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

MR. WALTER AND MR. EaRSMAN.

(From the Times.)
It is unnecessary that in this place we should
either repeat or comment on the correspondence
and debate which Mr. Horsman has thought fit to
provoke on the position of the press. The letters
and speeches will speak for themselves, and we are
confident that nine-tenths of our readers will ask
with amazement what could be the object of Mr.
Horsman, what damage he was attempting to re-
pair, what cause he was concerned t ) vindicate in an
attempt to fasten a personal responsibility on a
public journal. The case of the anonymous press
has been so often discussed, and so invariably de-
cided in its favour, as essential to its liberty, that
for a man to dispute it argues him positively behind-
hand upon the submitted principles and received
philosophy of constitutional order and go-
vernment. We have only to look to France,
where the press is no longer anonymous,
to see the legitimate conclusion of Mr.
Horsmi's theory. While proclaiming the inde-
penderlEe of the press, he insists on its responsi-
bility, and falls into a strange confusion on the
meaning and form of that which he thinks is so im-
portant to the welfare of society. Nobody in this
day denies the responsibility of the press in its only
true and natural form. There is nothing in the
world more responsible than the press. For every
word on either side of these two immense sheets we
may be called to account this very day, either by
public opinion or by some contemporary, or by an
appeal to ourselves, or in the courts of law, or on
the floor of Parliament. Our words are proclaimed
in the face of day, and not only proclaimed, but
left ou record for ever. The wish " Oh, that mine
enemy might write a book !" is fulfilled in all we
do ; and if on Mr. Horsraan's theory we are every
man's enemy, every man has us at his mercy. For
the merest passing observation that, in the event of
being secured against a dissolution for two years,
even Mr. Horsman might talk more easily of his
ruffle with his constituents, he has occupied three
hours of public time, and given us the benefit of
some very unpleasant comparisons. We will ven-
ture to say that never was so passing a remark so
gravely interpreted, and so heavily visited ; and yet
Mr. Horsman complains that the Times is irrespon-
sible.

Once for all, what is the public press, if Lord
Brougham will allow us to call it by that name ?
It is only one form and one development of that
public opinion which is the very life of freedom.
Public opinion is that which rises from the common
heart of society, is informed by its common sense,
and passes from mouth to mouth. Public opinion
in this country is that flow of thought and reflection
which passes from man to man, house to house, table
to table, club to club, class to class, and so through
the kingdom. It fixes and records itself in the
newspapers, which thus become the mirror of the
times, and no one will pretend that they are not a
true and faithful mirror. Now, it so happens that
before public opinion becomes strictly anonymous it
is apt to be very irresponsible, and it only becomes
responsible to all intents and purposes when it be-
comes anonymous. In ordinary conversation men
and things are often discussed with excessive H-
I cence. Men of lively fancies, and perhaps strong
' opinions, relate incidents, describe persons, ascribe
words, and do all and more than any newspaper
can venture to do, with the certainty of being be-
lieved, and an equal certainty of never being called
to account. They express themselves with drama-
tic effect, and so coin statements which will pass cur-
rent, because they are striking, are bright, sharply
cut, and ring clear. They may possess a whole
neighbourhood, a whole city, a whole kingdom,
with statements which are really false and injuri-
ous, and which may never reach the ear of the vic-
tim. A man may thus have his character slandered
or jested away, and no more know it for years and
years than the Union Bank knew the quiet abstrac-
tion of a quarter of a million by their cashier. This
is going on, more or less, every day, every hour;
and, no doubt, many a man's own familiar friend is
talking him down for years without his knowing it,
or hearing of it, except by altered looks in this or
that quarter. Such is the actual amount of respon-
sibility attached to that current of opinions which
is not strictly anonymous. The instant it reaches
the press, and records itself in the " anonymous"
journal, it becomes responsible. It is read by the
persons accused or reflected on—" it is on record."
litcrrz scripta nzanet. It cannot be denied ; it can
be confronted with other statements, beaten down
by argument, or softened by mitigating circum-
stances. If it is confuted, the journal suffers in credit.
The accused is only too thankful that he has at last
that opportunity of defending himself which society
never allowed him. Yet this perfectly responsible,
though anonymous press, which is the great pro-
tector, not only of our public liberties, but also of-
our personal character, which secures a hearing for
everybody, and discovers every calumny, is com-
pared by Mr. Horsman to a midnight burglar, to a
masked assassin, and we know not what besides—
indicating not only a most unaccountable loss of

