservice to the State. A man had the right to express his belief that revolution was inevitable for the transformation of Society, but if he sought to create revolution, then let him take the consequences. Communists created a reflex public sympathy. Sir W. Joynson-Hicks, in replying, said there must be some limits to liberty, if liberty was to be maintained. There was as much freedom in England to-day as before the war. The Communists were not prosecuted for the advocation of an alteration of the Constitution, but for attempting that alteration by violence and unconstitutional means. The Communists knew there was no hope of altering the Constitution by means of the ballot box and sought by moans of disorder to produce revolution and civil war. No member of the Government had interfered with the prosecution one iota. ... ■ Sir D. Hogg, in replying, accepted solo responsibility for the prosecution. The evidence showed there was a criminal conspiracy against the State. Th e penalty for the same offence In Moscow wou’d have been death. Everyone in the country was entitled to fr'e e speech, but it was against the law to attempt to stir up one’s fellowcitizens to revolt. The motion was defeated by 351 votes to 127.