New-York tribune., 1901-05-19
PART II.
TEN PAGES.
SLANDERING MONARCHS
THE OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES OF ROYALTY
AGAINST CALUMNY AND I.IRI,I.

ish Government Tor its seizure OF a recent issue
OF William oBrien's weekly paper which was
full OF obscene and coarse abuse OF King Ed
ward, the reigning family, Cardinal Vaughan
and the Roman Catholic hierarchy Of Great
Britain. The journal which bears the mislead-
ing name The Irish People" and which is pub
nshed at Dublin, deserved suppression If for
nothing else at least for its offence against the
dictates Of ordinary decency and morality; since
ip the British isles as also in the United States
and all other civilized countries. the police have
perfect right TO seize, with or without magis-
terial warrant, newspapers containing obscene
even grossly libellous articles the publication
OF which constitutes a crime which it is a duty
of the authorities to prevent
But there is another reason for which this par
tcular issue Of the paper in question merits seiz-
1t is the virtual defencelessness of the per-
sonage against whom the abuse directed. 4
II the King were an ordinary citizen and subject
10 the law Of the land, he would be able to Sc
cure redress and protection from such ISLANDERS
by bringing suits for libel in the civil and GRIM
inal courts. And We're it possible for him TO do
this, II is probable that he would experience no
difficulty in securing verdict in his favor even
from the most ultra Nationalist jury. since the
sporting blood in Irish veins leads them to pre-
fer fair play to the satisfaction of political preju
dice, matter how deep rooted But, unfortu-
nately, King Edward is debarred from those
means Of relief and protection which the
disposal Of his subjects. He cannot sue for libel
but has 10 choose between ignoring calumnes
and allowing the government to invoke in his
behalf some of those laws dating from the
enteenth and eighteenth centuries, which pro-
vide dire pains and penalties for those who utter
slanderous statements concerning the sovereign
and the reigning family. The offence in ques-
tion IS known in English Jurisprudence. not as
leze-majesty but as misprision which is an
English derivation Of the French WORD me
2riser" 10 despise and hold up TO contempt
ssueen Victoria never ayailed herself Of this
gsatute on the subject OF misprision Indeed. the
Vast occasion Of its application was when a Lon
don newspaper proprietor was sentenced TO fine
and imprisonment for having declared that King
George III was crazy before he had been Off
cially proclaimed so by the medical authorities,
the government and Parliament. King Edward.
like his mother Queen Victoria, and his grand
uncles. George " and William ". pursues the
policy OF taking no notice of the attacks upon
HIS private life, matter how gross their char
acter, and there is no doubt that he would have
treated the ISLANDERS about himself in William
O'Brien's paper in the same way had the ques-
ton been referred to him, and had not the au-
thorities considered it necessary TO interfere not
for his protection. but merely on the score Of
common decency.
In the course Of the discussion in the House of
Commons on the subject Of the seizure Of the
paper John Burns the Radical representative
Of the working classes. gave expression TO the
opinion that King Edward was not in any way
responsible for the action Of the authorities in
the matter, and that If the offensive article had
been submitted TO him he would have smiled
and thrown IT into the wastepaper basket"
Now while II is perfectly true that Edward VII,
with the good sense for which he is distin
guished, would have consigned the sheet to the
wastepaper basket. it is extremely doubtful
whether he would have smiled. For the smile
would have implied Indifference to newspaper
attacks Of this nature and King Edward is far
from being Indifferent thereto. In fact. he is
Just as sensitive 10 newspaper criticism and
abuse as was his mother before him The
memoirs Of Charles Greville and Of others
equally well qualified 10 write OF court life are
eloquent on the subject Of the distress displayed
by the late Queen In connection with the cruel
attacks upon her husband in the first fifteen
wears of her marriage and reference thereto will
even be found in her printed diaries and in
the publications issued in her behalf by Sir
Theodore Martin The feelings of King Edward
were made abundantly clear IN a letter which
he addressed 10 the late Primate in August,
1891 and which is printed in the recently pub
usbed Life Of the Archbishop. Abiding to the
so-caIlad ba ccarat scandal and to the trial OF
Sir William Gordon Cumming. he wrote that
+ba, ..eaxa occasion for the press TO make most
bitter and unjust attacks upon me. knowing
that was defenceless' He likewise mentioned
IN -t,s letter that these attacks OF the press
ca,sad him deep pain" and indeed the entire
tenor ~ his note TO the Archbishop Of Canter-
hurry goes 10 show that he is far from being in
different to newspaper abuse and caiumny.
II NAV be observed that the King lays stress
a. the letter upon the fact that he is defence
lessn against calumny and attacks in print
,ron his character and II is to this defenceless-
ness that the writer wishes to call attention As
r,ointed ont a above there statutes still unre-
pealed which provide drastic punishment Tor
pr,ntes or even verbal attacks upon the mon
arch and rnon the royal family. 1t is still a
crime. according 10 English law, to make an
assertion either in speech or in writing that the
sovereign or the heir apparent is guilty OF cor
rupt views bad motives. misconduct, or even
subject TO mental arrangement" The law OF
1nisurtsion expressly declares that IL Is a hish
misdemeanor'' TO give out scandalous stories
concerning the sovereign, 10 write or SPEAK
against him or 10 do anything that may teno
to lower him IN the esteem OF his SUBJECTS. but
King Edward like his mother before him. mas
always taken the view that these laws are OUT
% keeping with the spirit Of the age, that they
constitute an arbitrary restriction or the hperty
Of the press and of the freedom of expression
Of Individual opinion; in a word. that they SAVIOR
too much OF those olden days when nooles con-
vcted Of speaking disrespectfuily OF the soVer-
a.gn were condemned. not merely 10 the pillory
hut also 10 the is-,on1iny OF carrying a NANCY
c,,- ,,,o .tatr shoulders from one great city TO