overeign was incapable of replying to this sort of statement,
and declared that the publication was "a gross offense against public
decency and public law and loyalty." Mr. H. H. Asquith, on behalf of the
Opposition, took the ground that those concerned could appeal to the
Courts, if injured, and that he could not but accept the Government's
description of the article and support them in their action. Messrs.
Bryn-Roberts, Labouchere and John Burns criticised the Government, and
the vote stood two hundred and fifty-two to sixty-four in approval of
their action.

The debate in the Imperial Parliament was, however, not the end of the
matter. A newspaper in Melbourne, Australia, called _The Tocsin_,
republished the article in question, and its proprietor, Mr. E. Findley,
M.L.A., was at once expelled from the Victorian Legislature. The
discussion and vote took place on June 25th, when Mr. Findley disclaimed
responsibility as being publisher and not Editor, but defended the
newspaper's statement that suppression of the Dublin paper was an
illegal act. He expressed regret, however, that the article had appeared
in his journal, in view of its having given offence to the House. The
Premier of Victoria, Mr. A. J. Peacock, at once declared that no apology
was sufficient unless it included unqualified disavowal and disapproval
of the article in question, and moved the following Resolution: "That
the Honourable member for Melbourne, Mr. Edward Findley, being the
printer and publisher of a newspaper known as _The Tocsin_, in the issue
of which, on the 20th instant, there is published a seditious libel
regarding His Majesty the King, is guilty of disloyalty to His Majesty
and has committed an act discreditable to the honour of Parliament, and
that he, therefore, be expelled from this House."

Mr. Irvine, Leader of the Opposition, endorsed the action of the
Government, and declared that the republication--even to the appearance
of a second edition of the paper--was a deliberate attempt to give
currency to this "foul and scandalous libel" as being a fact. Many
others spoke, and Mr. Findley in another speech said he had no sympathy
whatever with the article, and was extremely sorry that it had appeared.
Orders had come from outside for thousands of copies of the paper and
had not been filled. The House, however, was determined to take action,
and he was expelled by a vote of sixty-four to seventeen. Mr. Findley
ran again as a Labour ca