LIBEL ON THE KING.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 12377, 10 February 1911, Page 5

LIBEL ON THE KING.

. .•>_ DRAMATIC SCENE IX COURT. (Australian Press Specials.) LONDON, February 3. Great public interest is being manifested in the criminal trial now in progress in which the King's honor is at stake. The prosecution is that of one Edward Mylius, who, towards the end of last month, was arrested in London and charged with sedition, based on the fact that he had been concerned in the sale and publication of the Liberator, a French republican journal, in which had appeared some very strong statements against King George. . It was an amazing story that this Paris paper published. It declared that during his service on the Mediterranean station the King married the daughter of Admiral Sir Michael Culme-Seymour, and that the children of the union were cruelly abandoned to enable the King to contract a bigamous marriage with Princess May. In the first instance the charge against Mylius was heard in private before Mr Justice Evans, who, on remanding the accused, fixed the bail in the substantial sum of £20,000, for which amount, however, no sureties were forthcoming. 'On Monday it was announced, contrary to expectation, that Mylius would be publicly tried, and the case was entered upon this morning, when the prisoner was indicted before the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Alverstone). The pr-oeeedings were supposed to be in public, but were really in camera, none being admitted, with the exception of a select few. The Home Secretary, Mr Winston Churchill, was present, but he had some difficulty in securing a seat. AN UNDEFENDED PRISONER. Mylius found himself opposed by a formidable array of legal talent, no fewer than four King's Counsel appearing to conduct the case against him, while he himself was without any professional assistance. The Attorney-General (Sir Rufus Isaacs) led the prosecution, and with him were Sir John Simon (Solicitor - General), Mr Rowlatt, and Mr Muij^ The prisoner had created something of a sensation by declaring that he would demand the presence of the King at the trial, in order that he might have an opportunity of cross-examining his Majesty. The Morning Post and other papers pointed out that it was constitutionally impossible for the King to be subpoenaed as a witness in. the courts of his own country, even though he were anxious to come forward .and give evidence. The first procedure was the selection of a special jury. Mylius insisted upon his right to question the jurors as to whether they would be able to render an impartial verdict, but he was overruled by the Lord Chief Justice. A further demand by the prisoner for the letters taken from him when he was arrested was likewise refused. "I DEMAND THE KING'S PRESENCE. Then the prisoner said, "I wish to ask whether the King is present. I demand his presence, because every accused person has the right to be confronted with his accuser. In a libel action the prosecutor .must be in court, in order, that the defendant may see him, otherwise there is no proof that he is at present alive." The Lord Chief Justice again overruled the prisoner, declaring that the ;defence knew perfectly well that under the constitution his Majesty could not be present. Sir Rufus Isaacs, in his opening, said that the article published by the paper in question was a serious attack on the King's honor, and waa-intended to lower him in tho esteem of all right-minded citizens. The libel was one of the grossest character, alleging, as it did, that his Majesty had contracted a marriage at Malta in 1890 with'the daughter of Admiral Seymour, by which there was a child, and that he had foully, abandoned his lawful wife in order that he might marry a Princess. A SUPERFLUITY" OF WIVES. Thesa outrageous allegations were first circulated in November last, and were reiterated in two subsequent issues of the Liberator. 'On the last occasion on which they were published they appeared in an article that was headed "Sane-' tioned Bigamy," from which the Attor-ney-General read the following extract : "We are offered a spectacle of immorality in its sickly, beastly monstrosity. The King committed the crime of bigamy, and with the complicity of prelates of the Anglican Church, he has a superfluity of wives like a Sultan." Raising his voice with a dramatic gesture, the Attorney-General exclaimed, "I tell you at once that there is not the faintest vestige of truth in those statements." In concluding a dramatic fepeech to the jury, Sir Ruftts Isaacs regretted that his Majesty was not permitted to face his slanderers. The suit was not brought to protect the monarchy, but tlie King sought protection as a man, a husband, and a father. J4 The hearing of Evidence was then entered upon. The marriage registers at Malta were produced to show that no one of the name of Seymour was married there between 1886 and 1903. The prosecution , produced also certain books from the Admiralty to prove that the King did not hold an appointment on any ship which went to Malta between October, 1888, and July, 1893. Sir Michael Culme-Saymour, his daughter, and three sons, each gave an absolute denial to the allegation regarding the marriage. ADMIRAL SEYMOUR CALLED. Sir Michael 'Culme-Seymour testified that he had only two daughters. The elder one, who was born in 1871, married Captain Napier, R..N., in 1899, and the younger one who was born in 1873, died in 1895. Both daughters remained with him, the elder one until she was married, and the younger one up to the time of her death. Witness further stated that his youngest daughter never married,. and that she never spoke to his Majesty, except, possibly, at a garden party at Melbourne House after the marriage of the Queen. As for his elder daughter, she might have seen the King when he was a cadet on board the Britannia training ship in 1879, and, possibly, at Court. She had certainly never spoken to his Majesty until 1898,. when- witness, as commander at Portsmouth, was visited by the King. Mrs Napier gave evidence that she married Captain Napier in 1899. She had never previously been married. She was only seven years old when she first saw the King, who was then a cadet on the Britannia, She saw his Majesty at Portsmouth in 1898, and at a garden party in 1893, but she did not speak to him. Mylius refrained from cross-examining any of the witnesses. He admitted that his proofs were slight, but maintained that the record of the marriage had been destroyed. A VERDTOT OF GUILTY. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to twelve months'; imprisonment. After sentence had been passed, the Attorney-General read a letter signed by tho King, authorising him to state publicly that he was never married or went through the marriage form with anyone except Queen Mary. His Majesty added that he would have attended to testify to this effect but for the Crown officers' advice that it would be unconstitutional to do so. His Majesty added that he assumed that tho. proceedings had been taken less to punish the author of statements offensive to the Crown than to set at rest for all time a story immediately' involving the person of the King.