The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-21 00:00:00

Mr, Cobden and the Newspaper Press.

The following correspondence appears in the
Scotsman

" Midhurst, Oct. 150864.

" Sir,—A friend has forwarded me from Scotland a copy
of your journal of the 14th, and called my attention to a
leading article in which, speaking of the agitation for the
repeal of the taxes on knowledge, there is the following
passage : _ _

. -
" But what were the ' anticipations' of the chief agitators
for the change ? Mr Cobden stated over and over again in
public speeches that his object or hope was to see a news-
paper press which would abstain from discussion, and con-
fine itself to reporting events, especially platform speeches
and police trials; and he explained before a Parliamentary
Committee that, in his opinion, the model for the British
press was 'the press of Spain.' These, we submit, were the
anticipations' that best deserved to be called ' sinister,' and
certainly these are the anticipations that have been most
signally disappointed.'
"I am not in the habit of challenging the criticisms of
public journalists. The more freely the acts and utterances
of public men are discussed the better. But here are a
couple of groundless statements, involving charges, to use
the most appropriate words, of supreme silliness of conduct
on my part—and as they have been brought under my eye,
I suppose lam bound, as mere matters of fact, to notice
them. I will deal with them separately. In the first place,
you allege that I ' stated over and over again in public
speeches that my object or hope was to see a newspaper
press which would abstain from discussion, and confine it-
self to reporting events, especially platform speeches and
police trials.'
"There is hardly any passage of my public life that I look
back upon with greater satisfaction than the part I took in
the struggle for untettering the newspaper press. My exer-
tions in that great cause, though secondary in value to those
of Mr Milner Gibson, Mr Bright, or Mr Collet, extended
over several years, during which I addressed many public
audiences, especially at the anniversaries and other meet,
ings of our associated body in the metropolis. I call on you
to produce from any of my speeches a single passage which
can be quoted in jus`ifi3ation of the above statement; and
by way of affording a benevolent stimulus to yourself and
your readers, I offer a donation of £2O to any hospital you
may name on the production of the passage in question.
"When proof of the truth of the first charge has been
produced I shall be ready to apply a similar test to the se-
cond allegation—namely, that I explained before a Par-
liamentary committee that in my opinion the model for the
British press was the press of Spain.' I will only hero re-
mark that I never appeared ' before' any Parliamentary
committee to give evidence on this subject, though I did
serve as a member of the select committee, of which Mr.
Gibson was chairman, to inquire into the taxes on know-
ledge ; and I remember that it was my unpleasant dety,atter
endeavouring in a friendly spirit to dissuade him from ap-
pearing as a witness, to cross-examine the editor of the
Scotsman, whose evidence, which is fully recorded in the
blue-book, excited the astonishment of every free trader in
the committee room. It is not, however, to enter the field of
controversy, but solely to give you the opportunity of sub-
stantiating or retracting a specific accusation that 1 have
penned this communication.—l am, &c.,
"RICHARD COBDEN."

Before answering Mr Cobden's questions—which we hope
to do to the general satisfaction, if not to his—we have to
ask why he never put them before ? The statements he only
now challenges have been made over and over again, cer-
tainly in Mr Cobden's knowledge, and at times when the
public memory and interest as to the facts were fresh. For
instance, besides having been the subject of numerous allu-
sions in numerous quarters for a dozen years past, they

