SLANDERING MONARCHS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11686, 22 June 1901, Page 5 (Supplement)

SLANDERING MONARCHS.

DEFENCELESSNESS OF ROYALTY

AGAINST CALUMNY AND LIBEL. The New York Tribune, referring to the recent calumnies on the King by the newspaper, Irish People, says: —

No sensible person possessed of the instincts of fair play will lie disposed to h!'.me the British Government for its .seizure of a recent issue of William O'Brien's weekly paper, which was full oi obscene and coarse abuse of King Edward, the reigning family". Cardinal Vaugban, and tin Roman Catholic hierarchy of Great Britain. The journal, which bears the misleading name 0 I the Irish People, and which is published at Dublin, deserved suppression, if for nothing else at least for its offence against the dictates of ordinary decency and morality; since in the British Isles, as also in the United States and all other civilised countries, the police have a perfect right to seize, with or without magisterial warrant, newspapers containing obscene or even grossly libellous articles, the publication of which constitutes a crime which it is a duty of tin- authorities to prevent.

lint there is another reason for which this particular issue of the paper in question merits seizure. It is the virtual defencelessness of the personage against whom the abuse was directed. If the Line - were an ordinary citizen and subject to the law of the land, ho would be able to secure redress and protection from such slanders by bringing suits for libel in the civil and criminal courts. And were it possible for him to do this, it is probable that he would experience no difficulty in securing a verdict in his favour even from the most ultraNationalist jury, since the sporting blood in Irish veins leads them to prefer fair playto the satisfaction of political prejudice, no matter how deep rooted. But, unfortunately. King Edward is debarred from those means of relief and protection which are at the disposal of his subjects. He cannot sue for libel, but has to choose between ignoring calumnies and allowing the Government to invoke in his behalf some of those jaws dating from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which provide dire pains and penalties for those who utter slanderous statements concerning the Sovereign and the reigning family. the offence in question is known in English jurisprudence, not as lese-majesty, but as misprison, which is an English derivation of the French word " niepriser,'' to despise and hold up to contempt. Urn-en Victoria never availed herself of this statute on the subject of misprision. Indeed, the last occasion of its application was when a London newspaper proprietor was sentenced to fine and imprisonment for having declared, that King George 111. was era/.y before, he had been officially proclaimed so by the medical authorities, the Government, and Parliament. King Edward, like his mother, Queen Victoria, and his grand-uncles, George IV. and William IV-, pursues the policy of taking no notice of the attacks upon his private life, no matter how gross their character, ami there is no doubt that he would have treated the slanders about himself in William O'Brien's paper in the same, way had the question been referred to him, mid had not the authorities considered it necessary to interfere, not for his protection, but merely on the score of common decency. THE KI\"C; IS NOT ■'l-T.'ll KNT. hi 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 1 lie 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 it is perfectly true that Edward VII., with the good sense for which he is distinguished, 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 to newspaper criticism and abuse as was his mother before loin. the memoirs of Charles (irevilU: and of others equally well qualified to write of Court life are eloquent on ihe subject of the distress displayed by the late Queen in connection with the cruel attacks upon her husband in the first 111 teen years of her marriage, and reference thereto will even be found in her own printed diaries am! 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 to the late Primate in August, 1891, and which is printed in the recently published "Life of the Archbishop." Alluding to the so-called baccarat scandal and to the trial of Sir William Gordon dimming, he wrote that they "gave occasion for the press to make most bitter and tinjust attacks upon me, knowing that 1 was defenceless.'' He likewise mentioned in his letter that these attacks of the press caused him "deep pain,' and indeed the entire tenor of his note to the Archbishop of Canterbury goes to show that he is far from being indifferent to newspaper abuse and calumny.