asked them for _Napoleon and the Fair Sex_, by
Masson. The librarian informed me Mr. Eason had decided not to
circulate it, as it contained improper details, which Mr. Eason
considered immoral. A copy was also refused to one of the
best-known pressmen in Dublin, a man of mature years and
experience.

"Three days afterwards I saw a young man ask the librarian for
the same book, and Eason's manager presented it to him with a low
bow. I remarked on this circumstance to Mr. Charles Eason, who
told me that he had issued it to this one subscriber only,
because he was Prince Francis of Teck.

"I told him it was likely, from the description he had given me
of it, to be more injurious to a young man such as Prince Francis
of Teck than to me; but he replied: 'Oh, these high-up people
_are different_. Besides, they are so influential we cannot
refuse them. However, if you wish, you can now have the book.'

"I told Mr. Eason that I did not wish to read it ever since he
had told me when I first applied for it that it was quite
improper."

The two excuses produced by Mr. Eason do not agree very well together.
The first gives us to understand that, in Mr. Eason's opinion,
ordinary moral principles cannot be applied to persons of royal blood.
The second gives us to understand that though, in Mr. Eason's opinion,
ordinary moral principles _can_ be applied to princes, the application
would involve more risk than Mr. Eason cares to undertake. Each of his
excuses, taken apart, is intelligible enough. Taken together they can
hardly be called consistent. But the effects of royal and semi-royal
splendor upon the moral eyesight are well known, and need not be dwelt
on here. After all, what concerns us is not Mr. Eason's attitude
towards Prince Francis of Teck, but Mr. Eason's attitude towards the
reading public. And in this respect, from one point of view--which
happens to be his own--Mr. Eason's attitude seems to me
irreproachable. He is clearly alive to his responsibility, and is
honestly concerned that the goods he purveys to the public shall be
goods of which his conscience approves. Here is no grocer who sands
his sugar before hurrying to family prayer. Here is a man who carries
his religion into his business, and stakes his honor on the purity of
his wares. I think it would be wrong in the extreme to deride Mr.
Eason's action in the matter of