The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-08 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

(From the Times.)
The press has plenty of advisers, but, whilderuiwee
could never extract from their counsels a g
for our guidance. we never had any doubt as to
our own proper line. We represent public
opinion.
We believe that we express in these columns what
Rnglishmen, using that word in a very large sense,
feel in their bosoms, avow in conversation, and,
with more reserve, declare in their public trans-
actions. Our countrymen express themselves freely
enough one to another, whether at their own fire-
sides, or in the circle of their hospitality, oFin_clu_bs,
or even in public meetings—not to speak of what
they put upon paper. What they thus say more or
less privately, and what they cannot say in public
for want of opportunity, or are afraid to say for
want of courage, we have the opportunity and the
freedom
to proclaim to the four quarters of the
globe. That is our vocation, and when it shall
come to be said at dinner tables that all the world
knows this or that, that all the would feels this or
that, but the Times is afraid to say it, then, most
assuredly, it is all over with us, and with this
nation also. We may then write Ichabod on the
British Empire, for its glory is departed for
ever. No ; every man whose heart boils with-
in him at the news of successful violence or
fraud—every man who would give all he had for
the hand to rescue or the tongue to rebuke, but
has no opportunity—expects, at least, the satisfac-
tion of seeing his feelings expressed in this journal,
and rejoices to know that, if there is tyranny on
one side the Channel, there is liberty on the other.
It is impossible but that this liberty should some-
times be used in a manner to offend some of our
readers, but, if we do not speak out, no one does ;
and reasonable people appreciate our freedom and
our courage too highly to cavil at the fervour of
just indignation. Some such reflections, we have
no doubt, had recently passed through the mind of
Sir Charles Wood the other day at Halifax, when
he described the reaction which has followed the
excesses of the mob throughout the continent.
" Take our nearest neighbours," he exclaimed ;
such a despotism never prevailed in Europe, even
in the time of Napoleon the First. The press
gagged - liberty suppressed ; no man allowed to
speak his opinion ; the neighbouring country of
Belgium forced to gag her press ; no press in Eu-
rope free but ours, which, thank God, he cannot
gag—(cheers),—and hence his hatred of our press,
that it alone dares to speak the truth."
Nothing can be plainer and simpler than this
language. It claims for the Englishman the liberty
—we fear we must call it the national privilege—
of speaking his opinion about all public men
and all public affairs. Such is the rule which Sir
Charles Wood, himself a man with great command
over his temper and his tongue, propounds for the
press. But will anybody tell us what is the rule
which Mr. Cobden would give us, and probably
enforce on us, if it lay in his power ? Is it the rule
of general forbearance, of reverence for crowned
heads, respect for the powers that be, smooth
speech to dignities, and charitable construction for
all kinds of conduct ? No such thing. If a class
of his fellow-subjects have an incidental advan-
tage in an economical law, he does not hesitate to
denounce them as maintaining it at the expense
of their country for their private advantage. If
the Army and Navy Lists are full of noble and
honourable names, he does not scruple to denounce
our armaments as gigantic jobs for the convenience
and amusement of our nobility and gentry. If
the Austrian Emperor, in a dire extremity of his
affairs, secured the possession of an hereditary
realm at the expense of its constitutional liberties,
—if the Czar, terrified by the contagion of liberty
and revolt, assisted his neighbour to enforce order
and submission—no one so prompt or so free to
denounce the two tyrants with the utmost violence,
contumely, and menace, insomuch that even his own
powerful eloquence failed to express his rage and
contempt ; and, like the prophets of old, he had
recourse to symbolical expressions of hatred and
defiance. Lastly, if a newspaper thwarts him, cri-
ticises his harangues, and crosses his schemes, so
ranch as to leave the impression that the Press is
not with him—here, too, his wrath knows no
bounds, and he does his utmost to persuade the
British people to assist him in putting down this
intractable power. Mr. Cobden, then, is a man to
speak out upon occasion. He proves and uses the
Englishman's privilege ; and cares not if, while he
is tendering his advice or silencing an opposition,
he should at the same time be doing irreparable
injury to the position and character of a class, a
person, a journal, or a private establishment. So
far we understand Mr. Cobden, and we are proud
to say that his rule, up to this point, is very much
the same as our own.
