The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-25 00:00:00

in his opinion, was a good picture. There
was another picture for £650, stated to have
been sold in Florence in 1580. He would venture
to assert that there was not a single square
inch of the original of that in the present pie
ture ; and yet it was one of those the purchase of
which caused the item for travelling expenses.
If the facts he stated were true the whole system
of management at the National Gallery was bad ;
but it still went on, although, unfortunately, the
destruction of pictures, by what was called cleaning,
had been stopped. When the travelling agent arrived
in any town in Italy the price of pictures there went
up £5OO per cent., and when he did purchase a pic-
ture it was generally of an inferior description, like
that of PAUL VERONEsE,for which £14,000 was given,
and that was only purchased to cover the blunder
which had been made in buying the ‘ Adoration
of the Magi.' That picture had been knocking
about Venice for a long time, and could have been
obtained for £2OO or £3OO, but the gullibility of
the travelling agent was such that he was induced
to give as many thousands for it. The country
looked with a watchful eye to what the House
would do in this matter, and the course pursued by
the Government in reference to this motion would
be a test of the earnestness of their professions in
favour of reform and retrenchment." Several of
the facts referred to by Mr. CONINGHAM in the
course of these remarks will be recognised by many
of our readers as familiar enough in themselves.
Their repetition and reiteration, however, on Friday
in the House of Commons proved, unhappily, to be
of so little avail that the motion—not
even being seconded—dropped accordingly. Whence
is this studied evasion of the charges diracted again
and again against the President of the Royal
Academy ? Does something of the divinity that,
according to SHAKSPERE, " hedges in a king"—
hedge in a royal favourite, too—and hedge him
round, moreover, so effectually, that there is no
getting at him ? Echo answers to this inquiry—
At him.!--again, Mr. CONINGHAM

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

(From the Times.)

