The Irish standard., 1901-05-18
SEIZURE OF AN IRISH PAPER.

Inc dublin lflSn IeOplG, or Which
William O'Brien is tho editor and pub
Usher, was seized by the British gov
crnment last week for printing "a sedt-
tious libel" OH King Edward of Great
Britain and Ireland. Mr.. O'Brien did
not write the offensive libel on his
majesty. He is at present under the
weather, and in his absence the article
was written by somebody else
1t appears that Cardinal Vaughan,
the Duke Of Norfolk and other aristo-
cratic English Tories Of the Catholic
faith recently appeared before the king
ard presented him with a petition on
their Bonded knees, as become loyal
and submissive subjects, asking his
majesty not to repeat the offensive
words against popery when taking the
coronation oath. If that was not the
object Of the petition we know of
nothing else it could contain. The king
at his accession took the Objectionable
oath as prescribed by law, and that
was enough.
The harsh words applied by the
Irish People to the king are certainly
true. When Prince of Wales he was
"the center Of a score of the most dis
graceful scandals Of the most con-
tcmptible type" as alleged in the ar
ticle, and that he Is IAN old and worm
out descendant of a race of scoundrels
and practical professors of hdeous i'm
morality" goes without saying. Every
thing said of King Edward is suscep-
tible Of proof, but according to British
law when the king is personally de-
famed, 1t cannot be pleaded as a de-
Tense that the words are true.
In order to escape punishment the
writer must await until the monarch
is dead before he makes an attack, on
him. Thackeray was quite safe in CIV
ing his pen-pictures of the four
Georges, because they had departed
this life. Regardless Of the dictum,
"Of the dead say nothing except what
is good" the English litterateur wrote
them up as they actually were-moral
lepers Of the vilest kind Had the IT.
ish People waited until the present
king shutfled off his mortal coil, the
Irish chief secretary would never sus-
pend it's publication.
TO speak candidly, we think it a
mistake for Irish papers to make such
attacks upon Edward VII. What good
will such attacks bring to Ireland?
None at alI And what is the use of
blaming Cardinal Vaughan and the
Duke Of Norfolk for displaying their
loyalty to their lawful king? They
ire both Englishmen, and the fact that
they are Catholics makes no differ
cnce. From the twelfth to the six
teenth century, when the English in
England and Ireland We're all Catho-
lies, they plundered and prosecuted
their Irish co-religionists. If England
became Catholic tomorrow and n
king sat OH the old throne it
would still keep Ireland in subsection.
According to British newspapers the
seizure Of the Irish People was not |
legal. 1t was no more legal than was
the seizure Of the United Irishman
Maud Comes denuncia-
ton of the late Queen Victoria. Had
the attacks on the king and his mother
been made i'll English papers no atten-
ton would have been paid to them by
the authorities. The Irish must re-
member that liberty of the press does
not exist in Ireland.
Only one issue Of the Irish People,
that containing the attack on the king,
was suppressed. There viii be no
prosecution Of either William O'Brien
or his subordinates. 1t is supposed
that Lord Cadogan, the Irish viceroy,
who is an intimate personal friend of
King Edward, ordered the illegal sell
ztre Of the paper at the suggestion Of
his majesty, who did not like his sub
jects to read the attack on his moral
character. John Burns, however, de
clared in parliament that If the article
had. been submitted to the king he
would have smiled and thrown it into
the wastepaper basket.
We shall receive the copy of the