The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-28 00:00:00

the corresponding passages from the Times, thus showing
that they are both derived from the same source. Now, I
do not complain so much of the parts of the quotation which,
by changing the sense of what I said, supplies the whole
and sole ground and pretence for all the misrepresentation
which followed. Observe that in the times lam reported
to have said--" You will find that people will resort to news-
rooms, &c. ;" whereas in your quotation I am made to say,
People would resort to newsrooms," &e.. By no other
contrivance than thas making me speak of something con •
ditional and prospective could the quotation have been made
to fit in with your charge that I was " depicting one of the
blessed effects I expected to flow from a revolutionising of
the newspaper system." From the moment that it is shown
that I was dealing with the newspaper press as it existed
when I spoke, and that mylcomparative estimate of the
value of the two departments of journalism had reference
to the press of that time, the whole fabric of misrepresen-
tation respecting my designs for the fu' tire, as based on that
speech, topples to the ground.

It is an old invention, I dare say; and I am as little dis-
posed as most men to concern myself about what is said of
me. Indeed, it is coming to be a standing reproach against
me that Ido not complain soon enough. But being put on
the scent, I should certainly like to trace the author of this
story. I do not charge you with deliberately garbling my
language, with the view of falsifying its meaning ; but you
have assumed the responsibility by renewing the indictment
in cold blood, and in the most offensive terms, many years
after the termination of the controversy out of which the
misrepresentation originally sprang. You have referred me
to an article in the Edinburgh Review for October, 1853, as
the original source of the accusation. On referring to that
publication. I find the above quotation in the Times garbled
in precisely the same manner as in your recent article, by
the substitution of the words "people would resort to news.
rooms, &c.," the rest of the quotations from that journal
being given verbatim, without any of the suppressions
which occur in your latest citation of the passage, thus
making the alteration appear more flagrant and deliberate.
Now, am I wholly at fault in the impression which I have
always entertained, that the author of the article in the
Edinburgh Review is also the editor of the Scotsman? If so,
in citing that article you are quoting yourself. I beg pardon
in advance, if you will remove this impression by a sum-
mary disavowal; for I candidly confess I do not think any
liberal-minded man could now feel himself complimented by
being publicly identified with the authorship of that defence
of the newspaper stamp.

In calling on you again to substantiate or retract your
statement, I will only add that I can draw no dis-
tinction, in such a case as this, between the responsi-
bility of a public man delivering a speech, and that of
a well-known writer of a leading article in a newspaper.
Were a member of Parliament to scatter accusations of
a personal nature against a public man, and, when
contradicted and challenged to the proof, he were to
treat the remonstrance with levity, he would soon lose all
weight with the public. It will be for your readers to de-
cide whether their confilence is held by an inferior tenure.
—I am, &c., R. COBDEN.
[The difference of signification between the words
"people would" and the words, "you will find that people
will," is not obvious, The words reported in the columns at
the time are those we quoted last week, not those Mr Cob-
den finds in a report of the Times; but the point is of no im-
portance, seeing that both phrases alike might or might not
have the reference now repudiated. Mr Cobden now says
that, in then saying that the value and use of a newspaper
press lie "least " in discussion, he was speaking generally.
and was not indicating either the motives or the ex-
pected results of the efforts he was then making to revo-
lutise the press. No doubt, his words can bear the mean-
ing he now assigns to them ; but they can also bear the other
meaning—and that other meaning was assigned to them
at the time, and at many times afterwards, without Mr
Cobden complaining of misrepresentation. Indeed he now
admits, it will be seen, that the misrepresentation originally
sprang out of the controversy—the controversy that termi-
nated, as he says, many years ago. Of course, people were
then in a much better position than now for judging of Mr
Cobden's meaning, especially as the speech followed seve-
ral others in which the same topic had been similarly dealt
with, and Mr Cobden himself was in a better position to
understand his own meaning when he let the popular in-
terpretation pass than he is now, when he is angry at that
interpretation being alluded to. If we do not greatly mis-
take, he will find in the limes in the beginning of Feb.,
18,53 (which he seems to have at hand) an article proceed-
ing upon that interpretation ; andiwe formerly referred him
to others of the numerous similar instances. As to the
authorship of the article in the Edinburgh Review, Ms
Cobden's inquiry is Tate unnecessary, as he will see an
avowal in what we said last week—that the article in the
Edinburgh was replied to by Lord Stanley in a pamphlet
and letters addressed to ourselves ; and we did not quote
the article as an authority upon any point whatever, but
only as one of the proofs ;hat the alleged misrepresentation
of which Mr Cobden now complains must have come under
his notice of,en and long ago, without his having chal-
lenged it, But the main question as to what Mr Cobden
would have liked the press to be is not to be decided by a
single passage from a single speech. If Mr Cobden now
says that the passage was not intended to have the mean-
ing that ho formerly allowed to be attached to it, we aro
bound to take his word for it, though left to wonder why,
if he thought the matter worth speaking about, he did not
speak a dozen years ego, when it was certainly much
more worth speaking about, and could have been spoken
about to much more profit and with much more ease.
But what of all his still broader allusions of a
similar tendency made in those days such as
those to the superiority of the press of other countries,
Spain included, in which discussion scarcely exists? If he
did not mean that he would like to see the British press like
.the press of other countries, and that he hoped the change
in furtherance of which he made such allusions would pro-
duce that assimilation, what did he mean ? If he will now
say that he meant something quite different, or even that ho
meant nothing at all, we ehall at once make the retraotation
he asks—but accompanied by the protest that our misread-
ing of him was quite unavoidable and pretty universally
participated in. Till then, we can no more see our way to
"retract" than Mr Cobden seems likely to see his way to
sending the £2O ho promised to pay on conviction, he him-
self being judge !