The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1863-01-27 00:00:00

THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN
FRANCE.

Notwithstanding the amnesty granted last
year to the French press, rum pririlegio ought
still to be inscribed on all publications issued in
that country. Warning after warning still falls
upon the few unpurohased writers within M. do
Persigny's reach, and these official warnings are
not • tythe of those privately delivered at the
office of an offending journal. A few months
since, the French Minister lamented that the
French press was so remiss in using the liberty
placed at its disposal, and in a circular promised
to permit discussion on all the acts of Govern-
ment, reserving only • sacred silence on all that
related to the existing dynasty and constitution,
and to the antecedents of the Second Dynasty.
Cautiously and by slow degrees some few
journal* began to take the minister at his word,
and to make an approach to sincere comment on
public affairs and administrative reform ; but
M. de nanny has found out that the bracing
air of English liberty is not suited to the deli.
cats soil of France. Accordingly, since the
"liberation" of the press, no less than nine
French journals have received an arertisument,
four others have received two, four have been
entirely suppressed, and two have each bad a
prosecution, followed, of course, by condemna-
tion. The Revue des Deur Months received a
warning for an article on the finances, which
article was confirmed to the letter soon after-
ward* by M. Fould's famous report to the
Emperor. The remps fell under similar dis-
pleasure for having "Distorted the Emperor's
speech, calumniated the home and foreign policy
of France, and endeavoured to discredit the
Government." The substance of the condemned
article has appeared in the daily papers of this
country, but it would, we think, be difficult for
any well established Government to consider it
dangerous. The writer simply expresses with
dignity and moderation, and In unexceptional
language, what every one must see and feel who
compares the remarks with surrounding facts.
The condemned portion of this acticle runs as
follows The speech from the Throne is on
no point so explicit as on the Roman question.
Our arms, we are told, have defended the inde-
pendence of Italy, 'without abandoning the
Holy Father, whom our honour and our past
engagements obliged us to support.' This
language cannot be accused of ambiguity. We
are at Rome to support the Pope ; we are
there to maintain the temporal power, since the
spiritual power is not in danger we are there
to defend the Holy tattier, not against Victor
Emmanuel, whom our veto would suffice to
control, but against the Roman people ; we are
there in despite of international law—it is M.
Billault himself who admitted this ; we are
there, it is manifest, in the teeth of the principle
of non-intervention. But there we are, and,
since our withdrawal would inevitably involve
the downfall of the papacy, there we are obliged
to stay in order that we may not assume the
responsibility of such a catastrophe. It is a
strange situation, and one of the difficulties of
which we most willingly admit ; but it is a knot
which France must of necessity cut sooner or
later. To remain for ever at Rome would be
defeat, for it is a defeat for
.a goVernment to
alienate its liberty of action." If such language
is deemri calumniatory of Government, it is
well for the maniac Old Lady that she is not an
opposition journal in France,