The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-23 00:00:00

FREEDQIFI OF THE PRESS.

(From the Times.)
Of all our public men there is not one who does
not make the fullest confession of his allegiance to

the great doctrine of the Freedom of the Press—
" the palladium of our liberties," " the safeguard of
our Constitution," " the means of diffusing among
the people that knowledge, that enlightenment,
which enables them to judge of all subjects with
candour, impartiality, and moderation, and thus
makes democratic influences permanent by protect-

ing them from violence and excess." Who does not
hold this language ? Yet who, we may venture to
ask, really and honestly subscribes to its truth?
There are few Englishmen, we believe, who see a
newspaper in their own language among the perio-
dical literature of the Continent, on the table of a

reading room in a French or German watering-
place, without experiencing a certain emotion of
national pride ; and yet few of these same persons
have probably ever considered, or frankly admitted
to themselves, the real condition on which the in-
contestible superiority of the English Press de-
pends. The English Press is superior to its foreign
contemporaries for the simple reason that it is free
—free In the widest and fullest sense of the word ;
not only free to write that which is agreeable to
men in power, that which suits the popular im-
pulse of the moment, or that which may most
facilitate the operations of this or that Govern-
ment, but free to utter that which men in power
often will not tell or look in the face, which the
people at large do not always see, and which the
masters of mankind do not often wish to be seen—
the bare and naked truth. There is hardly a states-
man of our day who has been able to form to him-
self the real and genuine idea of a Free Press.
Freedom from vexatious prosecution they are, in-
deed, 'willing to conceive, but there is scarcely one
of them who has elevated his mind above the idea
that the Press should be the representative of par-
ticular men or particular parties, so as to admit that
it may safely and wisely be left to draw its own
conclusions and announce its own opinions. It is
in vain that one after another the sickly scions of

periodical literature—kept in existence to meet no
public want, but to serve the purposes of a man or
a party—successively droop and die. Experience
is thrown away, and the same folly recommences.
We cannot wonder that men who seem just as
unable to comprehend the perfectly free and
self-regulating action of the Press as a blind man
is to appreciate the shades of colour should think
it necessary from time to time to lecture those
whom they would willingly coerce, and to take
credit to themselves for superior wisdom by de-
nouncing any truth which it is inconvenient to
them to hear. This distrust and hatred of the
Press is peculiar to no party—nay, it probably
prevails with more violence among those whose
professions are most liberal. There is Iylr. Bright,
for instance. He has, as we all know, peculiar
views on the subject of Peace and War, which
render it exceedingly inconvenient to him that the
truth should be told. He is a friend of peace to
such an extent that he cannot endure that any one
should say anything which would show that there
is the slightest doubt as to its continuance. To
men who write and think without prejudice, the
proper way to preserve peace is to state the whole
truth fairly and explicitly, that the nation may
judge of its real position, and neither be puffed up
by overweening confidence nor depressed by unrea-
sonable panic. This is the course we have ob -
served with regard to France. Without the slightest
enmity, with the best goodwill to our gallant
neighbours, but we trust with a true appreciation
of the nature of the Government under which they
live, we have had to remark that the Empire was
not quite so much Peace as the Emperor would have
us believe. We have observed that from the , ter-
mination of the Crimean War we have found
France uniformly siding with Russia against our-
selves, and that the whole of her policy with regard
to Italy has been in complete contravention of the
.wishes expressed by England. We have been com-
pelled to show, from time.to time, what formida-
ble augmentations France has been making to
her Navy, and how those augmentations render
absolutely necessary corresponding efforts
,on
our part. True, also, to our duty of impartial
veracity, we have not hesitated to show how
little the treaty just concluded satisfies the wants
of the Italians or the pretexts on which the
war was commenced. Nobody seriously denies
these facts, but it is very convenient for those
who affect to believe that perpetual peace is
not only desirable, but possible, to ignore their
existence. Mr. Bright is very angry with us be-
cause we do not choose to set them aside altogether
and to substitute in their place visions of mutual
disarmament and treaties of perpetual commerce.
No country knows better than England that com-
merce is a surer road to prosperity, to power, and
to greatness than the most brilliant victories, but
this is a truth which, though nations may feel it,
Kings and Emperors have rarely shown themselves
able to appreciate. They are seldom content to lay
the foundations of prosperity, and trust to the hap-
piness of future ages to do justice to their memory.
They want ready payment for their actions, some-
thing on which their panegyrists may descant,
something on which their Courtly rhetoricians may
harangue. Let France disarm, ant how gladly, how
eagerly will we imitate and surpass her example ;
but while Italy is left either to be crushed by in-
tervention or convulsed by revolution, while the
termination of one war is accompanied by words
which announce the commencement of another, it
may befit Mr. Bright to maunder over treaties of
commerce and projects of disarmament, but it will
hardly become us, who are bound to reason from
the materials which we ourselves supply, and not
an arbitrary assumptional reticences, to accept his
conclusions.
No less hostile to free discussion is Lord John
Russell. He is a leading member of a Ministry
which takes credit to itself for arming the country,
and yet he cannot understand why the Press should
urge the country to arm. We will frankly tell
him why. It is because we have taken our mea-
sure and formed our estimate of such public men as
himself; because we believe that, although fully
aware of the danger, they would never put the
country in a position of defence unless driven to it
by a public opinion which they cannot resist.
They would tell us, as they do now, that they have
no fears, no apprehensions; they would act as if
great dangers could be averted by never speaking
of them ; and their deeds, instead of being as now,
in contradiction to their words, would be in strict
accordance with them. Now, Lord John Russell
and his colleagues talk peace and prepare for war.
Had we adopted that tone they would never have
adopted our recommendations. But Lord John
Russell's caution is only one-sided. It is open to
him—nay, we believe he would admit it is open to
us also—to say whatever we please against Aus
tria, or the petty States of Italy. There is no good
to be done by such declamations, no evil to be
averted, and therefore we forbear from them,
though Lord John would give us full licence. It
is only when a real and serious danger impend
that Lord John Russell would bind us over to
silence. Lastly, we are taken to task by Lord
Palmerston, who is scandalised by what he eau,
the tone of hostility which the press has adopted
towards France. Of course, ;there was no hos-
tility to Austria in Lord Palmerston's declaration
that he hoped that Power, his good friend and
ally, would be driven out of Italy ; and we are
furnished with an exact measure of our own in-
discretion by knowing what our censor con-
siders may be discreetly said. For different rea-
sons it suits the purpose of the Premier, as it,
suits the purpose of Mr. Bright, that too much light
should not be thrown on the present state and posi-
tion of France. He maintains that the war which