But what we do not understand is the glaring
contradiction which -Mr. Cobden presents to his
own usual practice of speaking his mind, in his
remarks on our language on one particular sub-
ject, one nation, one man. He may lampoon the
head of the house of Hapsburg, he may crumple
'up the empire of the Russias—both of them ancient,
prescriptive, hereditary things—with hardly a
choice but to: go on as they have done for centuries ;
but we are to beware of a single word that may
give offence to a man who entered France scarcely
four years ago with promises and oaths to respect a
republic, and has now founded on perjury and
bloodshed the most absolute despotism under the
sun. We are not to say of him in these columns
what all Englishmen say of him at their tables ;
and on this one point, this dark spot on the sun of
our freedom, the British nation is not to see its
heart reflected in the Times. We may abuse
everything distant, ancient, or weak ; Czars far
away inArctic seas, or Emperors shut upin the heart
of a continent ; Roman Emperors dead and gone two
thousand years ago, or Lords and country gentle-
men beneath our contempt. But we are to be
most respectfully silent about the usurper who, by
the aid of an immense army, and by the means of
universal suffrage and the ballot, has tied the
hands of every Frenchman behind his back, and
gagged the tongue in his head, till he is himself the
only free agent throughout a vast dominion. We
are to assume that the great majority of French-
men are so different from ourselves as to acquiesce
-willingly and cheerfully in a subjection which
leaves him so far below serfs, as serfs have antiquity
and limitations of their bondage, and so far below
the African slave, as the African has colour to ex-
cuse him. And what is the reason for this singular
exception from the usual freedom of Mr. Cobden's
speech ? Why are we to join with him in denounc-
ing those who do as their fathers did before them,
and speak softly of those who have spontaneously
sold themselves to an original bandage ? The
only conceivable reason is cowardice. Mr.
Cobden is not afraid—he says he is not afraid
—of the Czar. He is not afraid— he avows as
• much—of the Austrian Emperor. He laughs to
scorn our own landed aristocracy. If the Times
does not render him all the homage he demands,
he has other more unreserved admirers. But he
is afraid—he cannot disguise that he is afraid—of
the French. He is afraid that they may take of-
fence at our reproaches, and prove their manhood,
mot by asserting their own liberties, but• by en-
deavouring to crush ours. He is afraid of a war,
of armaments, of taxation, of closed ports, of pri-
vateers, of an immensely increased navy and army
list, of another national debt, of a demoralised po-
pulation, and a ruined trade. Doubtless these are
disagreeable things, but it is a new thing in morality
if they are to be reasons for holding our tongues,
and the only reasons. For ourselves we must
plead another view of political candour. We hold
that by speaking plainly when we may be called
to a terrible account, we earn the right of
advising those whom we have no reason whatever
to fear. The Emperors of Russia and Austria are
no more to the Englishman than the Emperor of
China, but the Emperor of the French, though he
cannot conquer us, can inflict every annoyance
short of conquest. If, then, we defy the former,
and pass over the tenfold iniquity of the latter,
-we expose ourselves to the contempt of all alike,.
But that is Mr. Cobden's advice. We are thani.dui
to say that it is not the general instinct of E:Liglish_
men ; and that we have just had a Minister of the
Crown who can teach a very different doctrine.

(From, the Morning Post. )
We are now upon the eve of another assembling
of Convocation. It is high tune that the question
became settled, whether the powers of that assembly.
Are to be put into operation for the Church's exten-
sion and reform. Is the present condition of the
Church such as ought to continue ? No one will
contend for the affirmative. Then, what is to be clone ?
and by whom? The answer to these two questions
is worth attention. For the first, what is to be done ?
The cathedrals must be reformed, their purpose ex-
tended, their statutes obeyed, their trusts fulfilled,
their services improved, their revenues controlled
and re-arranged, their schools and alms'-gifts sup-
ported with becoming faithfulness and liberality.
The large parishes must be subdivided, existing
,districts erected into parishes, additional churches
built, and stipends provided for additional minis-
ters ; parsonages require to be built in many old
Earishes, and, of course, in all the new ones. The
piscopate has to be enlarged, and the dioceses re-
duced in size, and, perhaps, in emolument ; better
provision taust be made for the education of the
clergy and the increase of their numbers. These are
among the most obvious and pressing reforms.
Many others of less relative importance also require
adjustment. When looked at in the gross, what a
work is here ! What wisdom is required ! What
instant energy ! What united action ! What funds !
and what self-denial and charity !
By whom is this to be done? By Parliament, will