THE ENGLISH PRESS AND THE FRENCH PRESIDENT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 81, 24 July 1852, Page 5

THE ENGLISH PRESS AND THE FRENCH PRESIDENT.

(From the " Spectator.")

Three great lords not to speakof little ones, have, in the High Court of Parliament, under our Most Gracious Queen at this time assembled, thought themselves called upon to arraign the conduct of the English press towards the President of the late French Republic, and to deprecate the evil consequences that might thence ensue. Obvious reasons suggest themselves why Lord John Russell, Earl Grey, and the Earl of Derby should be anxious to make out, to their own satisfaction and that of others, that the English press does not represent the sentiments and opinions of the English nation. The estimate these lords put upon themselves by no means corresponds with that put upon them by the press ; and could they lay so flattering an unction to their souls as that the nation approximates to their owii estimate of themselves rather than that of the press, they would gain a point dearer to them even than disarming the wrath of Prince Louis Napoleon, of which they seem to stand in uncomfortable alarm, and provide themselves with a reason for not listening to the reproaches and monitions of that power which will not let them misgovern without protest and obstruction. Whether they are really likely to know the feelings and opinions of the people of England better than the host of men who have written in the public journals upon this subject, depends upon the previous question, whether England is contained in Woburn Abbey, Howick Castle, and some score lordly mansions, or whether, as is popularly supposed, it spreads out uniformly between John o'Groat's House and Land's End, and speaks its mind in the counting-houses, the parlours, the streets, wherever man meets man, as well as in the salons where " fine gentleman" is the sole specimen of the genus " homo" allowed the entree. Till cause shown, we hold that at any rate the journalists, mingling familiarly with all classes, have a better chance of understanding the opinions and sympathies of the country than the noble lords who are at home only within the charmed circle of rank and fashion.

But Lord Derby uttered an incontrovertible truth when he said that if journalists aimed at exercising the influence of statesmen they were bound to submit to the responsibility of statesmen, and to temper their expressions of opinions with discretion and regard to circumstances. [The Times has already shown that there is more of contrast than resemblance between " the press, and statesmanship," in functions, powers, sphere of operation, duties, habits, rewards. But we accept Lord Derby's sneer as his Lordship's substitute for a wise saying, and join issue with him upon the facts.] Certainly no man will exercise a power wisely or well who owns no responsibility ; and misused power— thanks to the constitution of human nature and the laws that regulate society—is not of long endurance. The journalist will, therefore, from honesty and a sense of his own interest, endeavour to realize his responsibility. The sentiment can scarcely be disputed ; but like all such sentiments all its practical value depends on its application. The press is undoubtedly responsible, first to public opinion and then to that on which public opinions permanently rests —truth, justice, and national interests. To which responsibility has the press been unfaithful in this case? Not to public opinion, unless all its usual indications are to be distrusted, and among them not least the remarkable unanimity of journals of all shades of political sentiment —unless " the base exception" proves the rule, in a sense very contrary to the usual meaning of that venerable proverb. Not, surely to truth and justice! when the only crime alleged is that of calling acts by their right names ; a practice which has the authority of a book generally held as safe a practical guide for an honest man's steps as even a Court Guide or a diplomatists's vade mecum. True, the tone of " good society" is neither to admire, to be indignant, nor to be astonished : and " good society" dines and dances at the Tuileries, and makes no signs of consciousness that there is anything monstrous in either its host's antecedents or its own conduct. But this tone is just the distinction of " good society," and cannot, as we know, be caught by low people who write in newspapers. But it may be urged that national interests have not been consulted by the English press in speaking their minds on this matter. The

French people, it is said, has accepted the coup d'eetat with its consequences ; seven millions of votes have sanctioned all that M. Bonaparte has done or may do; and England has no right to dictate or to censure, but may by so doing provoke the hostility of an exasperated and jealous people. We should be sorry to think so meanly of either the intellect or the heart of the French nation as to imagine that they could mistake the pity and the sympathy so warmly expressed in England for dictation or presumptuous interference. It is on the very ground of the dictation which has been exercised towards them that the indignation oS the English press has been so loud. For who is so senseless or so dishonest as to assert or believe that the French nation had really a choice whether they would accept M. Bonaparte and his crime or not? The robber knocks down his victim, and kneeling upon his breast, demands money or life. Is that a free choice ? And does the hapless traveller complain that his dignity is insulted, and his right of free action is interfered with, because society at large insists that he has been robbed, and that the man to whom he surrendered his purse is a scoundrel ? It is pitiful to hear " great" statesmen so paltering with facts and so studious of phrases •, and some comfort under official and noble disapprobation, for the public writers of England to know that the literary and political men of eminence banished from France, or compelled to silence, have derived hope and consolation from the different tone adopted here by the press. Nor, when brighter days dawn on France, and their natural leaders are restored to the French people, will it be a contemptible source of pride to English journalists, that they have secured the lasting gratitude of the men of genius and of experience and of permanent power in that nation, and so have laid the foundations of an amity and cordial good understanding of more real value towards preserving peace than any hollow diplomatic courtesies, or any base reticences, towards successful crime, or eveu popular infatuation. For, happily, when a people errs or is misled, the consequences are so inevitable that repentence comes quickly, and with repentence comes respect for those who have with manliness and sympathy told them of their infatuation, and contempt and hatred for those who have cried peace when there was no peace.

There remains to deal with one base argument which an Englishmen ought to have blushed even to have conceived in his official bosom, and which an English parliament ought to have drowned in indignant reclamations. Lord John Russell did not blush to urge that the press should have been silent lest the Usurper should be enraged and turn and rend us ! Why, had not truth and justice and political sentiment bidden us speak out, the mere consciousness of the effete Government with which England is burdened, as Sinbad with the old Man of the Sea, would have compelled the journals to give vent to their distrust, and so stimulate the Ministry to take those precautious which official hypocrisy allows to be prudent, though it disclaims any feeling of their increased necessity. Does any one believe that, had the present been silent, the officials would have stirred ? Does any one believe that even now, unless they are vigilantly watched, they will do anything, beyond asking for increased estimates? The very utterance of such a sentiment by the Prime Minister, proves the necessity for the plain speaking of the Press; for it proves that the savage resentment of an irritated Usurper fills the Prime Minister with more apprehension than the resolute and prepared alacrity of his own nation inspires him with hope. It is to be feared that the tone taken by the leading statesmen of England in Tuesday's debate, will do more to excite the contempt of M. Bonaparte, than the English journalists can have done to excite his hatred.

A writer in the Edinburgh Review, distinguishes the reform of 1832 and the proposed Reform of 1852, thus—

" The essential difference between the condition of the Representation in 1830 and 1852, would appear to resolve itself into this -.—that whereas formerly hundreds of thousands were destitute of the franchise, whose exclusion was a positive hindrance to good government, and an actual injury to the community, now, the exclusion affects only a certain number whom it would be most desirable to include, and a far larger number, whom, on principle, it is conceived that it is unfair to exclude. Reform

was demanded in 1830 in order that notorious abuses might be rectified, that a just and beneficial administration of public affairs might be enforced; it is demanded now, in order that our representative system may be adjusted on a more perfect and more defensible plan. It was demanded in the name of practice then: it is demanded in the name of theory now."

The writer says in another place— " The English idea is the representation of classes —the House of Lords to represent the Peerage; the Knights of the Shire to represent the landed gentry and the agricultural interests; the Burgesses to represent the commercial and industrial interests; and the Members for the Uniiversity to represent the interests of literature and learning."