figured largely in an article in the Edinburgh Review in
1E53; that article was reprinted by the Provincial News-
paper Society, and sent to all members of Parliament; Lord
Stanley replied in detail in a pamphlet addressed to our-
selvem; and the controversy. with Mr Cobden's name and
these same allusions dancing through it, was afterwards
continued by Lord Stanley in these columns. If Mr Cobden
felt aggrieved, why did he not speak then, or upon some one
of many similar occasions, instead of now, when the facts
are a dozen years old ? It will appear that the most probable
answer to this inquiry is, that Mr Cobden speaks upon the
matter now only because, like most other people, he has
forgotten almost all about it.
Mr Cobden offers £2,0 for "a single passage" justifying
the statement that he desired to see a newspaper press ab-
staining from discusr.ion, and confining itself to reporting.
He shows his characteristic acuteness in asking that a de-
scription of the tenour of many old speeches shall be justified
in "a single passage ;" but, though thus severely restricted,
we can give him what he asks for. Speaking at Holmfirth,
in February, 1853, he thus depicted one of the blessed effects
he expected to flow from a revolutionieingof the newspaper
system :--
"People would resort to newsrooms, not to read the lead-
ing articles—for I regard the leaders as of far less import-
ance than the articles of news in the paper. I believe these
original articles, so far as guidance Enact direction are cone
cerned, are the least useful and interesting art of the papers
—facts and intelbgence being more song tter by readers.
e4There are tar more newspapers in Am • a than here, but
they have lees political influence."
If this (among other similar utterances) did not mean
that he hoped the change for which he was agitating would
render the press less discussional and more purely narrative,
and so give it "less political influence" and the platform
more, then Mr Cobden was quite misunderstood at the
time and cannot be understood now. It may be indeed that,
of the two chief witnesses whom he and his friend, Mr M.
Gibson, brought up before the Parliamentary committee,
one was brought to testify that " tales from the police-office
are about the most instructive reading in the world" (679) ;
"police reports are the most instructive and most desirable
reading in the world" (638) ; and the other to testify that
what was most desirable was " a good account of some trial
at the assizes"—" a good account of some farmer's stack-
yard having been burnt down" (3,193), and that he was
" willing that leading articles should be prohibited"(3,2l2),
Though Mr Cobden is not desirous that we should at pre-
sent say anything about his envious allusions to the press of
Spain in the Parliamentary committee, it is better to dis-
pose of the whole cherry at one bite. As we had special
reason to know, Mr Cobden in that committee, though not
a witness, but a member, spoke more than he allowed some
of the witnesses to speak ; and everybody is aware that a
man may express his opinions as plainly by a question as by
an answer. A leading article in Mr Cobden's questions
throughout all the so• called inquiry was to get witnesses to
say that the press, not only of America, but of other countries
generally, was superior to our own, especially in the matter
of "courtesy to public men," Mr Cobden feeling at that
time, as he is even at this time,very sore in consequence of the
great body of the press taking the liberty to combat some of
his newer and more extreme opinions. Thus (Q. 2,152), in
cross-examining Mr Mowbray Morris of the Times, he
asked—" Are not the leading articles in the French press
more courteous than those of England towards public men ?"
And next—" Have you had an opportunity of forming an
opinion of the press of Spain or of Germany ? Has it not
struck you that there is greater courtesy shown towards in-
dividuals ?" Has that any other meaning than that Mr
Cobden held the press of Spain—which is about the most
abject in the world—to be something to which that of Eng-
land was inferior and ought to be assimilated ?
Of the allusions of Mr Cobden to certain Scotch evidence
given before the committee, though glancing at some rather
private incidents, we do not complain. It was very good
evidence, though Mr Cobden did not like it, and it would
have bean much better had Mr Cobden let it. It was
simply to the effect that to charge id for carrying three or
four ounces cf newspapers round the country, and then to
India er Australia, while the same sum was charged for
carrying a half-ounce of letter to the next street, was no ,
" tax " and no infraction of "free trade." We have no re-
collection of the friendly dissuasives which Mr Cobden says
he vainly administered in private, but since he so states we
do not for a moment doubt, and can only express a hope
that the dissuasives were so politely declined as we are sure
that they would be kindly offered. What we do recollect is,
that the witness iu question was primitive enough (it is a
long time ago) to tell Mr Cobden beforehand and in private
what he wanted to bring out to the committee; and that.'
consequently, the couple of hours ha spent in the box
wero occupied chiefly in fencing with Mr Cobden. who
aimed at preventing him saying what he came to say, and at
inveigling him into saying what be did not mean to say and
did not think. All than, however, is, we believe, quite usual
in such cases, and, being quite usual, must be more or less
fair; and it was the more natural in this particular case, as
the witness was a witness by accident, and not by invita-
tion, the managers of the committee having previously
arranged that there should be no witnesses of that class or
that side. It was not very sharp practice to try that those
who came unasked should be sent away unheard.
The only other question is about the allotment of the £2O
reward which Mr Cobden offers for tho discovery of the
"single passage" given above. Since he handsomely leaves
the arranging of that matter to us, we say—half to the
Royal Infirmary, and half to the United Industrial Schools.