The Press.
London, England, 1855-10-13 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

the statesman? Why did it always use such
sombre colours, and exaggerate into caricature
the less favorable features of the politician ?
His activity, his affable manners, his good-
natured disposition, his freedom from the
" hard habits of a politician," his vigour and
readiness in debate, the versatility of his
parts, then never received during a long
course any recognition from the Times. On
the contrary, for years and years it traduced
his character, vilified his policy, derided his
pretensions, and scuuted his statesmanship as
that of a mere " Brummagem Alcibiades." It
travestied him as a ridiculous mixture of an
old dandy and a modern " destructive." It
affected to think that in his character there was
more of the associate of BEAU BRUMMEL than
of a pupil of the Pittito school. The most
ridiculous conclusions on Lord PALMERSTON
would have been arrived at by any foreigner
who for twenty years followed the Times in its
systematic and studied depreciation of the
English statesman who divided with Lord
BROUGHAM the honour of having earned the
enmity of that journal, ever vacillating in its
opinions, and ever vituperative in its style.

In our original article (Sept. 22) we re-
marked, that "it used to be insinuated that
" authentic `Foreign' intelligence found its
" way into the columns of other j oumals, much
"to the annoyance of the Times." Lord PAL•
MERSTON'S "ancient adversary" is perfectly
savage at our alluding to such matters; just
as if it could " have any difficulties in obtain-
" ing foreign information." Yes, but it had.
Another daily journal, from 1885 to 1846, out
ran the Times in the purity and precision of its
intelligence. The journal to which we allude
—we are talking of a past period—rivalled the
Times in other matters also. It was most
ably managed by a Whig-Radical Baronet,
whose character was " mixed," in a different
sense from that of his zealous friend the pre-
sent Prime Minister, for the worthy Baronet
hovered between the City and the Reform
Club. We never said, nor do we now say,
that the prolonged animosity of the Times
against Lord PALMERSTON solely originated in
the fact that the Viscount was both an active
and able patron of the journal which, in those
days, brilliantly disputed the first place in
circulation with the Times. But, with the
files of both journals before us while we write,
along with those of the MorninyPost, we should
not find it difficult to show that the prolonged
antagonism of the Timer was vastly aggravated
by the Viscount's hearty and unconcealed
recognition of the gentleman who was at
once " a baronet amongst journalists and a
" journalist amongst baronets." Other news-
paper potentates also tried to be baronets,
but, as MATHEWS says in the song, " they
couldn't."
But we do not care further to discuss the
former hatred of Lord PALMERSTON shown by
the Times. It will be more useful to give
special illustrations of the inconsistent man-
ner in which it has behaved to the two great
parties of the State and to the public. It has
recently, under its own hand, exposed its want
of prescience, by turning round to sing the
praises of Lord PALMERSTON when he was past
threescore and ten. Similar ignorance and
precipitation have been displayed by the Times
when it sullied its columns with language
which must either be " recanted " (to use its
own words) or bitterly regretted by it for a
long time to come.