The Sun.
London, England, 1850-10-09 00:00:00

f,_ - ( / =_-_,
./elz/ 74'w

,~~ 1,

l_

se.

'-statutesbook. We do /sot mean to say that any great
difficulty would be experienced in compelling the ap.
pesirance of the English newspapers with a Christian
and surname attached t a each article or paragraph, but
we are quite unable to see what guarantee could be
provided of the authenticity of the signature, or in
what manner the affiliation of an article or an indi-
vidual guiltless of its production could be brought
home to the real or to the putative parent. Will any
one suggest to us the form of an Act of Parliament
which should enforce the signature of the right article
by the right man ? low would the draftsman attain
his purpose unless he were to invent a machinery so
inquisitorial that in no state of public opinion, how-
ever exceptionally morbid, it would for a moment be
tolerated; and unless he were to reverse what are now
the settled first principles of English jurisprudence in
arranging the procedure on the indictment of a sup-
posed offender ? The security of English journalists,
against a blow imitated from M. de Tinguy's amend-
ment, rests much less on anything in the temper of
English lawyers, than on the potency of certain
maxims which have not only forced themselves into
our law, but which are engrafted upon the character
of our people, and have become necessities of their
fashion of thinking. The merciful axiom of our juris-
prudence which throws the burden of proof on the
prosecution, and which shields the accused by the
presumption of innocence, would conclusively defeat
an attempt to wring the secret of authorship from an
unwilling writer. It is a safeguard for which we
have no peculiar reason to thank either the wisdom
of our ancestors or the clemency of our legists.
It is simply the result of painful experience.
The English nation has suffered much at the hands of
its Governments ; and upon its emancipation from
each successive stage of tyranny, it bus extempo-
rized a new rule to protect it against the recurrence
of the latest of its wrongs. But the French codes
have always appeared to us to be constructed on the
principle that Governments are necessarily and per-
petually beneficient. The annoyance from which the
French journals are just now suffering is a direct
consequence of the very characteristic:of French ju-
risprudence on which the Journal des Debats seems
disposed to set an overweening value. An undue
disregard of the letter, from a pretended respect to the
spirit, not only governs the interpretation of laws in
France, but affects legislation most injuriously. The
habit of couching enactments in vague and loose
phraseology, which flows immediately from it, make
judges occasionally oppressive and senators always
careless. The spirit of M. de Tinguy's amendment
demands the annoyance of French journalism. The
letter requires the signature of all " articles
of discussion" by their author. One of the law
' officers, taking the spirit, we presume, as his guide
to the letter, has construed " articles of discussion"
to mean articles in which conclusions are drawn
from facts. Can this learned person have reflected
on the true scope of his definition ? On examining
the double sheet which forms our yesterday's impres-
sion, sa e have made up our minds that, in about two-
thirds of the matter imprinted on it there are to be
found conclusions inextricably connected with facts.
If the rule were to be inexorably applied, it is incre-
dible what difficulty the most innocent-looking para-
graph would have in escaping from it. The corre-
spondent who informs us of the continued fineness of
the weather in tb e north of Scotland, and thence
infers that her Majesty will be able to carry out her
intention of travelling from Balmoral on October 10,
draws a conclusion, and must sign. Not even our
obituary would be safe. We caught sight, the other
day, of a notice which, after stating that a lamented
lady had lived in the charity and died with the aspi-
rations of a Christian, went on to presume that
she was in the enjoyment of celestial bliss. The
afflicted writer would have to authenticate his hopes
by his signature. Why, our very advertisements
would have to be penned like a special verdict.
Our appreciation of the purely material obstacles
which forbid the imposition of similar restrictions
in England, has hitherto kept us aloof from a contro-
versy into which one or two of our contemporaries
have plunged with considerable zest and zeal. We
believe that a measure analogous to the new French
law would be utterly impracticable on our side of the
Straits, and any interest we may feel in the questions
it raises is therefore exclusively speculative. But we
still adhere to the opinion which we early expressed,
that M. de Tinguy's legislation is vicious in princi-
ple, and nothing that we have read from English pens
—the French journals are hostile to the change with-
out an exception—has materially modified our im-
pressions. We may be permitted to pass by the
amusing assertion which has been hazarded in one
quarter, that an enactment of the description in ques-
tion would be perfectly innocent, since every respec-
table English journalist is as well ascertained by the
tone of his articles as if he actually signed them. In
fact, this argument puts us to the painful alternative
of either disclaiming our own respectability, or'forget-
ting the innumerable mystifications which have been
practised on the public, as to the authorship of our
productions. The residue of the apologies recently
advanced—we may mention that an evening contem-
porary has arrayed them with great skill—resolve
themselves into the single position which M. de Tin-
guy developed in the French Assembly, that society,
as against the journalist, has a right to some security
for the good faith and wholesome morality of the
counsel which he supplies. The safeguard &mended
is supposed to be found in the publicity given to his
name. But, under the existing system, the public
has a far higher and surer guarantee at its command
than the prohibition of secrecy. It has the same re-
medy which it wields against the dealer who offers it
vitiated sugar or spurious tea. Caveat emptor. Don't
buy the newspaper whose principles you suspect. If
you point to examples of perfidy or ruffianism in the
English press the answer is the success of those who
openly vend the deleterious matter. Society can have
no right to a higher standard of taste or morality than
the one which it continues to patronize. A more spe-
cious form of the same objection occurs when it is
urged, that to be emancipated from the restraints of
public opinion is good for no man, however brilliantly
endowed and however naturally upright. There is,
of course, much weight in the argument when put
nakedly, and we acknowledge that it would be most
difficult to answer it, if it were certain that society
would visit nothing on the journalist but the sins of
his pen. But would the vigilant enemies of the man
who should step forward as the general zailus content
themselvei with exposing his illogicalities and rebuking
his injustice ? One writer is ill-tempered. Another
is ill-born. Another is unhappy in his domestic
relations. These are feature; tar more salient than
inaccuracies of thought or style, and who can doubt
for a moment that they are those of which the mass
of mankind would he sure to lay bold? Whenever
the Whigs felt themselves particularly stung by the
eloquence of Canning, they went about repeating that
he was the son of a play• actress—and there used to
be a tradition that, after a peculiarly brilliant speech,
a piper to this effect was always wafered up over the
fire-place at Brookes's. The truth is, that in a society
like ours, with its multiplicity of conventional deco-
rums and its hierarchy of grades, public opinion would
allow a journalist to be discredited for a hundred
faults which have nothing to do with his capacity for
giving advice. It is idle to object that, if this were
true, the members of the Legislature might as well
hold their tongues. Parliament is respectable, be-
cause it makes laws and enforces them. We of the
Press are a Parliament whose proceedings are all
speeches, and our present system affords our best
security for gaining a hearing.