The Sun.
London, England, 1861-10-28 00:00:00

2118 FRENCH PRESS.

It is not without a certain feeling of professional
gratification that we bespeak the attention of the
public to a controversy now pending in France.
Most people will remember that when the French
Government some years ago devised a series of
measures for the control of the Press, a " law of
signatures" was included in these restrictive enact-
ments. By this law it was ordained that every
article in a newspaper purporting to express the
opinions of the journal itself should be signed by
its actual writer, and the ordinance is in force to this
day. Although, however, this obligation was im-
posed upon newspapers, it was not extended to any
other publications. Anybody was at liberty to give
his own opinions, or the opinions of any other per-
son, to the world in an anonymous form, provided
only that he did so in a publication which was not
a newspaper. Pamphlets therefore were free though
the Press was not; and in no quarter was pam-
phleteering more in vogue than with the Government
itself. It was by the agency of anonymous
pamphlets that the French public was prepared for
each successive stroke of Imperial policy, and no
Ministerial " organ" was ever worked to better pur-
pose than this machinery. The system, however,
had its inconveniences. A" Government pamphlet"
was an imposing and a valuable species of publica-
tion, and, as such, was likely to be imitated. It was
a kind of literary banknote, tempting to forgery.
Accordingly pamphlets made their appearance in
forms so exactly resembling the "official" type
that people were misled by them, and the Govern-
ment was under the necessity of disavowing the
authorship. Presently it went a little further, and
complained of the evils arising from anonymous
pamphleteering. This remark has brought the in-
dependent writers of France into the field, and the
question of " Anonymous Writing" has been re-
opened for general discussion with an ability which
ought to insure a sound decision. _ _ _

It is argued with a cogency perfectly irresistible
that the utility, and even necessity, of Anonymous
Writing for public purposes has been established by
the acts of the Government itself. 'When it was de-
sired to weaken the effect of a publication Anony-
mous Writing was forbidden, as in the case of the
newspaper Press ; when it was desired to increase
this effect Anonymous Writing was resorted to, as in
the Government pamphlets. It is clear, therefore,
that such writing is really the most efficient, and if
Government reserves it for its own use it will be
tantamount to monopolising the chief means of
influencing public opinion. Of course, this argu-
ment, however keen, will glance harmlessly from
off M. de Persigny, who probably wishes for
nothing better than to retain in his own hands such
an arbitrament as this. If official opinions can
always be rendered influential and opposite opinions
ineffective by a mere variation in the form of pub-
lication, a very convenient power will be lodged in
the hands of the Government. What we wish,
however, to point out in this matter is the perfect
unanimity with which the value of Anonymous
Writing is acknowledged. The French Govern-
ment—all powerful as it is—adopted the practice
as giving it greater influence than ever, and the
French Press is now askingpermission tore-establish
its power by reverting to the same custom.
It will not have been forgotten that the question
has once or twice been stirred in England, although
for the credit of the public, we must add that it was
never seriously entertained. The only persons who
denounced Anonymous Writing in England were
those who openly desired to deprive the Press of its
independent influence. They were consistent enough
in their designs, for they were endeavouring to de-
molish a power which conflicted with their own.
They wished to make newspapers mere vehicles of
their own opinions or the opinion of public men gene-
rally, and they deprecated the expression of any sen-
timents on the part of the journal itself. On these
principles a " law of signatures " might, undoubt-
edly, . have been advocated, since its immediate
effect would be to deprive newspaper articles of half
their power. Why this should occur we need not
stop to observe, though the French writers are
elaborate in their explanations. They say, truly
enough, that an anonymous article " represents a
body of individuals, a party, a power," while the
addition of a signature " always injures a produc-
tion, by confining its opinions merely to the writer,
and making us anticipate them from the qualities
and opinions of the persons signing." There is
no doubt about this, but the argument is wholly
superfluous. Reasoning is superseded in this case
by experience. Ministers and writers in France
are alike convinced that anonymous writing carries
power, and that the power is lost as soon as the
anonymous character is given up. Nothing could
show better than this the true essence of the whole
question. There is not the smallest doubt in any
quarter but that anonymous writing is the only
eligible or effective form of public writing. About
that fact there is no question at all. The only
question is whether public writing should be
allowed to be powerful or not—in. other words,
whether the action of a free press should or should
not be tolerated.
That, and no other, is the question which lies at
the bottom of every discussion about anonymous
writing. Whenever such writing is forbidden the
press is muzzled, and there are persons, no doubt,
who do wish to muzzle the press, either because
they look with apprehension on popular enlighten-
ment, or because they are jealous of any public in-
fluence competing with their own. The simple truth
is that signatures in public writing must either be a
mere sham, or all that we understand in speaking
of '' the press" must at once disappear. If news-
papers are to continue what they are now, the sig-
nature of a name to a leading article would be a delu-
sion practised on the public. The responsibility of
the article rests with the conductors of the news-
paper. It does not represent, what a signature would
make it appear, the publication of an individual's
private opinion. It reflects the of inions of the
journal, and it would be nothing but a fraud upon
the public if it were issued as the work of a
single man. A signature added under such condi-
tions, therefore, must needs be a sham, while if the
conditions of public writing were so modified as to
render it a reality the character and functions of
the Press would be lost together.
It would be a mistake, however, to imagine that
revolutions of this kind have been contemplated ex-
clusively in opposition to the Press. The system of
signatures has occasionally been advocated in the
presumed interests of public writers themselves. It
has been represented as unjust and undesirable that
!men with. such. talents and qualities as a Sueces3ful
public writer must be reputed to possess should be
thus lost in obscUrity And made to sink their per-
sitssoirioamul:anci.hasit:ieefisibuitnaiestithe power and reputation of
that a SUCCeatifai
speech, and to lead
promotion. We acknowledge
im-
plied, but the proposal is inegoen
have seen it argued in all sincerity
with
111egh Aught
service, to do aa
sm man n
successfulnot o nly
al certainty to political
avoidable demands of the r
the compliment
te_ ziet ant with the un-
-8 Signatures would
be eciugtly'de4tritctiY6'whethiir itkaetidecl 'for -One