The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-26 00:00:00

(Front the Weekly Dispatc,h.).

If we were to regard merely"our Own individual incon-
venience and profit we might accept as some advantage
the small difference made by Sir G. C. Lewis in Mr.
Gladstone's Newspaper Stamp Bill. We are more and
more fortified in the conviction that the entire movement
is a combination of knavery and dupery,'and that an ig-
norance more presumptuous than ordinary patronises the
change. Are the people, those who can judge (and we
give the utmost latitude to the qualification), dissatisfied
with the press as it is They have confessedly the
best in the world. No other gives information so
speedily or' so completely. No other gives half
the encouragement to talent for the specific pur-
pose of judging aright and enforcing judgmen
ably. If there be as able writers connected with some
of the French and one or two of the German papers, they
write for their party, not for the press itself or on behalf
of the public. Compare the best papers sold in Eng-
land, price and all, with any and all others, and they are
the cheapest. Do the advocates of change say that they
can do something better ? No ; they only pretend to
establish low-priced journals, depending for all that is
good in them upon piracy. 'Suppose, for instance, in
the matter of news, that England had none but half:
penny or penny newspapers. The news, collected now
in a complete form, would not and could not be gathered,
even in an imperfect one, for days and weeks after the
present ordinary course of publicity. We repeat, then,
that now every one may read for his penny, in the fullest
measure and with the shortest interval from the occur-
rence, all that can be known and itarrated ; and that i
a "cheap" press were utterly to supplant a fairly
priced one, the reader must wait a long and uncertain
time for the most imperfect, partial, and shallow report.
We will say nothing of the leading articles which, in imi-
tation of Mr. Toots, John Bright declares to be, of "no
consequence, thank you," but which he isfascinated to read
through in spite of hituseZ; we are quite -sure that any fall-

ing off in their staple would be the most serious detriment
British liieratureand politics c,iuld sustain. Where there is
little or nothing to amend and every thingtuspoil, wecannot
but indulge an irrepressible contempt fur the rashness
that pr evokes, and the cuwar,lice that acquiesces in,
alteration, or for that still lower and mere baneful mean-
ness
that would fain sap the power of too etf,ctual a
ceir,or. We cannot, however, suppose that the fiscal
aspect of the question will escape accurate crit cism in
these times. We cannot imagine that John Bright's ar-
gument, that because the House of Commons is voting
away millions nightly, therefore it ought to give up half
or quarter millions of means, can appeal to any brains
unaffected with sheer lunacy. Is John Bright himself
in the habit of purposely cutting down his profits to meet
incliased expenses ? If a workman asked for higher
wages on that principle, is he prepared immediately to
assent, as feeling the logic irresistible We are told,
however, that there are considerations beyond those of
revenue, that the diffusion of knowledge must not be
stopped for want of money, that when the improvement
of the uneducated people, their elevation in the scale
of humanity, is in question, pounds, shillings, and pence
are mere dross. We have shown that the people will not
be bettered ; but let that pass. We will give the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer the full use of the appeal, which,
as the Edinburgh, Review philosopher, he is naturally so
prone to parade. But we c3nfess that we do like con-
sistency in morals—that we cannot put faith in any
morals thst are not consistent, but rather class them as
expedient hypocrisy and Pharisaical humbug.