TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE SEIZURE OF THE "IRISH PEOPLE."
WE cannot feel satisfied as to the wisdom of the seizure and suppression of the issue of the Irish newspaper which contamed a libel on the King. Needless to say, we have no sympathy with the disgraceful tactics of those Irishmen who deliberately employ libellous and defamatory statements as weapons in political warfare. We condemned those weapons when they were used against Lord Spencer, and we condemn them now. In truth, they are far more odious when used against the King, for he cannot be alleged to have shown any enmity to Ireland or to have taken any part against.the Nationalist movement, and he is by reason of his position unable to defend himself effectively. But because an Irish news- paper disgraces itself, and because all self-respecting men condemn its action and regard it with disgust and con- tempt, it does not follow that it is wise and expedient to adopt the extreme measures of suppression taken in the case of the Irish People.
We put the matter solely on the ground of ex- pediency. We are quite ready to admit that any mem- bers of the State, whether or not in the employ of the Crown, have a right when a crime is being committed, - or about to be committed, to step in and prevent its commission. We also admit, of course, that the publishing of an obscene libel on the King or any other person is a crime. Again, we do not for a moment suggest that any infringement whatever of our liberties has been occasioned by the action of the Dublin police acting under the orders of the Government. As Mr. AAquith so very properly explained to the House of Collimons, none of the persons who seized or ordered the seizing of the issue can plead any sort of privilege for the acts committed by them. They are one and all liable to have their conduct challenged in a Court of Law, and to be held strictly accountable for their proceedings. The remedy open to the proprietors of the newspaper is just as complete as if the seizure had been made by the "men in the street." The 'orders of the Government are no answer, and cannot be pleaded. In other words, the proceedings alleged to be taken to prevent a crime must be considered and justified solely on their merits. But though we hold that there is no sort of ground for talking about oppression and tyranny, the imitation of Continental methods, and the sacrifice of our liberties—on the Continent each individual taking part in the proceedings would be able to plead privilege, and could not be held personally responsible—and though we see no danger to the liberty of the Press, we cannot but doubt, as we have said above, the expediency of the action taken. It appears to us that the seizure and suppression of the issue would only have been justified if the article complained of was of so monstrously obscene and foul a character that not to stop it would be to allow the country to be poisoned with a flood of filth. If it was, then sup- pression was not only justifiable, but was the only course to be pursued. We have not seen the article, and there- fore cannot say from our own knowledge that it was not of this character. But as far as we can gather from the' allusions to the article made in Parliament and else- where, it was rather a piece of unsavoury Nationalist malignity than obscene ur the strict sense,—an article base and degraded in tone, and conceived in the vilest possible taste, but not calculated to have an influence on public morals so marked as to demand summary suppression. If this was the nature of the article, as we think we are right in assuming it was, then it seems to us that complete disregard would have been the right way to have treated this bawling of vulgar abuse from the gutter. It cannot, we think, °be seriously contended that any one -whose opinion is of the slightest value or importance would have beeninfluenced by such an attack on the King hadit been published. In the first place, only a comparatively small number of people would have seen the libel, and of these a majority would, no doubt, have passed it by as of no great moment,—for the Irish extremists among whom the Irish People circulates are too much accustomed to the language of vituperation to be greatly moved thereby. In fact, if no attention whatever had been paid to the paper or its article, it is safe to say that the whole thing would have fallen absolutely flat. As it is, however, the fact that an Irish paper was about to publish, or, indeed, did publish —for a, certain number of copies were issued—an obscene libel on the King has been advertised throughout the Empire, and the curiosity of millions has been excited. People on all sides wonder what terrible things the King has been wrongfully and falsely accused of, for they feel sure that it must have been something very terrible to render suppression necessary. Surely that is not a very desirable result to bring about, if in reality there was nothing more than vulgar, ill-conditioned abuse of the kind that Nationalists in Ireland or America have often used as part of their means of "making British government in Ireland impossible." In a word, our feeling is that the whole thing has been exaggerated and distorted out of all proportion by the extreme step of a seizure. At the same time, we do not wish to indulge in exaggeration in pressing our own view of the matter. No very great and terrible harm has been done, we admit, even though a false importance has been attached to a very trumpery affair. When a man, say a candidate or a local celebrity, is driving through the streets, and a dirty little boy in the gutter calls him vulgar names, his friends, if they are wise, do not yell out at the top of their voices that the dirty little boy is saying the most terrible things. They do not force the whole town to realise the fact by jumping out and giving him a licking. Instead they remain severely oblivious of the boy in the gutter, and no one thinks of saying that they are disloyal to their friend, or wanting in pluck or good feeling, or indifferent to their friend's honour and good name. On the contrary, all reasonable people say how wise they were not to make a fuss and have a vulgar row over a contemptible urchin.
We are quite well aware that we shall be told that the persons primarily responsible for the Irish Administration were placed in a very difficult position by the libel. They were very anxious to make the Nationalists realise that the King must not be drawn into the party scrimmage, and that though officials might be libelled and attacked, the game must be played fairly, and there must be no striking at a man who could not defend himself and who had no sort of responsibility for the acts of the Irish Administration. Well, if this was the sort of motive that influenced the suppression of the Irish People, as we are quite prepared to believe it was, all we can say is that it was most unfortunate and mistaken. The only way to teach people in Ireland that it is not play- ing fair to throw mud at the King is to ignore such foul play. If once the King is defended by sensational means, he is sure not to be kept out of the faction fight, but to be drawn into it. Who can doubt, for example, that henceforth when an Irish orator or writer is particularly anxious to trail his coat or draw attention to himself he will attack the King? A good rousing libel on the King will at once become the cheapest and easiest way of rising in the scale of patriotism. The old methods of advancement by calling the Viceroy or the Chief Secretary names will become dull, tedious, and old-fashioned, and the smart way to winning a patriot's name will be by abusing the Sovereign. That will be the royal road to notoriety. It is strange that this should not have been realised, and that the men of experience who are responsible for the administration of Irish affairs should have fallen into the trap of hitting back when the King was attacked. Surely Mr. Balfour and Mr. Wyndham have not forgotten how libel has been deliberately used again and again as a political weapon, and. how it has always been best defeated, not by actions at law, but by contempt. They must remember the atrocious attacks on Lord Spencer and Sir George Trevelyan, and the false and hateful mud-throwing of that time. Those charges were ignored, and rightly ignored, and not the slightest injury accrued to the men assailed. Why could not the attack on the King have been treated with equal indifference? To our mind, the whole system of "calling names" in- dulged in by the Nationalists is as factitious as it is ill- bred, and should be absolutely ignored. Why cannot we say of these foul-mouthed Nationalists—altering a word or two—as Dryden said long ago of one of his gutter detractors :— " If they scream 'knave' and 'rascal' from a garret, They do you no more mischief than a parrot"
Previous page
