CENSOR-BAITING

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 64, 8 December 1917, Page 10

CENSOR-BAITING

SPORT IN IRELAND

AN AMUSING SKETCH

(By "George A. Birmingham" (Canon James Hannay, the Distinguished Irish Novelist ;md Playwright), iu the "Daily Mail.") _ !■

The business of a Press Censor looks easy. Almost anyono would take-'it on, fairly confident of success. In reality it seems to be one of those jobs, like food controlling and governing Ireland, which are sure sooner or later to laud a man in a ridiculous position. In this country, in spite of our political ferocity, wo still appreciate the grotesque, and just at present we are all chuckling over our Press censorship, We had no particular objection to tile Censor at first, and we would not have tried to do him any harm if he had contented himself with suppressing war jiews. It was when he began to interfere with the publication of Irish news and with the discussion of Irish affairs that we got restive. But Press censorship was .a new thing to us. We know exactly wfien and how we could safely defy the more familiar forms of government. .We were doubtful about the censorship. So we began cautiously. Tho Convention was marked strictly taboo, and all comment on its was forbidden. The "Northern Whig"—every successful attack on authority begins jn Belfast —tried how far it could go in the way of criticising the Convention. It went a good way and nothing happened. Greatly encouraged by this example, the Dublin papers supplemented the official account of the muni-

tion factory explosion at , adding details which stripped the last rag or secrecy from that affair. Nothing happened. We 'began to think that our censorship was . like a bulldog—not nearly so fierce as it looked.

Then Bishop Fogarty/ of Killaloe wrote a letter about the forcible feeding of tho Sinn Fein prisoners. It

was a terrific letter, quite up to the level of the best work of tho late Bishop O'Dwyer of Limerick, i The Censor banned it. In the most defin-j ite way he forbade its publication. But the "Freeman's Journal" was prepared to back a bishop against a Censor or any other Government official. It

recollected, no doubt, the littlo tussle between General Sir John Maxwell and tho late Bishop of Limerick, in which tho bishop scored, heavily. No Censor was likely to be stronger than Sir John Maxwell. 'Tho "Freeman's Journal" published .the lotter. Dublin held its breath in the expectation of a thrilling row.

Tho Censor summoned tho editor to his presence and spoke strongly. Tho editor talked about conscience and public duty. The Censor passed tho matter on to the proper authorities: "For your information and necessary action, please." Nothing happened. We all waited. Still nothing happened. Tho other papers—which had not published the bishop's letter—were naturally annoyed. Tho "Freeman's Journal" had made a "scoop," had oven regained a good deaT of its lost prestige in Nationalist Ireland; Tho "Independent" hinted that the "Freeman's Journal" had been spared by special favour of tho authorities because it was tho organ of Mr. Redmond's followers, a party which was winning tho affection of the Castle as fast as it was losing Wie_ confidence of the country. Tho 'Irish Times" wrote ponderously about Jaw, order, and the defiance of authority both in State and Church.

The "Freeman's Journal," exultant and glorying in its strength, said that tho "Independent" and the "Irish Times," especially the "Independent," were felon-setters. "Felon-setter" is «■ term of abuse invented in the time of John Mitchel and the Young Irelanders. It means a man who directs the attention of tho Government to political malefactors, as a dog points out gamebirds to a sportsman. It is difficult to find a worse description of a man or a paper than felon-setter. But the "Independent" toes to the occasion and called the "Freeman's Journal" a Government organ. This was hard hitting with the glove's off. To be a felon-setter is bad enough, but to be a Government organ is several degrees worse. The "Irish Tinips" said with dignity and a sob that the "Freeman's Journal" wae not the only paper with a conscience and a sense of public duty. It did not wantr-Heaven defend it from such suspicion!—to see the "Freeman's Journal" suppressed, but what was the good of our keeping a Government at all if it does not prosecute somebody?

Meanwhile the censor, thankful no doubt for small mercies, dropped out of sight. We may imagine him sitting m his office wondering what will happen next. He is still quite safe in dealing with war news. No Irish paper wants to rjrint unauthorised accounts of the sinkuig of ships or tho traps set for submarines. But sooner or later, probably quite soon, a difficulty will arise. Bishop Fogarty will perhaps write another letter to the Press, or some fervent orator will give away the most cherished secret of the Convention. Or a verbatim report of a particularly exciting speech of Mr. Do Valera's will come to hand. Then what will the poor censor do If he forbids publication and is defied again, he sinks to the level of an Irish Chief Secretary, or the pantaloon in a harlequinade. If he permits what once he banned he preserves only the most hollow and unreal kind of dignity.

Perhaps when Mr. Austin Harrison next appeals to. Ireland to take the lead in establishing a new Magna Charta for Europe he will remember to our credit that we alone among nations have secured, in spite of. D.O.R.A. and other threatenings, a cer-, tain measure of freedom for the Press.