It is curious enough that at the very time when
our English Statesmen are visiting the English
Press with their severest censures for daring to
speak in plain terms concerning the French Em-
peror and his policy, the Journal des Debats is at-
tacking our English Statesmen in no measured
language for exciting in this country a spirit .of
animosity against France. In truth, no such ani-
mosity exists. We wish to live at peace with
France, because we see in a general alliance of the
two countries the securest guarantee for the peace
of the world, and all our most vital interests are
bound up with the preservation of peace. When
we are putting our fleets and our armies in such
order r s will enable us to resist any sudden act of
aggression, we are in reality doing that which will
best enable the French Emperor to resist the coun-
sels of those indiscreet advisers who are ever ready
to suggest an attack upon this country as an act of
sound policy.
Mr. Bright, Lord :John Russell, and Lord
Palmerston on Thursday evening offered a solemn
protest in the House of Commons upon this subject.
Mr. Bright is of opinion that we have at length
reached that golden age when the nations of the
world are so convinced of the sin and impolicy of
war, that it needs but forbearance on the part of the
people and the Press, and the peace of the world
will be maintained. We think of the Pruth and the
Mincio, of Inkerman and Solferino, and we are not
so convinced as we could wish of the truth of this
position. Mr. Bright has been cooing on in this
monotonous strain for the last ten years, and we
cannot see that his predictions have been borne out
by the results. Still less are we aware that any
article or any phrase which has appeared in any of
the English journals has had any effect in bringing
about the last two great wars which have afflicted
the world. The late Emperor Nicholas concocted
the design of one amid the Russian snows. The pre-
sent Emperor Louis Napoleon devised the other
amid the banquets of Compiegne. Each of these
potentates formed his design, and carried it out
purely and entirely for his own political ends. The
Russian war of 1854, and the Italian war of 1859,
would equally have occurred had M. de Laguerron-
niere been enthroned in Scotland-yard with un-
limited power over the English Press. Are these
things true ? We leave the answer to Mr. Bright
when the oratorical fervour is off him, and he de-
scends from the tripod. Lord John Russell followed
Mr. John Bright. Lord John is of opinion that,
looking back on the wars that have occurred in the
past, " they have been caused less by disputed claims
to territory than by anger and animosity sedulously
encouraged, which, after they have for some time
past aggravated all the feelings of pride that belong
to a great people, have made the most rightful
question, which might have been settled by two
or three weeks of diplomatic correspondence, the
occasion of a war." Lord John had just ex-
pressed his concurrence with the views of Mr.
Bright. But, presuming Lord John's position to be
a true one, who made all the wars between A.l).
1100 and 1800? Certainly not the Press ; for, with
the exception of efforts made by the pamphleteers
of Anne's days and the earlier Georgian era—
writers after Mr. Bright's and Lord John's own
heart, paid and hired by the leading Statesmen of
their day to do their specific work—we know of
no very stormy exhortations to war in the public
journals before the beginning of the present cen-
tury. The Press (as we understand the term at
present) cannot be said to have had an existence in
those days ; and yet, God knows, the soil of Europe
was often enough saturated with the life-blood of
the noblest and bravest of successive generations.
Who did this work ? Lord John Russell suggests
—the Press ; we say it was done by Emperors and
Kings, by Priests, by Statesmen, by Diplomatists
—in fact, by the very prototypes of Lord John
Russell ! Let us again take tne came of the great
European war, from the rupture of the Peace of
Amiens down to 1815. Will any reasonable man
of decent education maintain now that this great
struggle was due to any other cause than the am-
bition of the elder Bonaparte ? True, when he
was at a loss for a pretext, he quarrelled with the
watchdog for his bark. He denounced the Eng-
lish while he was maturing his designs in Switzer-
land and on the Rhine, and preparing his forces
for another assault upon the liberties of Europe.
It was the ambition of a conqueror, not the impru-
dence of a writer, which led to that series of cala-
mities, and, as it was then, so it has ever been
since. If the Emperor Nicholas and the Emperor
Napoleon have deluged the earth with human
blood, it was not printer's ink which worked the
harm. Was it the Austrian Press—poor, effete,
and police-ridden—which attracted 200,000 French
combatants into Lombardy a few weeks ago ?
What would Lord John have us to do ? Are
those events which are of vital importance to the
interests of mankind, and which affect the very
existence of this country, not to be discussed at all
in the English journals ? • On the whole, have we
more to gain by falsehood, or by silence, than by
straightforward, honest speech ? No doubt,
plain speaking carries with it certain disad-
vantages, but in the long run these sink into
insignificance when compared with the bene-
fits which arise from the open publication
of English opinion. Would Lord John Russell
maintain that the Emperor Louis Napoleon would
refrain for a moment from carrying into execution
any warlike design he might have formed against
this country if tie united Press of England was
crouching at his feet ? If the occasion were there,
and the advantage to himself were obvious, such
subservience would be deemed rather as an argu-
ment of our apprehensions and an indication of our
weakness than as a motive for withholding the
blow. As we before remarked, the silence of the
Austrian Press—nay, the complimentary and
courtly tone of the Austrian journals—passed by
the Imperial ears like the idle wind, and the fatal
resolution was taken notwithstanding. If nothing
more is meant than that the English Press, or in-
deed the Press of any nation, should abstain from
injurious expressions against the chief of a foreign
Government when no great national interest is at
stake, then we can only express our agreement with
him. But, if nothing more is meant than this, why
should Lord John go out of his way. to back up Mr.
Bright, the champion of the hustings against the
Press ? We would venture, with all due deferencp,
to suggest that the recent' military foray of the
Fre :c1 armaments upon peaceful Europe was an
occasion on which it behoved the public writers of
these kingdoms to print their thoughts plainly and
boldly, for the information and warning of their
fellow-subjects. The defenceless- condition of our
shores was another point on which no Englishman
could have reflected without the keenest anxiety.
Does Lord Palmerston suppose that the French
Emperor wag not acquainted with the true state of
the ease ? It was known everywhere save in the
British Islands, and was the subject of conversation
in every cafe and every barrack-room. If ever there
is war between England and Prance it will not be
because the Press has compelled a Ministry to put
the country in an adequate state of preparation, but
because England can be taken unprepared, If that
should ever Nipper), there will indeed be the
~ Panic" which Lord John Russell deprecates; our
o,
Jject is, and has always been, to prevent the possi-
bility of panic by timely and quiet precaupon,