temper, but also, as we have shown, a temporary
abeyance of the reasoning faculties.
Had we to seek through the world for instances
to show Hr. Horsman utterly mistaken, we could
find none more apposite than his own. In order to
prove that the press is powerful because irrespon-
sible, and irresponsible because anonymous, he cites
two instances, in which it is evident, on his own
showing, that the press has not one atom of power
except what it may have by the mere force of
truth. It has calumniated him and the House of
Commons, he says, by asserting that the house, and
he in particular, can be biassed in their decision
upon the Reform Bill by the personal consideration
that, in the ease of an immediate dissolution, it may
co.,t many members their seats, Mr. Horsman's,
among the rest. This is simply a reflection upon
matters before all the world. If it be an unfair or
uncharitable reflection, it recoils on our heads. Till
Mr. Horsman brought it up we certainly were not
aware of any such indignant recoil. We will acquit
him alike of prudence for himself and providence of
the State. But what becomes of our power, so dan-
gerous to character, when the bare suggestion that
Mr. Herman might talk more boldly about
Stroud if he had not to go there for two years is
the theme for so much virtuous defence and furious
recrimination ? Whether we have villifiesl the
House of Commons generally is a point on which
the house appears to be so utterly unconcerned and
so profoundly unconscious, that we must conclude
either that the house swallows the indignity and
,desezTes iker that it,d9An9P SVgaig--94reakunny,
which therefore is utterly powerless, or that there
has been no such calumny uttered at all. Theplain
and simple fact is that the great majority of the
house would rather not have a general election next
August, and world feel themselves in a much better
mood for discussing the Reform Bill, and much
more open to the adoption of some vigorous im-
provements, if not oppressed by the prospect of an
immediate dissolution.
But, according to Mr. Horsman, the crowning
feat and damning crime of this anonymous and
therefore irresponsible, irresponsible and therefore
all-powerful press, is, that for a long time past it
has successively attacked and destroyed the repu-
tation and influence of all our great men. Were
not the facts of the case patent to all mankind, it
might be suppo-ed that Westminster Abbey was
full of our vict'ms, most of whom had passed
thither after an arraignment in the neighbouring
Hall, and a walk through one of the windows of
Whitehall Chapel. But how stand the facts of the
case ? At the very time Mr. Horsman was read-
ing this astounding demonstration of our despotic
and irresistible power, and our murderous propen-
sities, he was surrounded by men who have not
only survived the very attacks he describes for half
a century, more or less, but are the pfincipal men
of the country ; not only that, but on very good
terms with ourselves ; not only that, but supply-
ing by their friendly relations a new and separate
ground of accusation against us,who are denounced
in the same speech as the murderers of their politi-
cal influence and the objects of their confidential
regards, as at once incompatible and inseparable.
If it has unfortunately happened to us to make se-
vere comments on all our public men, and if Mr.
Horsman thinks that an incontrovertible proof cf a
temper and power inimical to the constitution, we
should like to know what sort, of career he world
have preferred to witness in us during the period of
our alleged delinquencies. It is justly said that if
there is one thing no. Englishman knows it is the
history of his country for the last 10 years. So we
venture to take Mr. Horsman with us through that
period, and invite bim to consider whether it is we
who are answerable for tir;s variety of comment.
We will take the suppo-ition most favourable to
his view of the case. As Lord Palmerston is now
Premier, it must be inferred to be the present
judgment of Mr. Horsman that he ought to have
been Premier all along. We ought, then, to have
gone along with Lord Palmerston is 1851, when
he was turned out by Lord John Russell ;
in 1852, when he was brought in by Lord
Aberdeen, and became the colleague of his ancient
antagonist; in 1855, when, on the overthrow of
Lord Aberdeen, he became Premier ; in 1858, when
he was turned out by Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr.
Gladstone, and Lord John Re ell; and in 1859,
when he became again Premier with all these three
for his colleagues. Thus the most superhuman in-
tegrity, patriotism, consistency, dis- arnment, and
prescience would only have led us through a suces-
sion of phases, in which we should have tiad to con-
demn in turns, with the utmost severity, not only
Lord Aberdeen and his colleagues, but the thr
most distinguished members of Lord Paimerston's
present Cabinet, with no other alteinative but to
wind up with a similar condemnation of the man
who could commit himself by partnership with such
unworthy characters. The truth is it is not this or
that journal, but the House of Commons, and the
House of Commons as refl-cting and embodying the
public opinion of England, that Mr. Horsman must
bring into covi t. We beg to assure him it is not we
who are anonymous offenders, but he must frame
his indictment against England altogether, her
public opinion and her political habits. We are
not the Kingmakers and Kingkillers. Such as he
have much more to do with it. If we criticize men
and measures, we do not destroy ; we do not even
weaken • we do not so much as alienate. There stand
the killed. men, not only healthy and strong, but
our very good friends. They neither need nor de-
sire Mr. Horsman's protecting aegis against us.
With stouter frames, and finer mettle, they can sur-
vive, and even improve by our criticisers ; and, in-
stead of trying to hunt us dove can thank us for
our honesty.