The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-08 00:00:00

NIG' WATER AT LONDON ERIDOE.

MB DAY —Morals& Sit 46m Aftersoos, oh. Ira.
To-MOl/20111—Nantlai, Ob. 27es Afternoon. M. 49m.

LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 8.

IT will be an evil day for English liberty when
Parliament and the public press fall out. We
believe that day to be far distant, nor do we ap-
prehend that the strange incident which was
dragged before the House last evening will
seriously imperil those friendly relations which
time has strengthened and experience has justi-
fied. The House of Commons, it is true, repre-
sented the British people before the Press existed;
but what would its authority be now if the Press
were silent or subservient t A Legislative Corps
interpreted by a Moniker. We may fairly
take for granted that no Englishman, in
or out of Parliament, desires such a
consummation se this, and some foreign critics
of our liberal institutions will be sorely dis-
appointed if they lay too much stress on the
supposed propensity of the British nature to
suicide, or look hopefully forward to an inter-
necine conflict between the two great causes
of free writing and free speech. Indeed, what-
ever may be thought of the incident itself, the
English press has no cause to complain of the tone
and temper of the discussion in the House last
night. Journalism and journalists were treated
with extreme consideration and respect, and, what

is much more important, the honour and inde-
pendence of the Press as a great public
and impersonal institution were vindicated in the
highest and handsomest terms. We shall not be
accused of any affectation of excessive frankness
if we cheerfully admit that, as journalists, we
profess to be neither infallible nor impeccable.
The path of a public writer in a free country is
not a thornless one ; his work must inevitably, in
any vulgar sense, be thankless and without
reward. Let him write with what authority be
may, the public writer's vocation, as such, is
socially unclaimed and unacknowledged, except as
an abstraction. Every calling in life no doubt
has its great and its little aspect—every calling
may be elevated or degraded by the manner of its
exercise ; but the only recompense which the
much-abused " anonymous " writer, however
honourable or high-minded, can ever know in his
professional capacity is the satisfaction of having
spent heart and brain for the better future of the
world. The rest is "writ in water."

The public know nothing of the consuming fever
of the toil that supplies them with their morning's
paper ; or they would know that there are battle-
fields more destructive than those of war. In the
House of Commons, perhaps, something of the great
mystery of journalism is dimly understood ; and
uin the society of a capital city public writers
are not so much a &sus apart from other liberal
professions, a good understanding between Parlia-
ment and the press is perfectly compatible with a
wholesome jealousy and an unsparing criticism.
Last night's " incident " arose out of an episode
in the Reform debate. It may seem a somewhat
delicate subject for our notice, inasmuch as it
more immediately and intimately concerns a leading
contemporary ; but as the question raised by Mr.
Hortaiury affects very nearly the character and
position of the press in general, we cannot pass it
over. On Monday week an article appeared in the
Times, in which Mr. Romans/4's name was em•
ployed to point a contrast between the affected
stoicism of members of Parliament and their lively
horror of a dissolution. The same evening, Mr.
WALTER, in an able and caustic speech, urged the
passing of some measure of Reform and depre-
cated a dissolution as a public calamity. Mr.
Honansx, stung, it seems, by the adaptation of
his name, and not unmindful it may be of a former
comment upon one of his great Savoy speeches,
chose to identify a speech with an article, and
sent Mr. WALTER word that he should call the
attention of the House to the insult offered to
every member, though pointed at one. Mr.
WALTER, of course, accepted the challenge ; but
to avoid interruption to public business, the
" explanations" were deferred till last night. Why did
Mr. HORSMAN single out Mr. WALTER T Because he
chose to identify Mr. WALTER with an article in the
journal of which that gentleman is a psrtproprietor.
This responsibility Mr. WALTER, with a high
sense of honour, and a generous straightforward•
nese well worthy of his private and public cha-
racter, comes forward in the face of Parliament to
disclaim. He disclaims it, not personally or poli-
tically only, but in behalf of the independence of
a member of Parliament, and of the independence
of the press. It was no one's business to
inquire what part or share Mr. Wasson
might happen to hold in the proprietary
of a public journal, or of any other enterprise ; bet
it was Mr. WiLraa's strict right and duty to
maintain his responsibility as a Member of Pas-

,!/11110

ra M.

hY 8,

-r- -nr -
liament usdivideil and uncomp
ILAN speaks of 11" press as an
'pectin], arid, see doubt not,
but when a reputed proprietor of an
'mensely powerful public journal talks an:
thing like • leading article, and when Mr.
' WALT'S, m ha place in Parliament, says
something suggested by • sentence in the
morning's Tire% Mr. Hoasa is persuaded that
the undelivered speech was the parent of the
article, not the article of the undelivered speech.
And yet it would not have been the first time
that a member of Parliament had borrowed a hint
from his morning paper. Only, Mr. WALT= is
a proprietor of the journal in which this article
appeared, and from this undoubted and undenied
fact Mr. HOBBMAN with an " inexorable
" logic" contrives to spin ever so many dis-
tressing insinuations against other gentlemen who
are known or believed to be associated in a more
responsible capacity with the offending journal,
and at the same time (singular and alarming fact !)
in the habit of frequenting the very best company
in private life. We cannot expect Mr. Hoasimir
to make himself a little more correctly acquainted
with the manner in which a public journal is con-
ducted before he brings sweeping accusations
against proprietors and writers. Very slight
inquiries would satisfy him that proprietors of re-
sponsible
journals are not in the habit of dictating
articles, nor editors of treating public questions ac-
cording to personal " influences," and private
friendships. No journal could live • year in this
country on such terms. In a country where the
liberty of the press is uncontrolled by artificial or
arbitrary restrictions, the soundest and severest
censorship practically exists : the censorship
of that public opinion which the Press
represents, and to which it finally ap-
peals. The public which a journal addresses is
its censor, and a journal that could so forget its
public responsibility as to be the puppet of social
" influences," would be struck with death as
surely as one of our French contemporaries sale
its second "warning." It may be that of late years
the metropolitan press in this country has aban-
doned something of its impersonal character ; but
though as an institution (we will not offend that
sometime gentleman of the press, Mr. DtazAmr, by
calling it an "estate") it may suffer by being asso-
ciated with names and persons, it is by its faith-
fulness or unfaithfulness to the public interests

that every newspaper is ultimately judged.
It is natural to hankorers after the blessed
tranquillity of a democratic despotism to denounce
the " anonymous," and at the same time to insist
that public writers shall be Pariahs ; but surely
Mr. HOBBMAN is too proud and too English a poli-
tician to say that " they manage these things
" better in France."