STATESMANSHIP v. THE PRESS.

Otago Witness, Issue 59, 3 July 1852, Page 1

STATESMANSHIP v. THE PRESS.

(From the Times.) Destined, as we believe the press to be, to occupy a position of continually increasing importance, and to exercise a power over the formation of public opinion compared with which its present influence is but slight, it is most desirable that a true theory of its duties, responsibilities, andfleld of action should be enunciated, or, at any rate, that it should not be fettered by the application of erroneous tests and arbitrary principles.- The ends which a really patriotic and enlightened journal should have in view are, we conceive, absolutely identical with the

ends of an enlightened and patriotic Minister, but the means by which the journal and the Minister work out these ends, and the conditions under which they work, are essentially and widely different. The statesman in opposition must speak as one prepared to take office ; | the statesman in office must speak as one pre- \ pared to act. A speech or a despatch with them is something more than an argument or essay | — it is a measure. Undertaking not so much the investigation of political problems as the conduct of political affairs, they are necessarily j not so much seekers after truth as expediency. | The press, on the oth:jr hand, has no practical function ; it works out the ends it has in view by argument and discussion alone, and being perfectly unconnected with administrative or executive duties, may and must 10am at free will over topics which men of political action dare not touch. Were the press to be, as Lord j Derby wishes to see it, confined within the same ! narrow limits as practical statesmen, it would j lose at once its power and elasticity, and sink into a dull chronicle of passing events. It is ; because it can discuss things Avhich political men in buckram must not assail, and throw off the conventional tone which they are or believe I themselves forced to employ, that the press is able to give a support to liberty and justice, i which we would seek in vain from the most liberal Government. Government must treat I other Governments with external respect, howj ever black their origin or foul their deeds ; but j happily the press is under no such trammels, I while diplomatists are exchanging courtesies, I can unmask the mean heart that beats beneath a star, or point out the bloodstains on the hand which grasps a sceptre. The duty of the jouri nalist is the same as that of the historian, — to j seek out truth, above all things, and to present j to his readers, not such things as statecraft | would wish them to know, but the truth, as near as he can attain to it. To require, then, the journalist and the statesman to conform to the same rules, is to | mix up things essentially different, and it is as unsound in theory as unheard-of in practice. Lord Derby tells us that the internal administration of accounts is a matter of convenience and arrangement for that country alone ; that we have never felt it our duty to protest against any form of internal government in France., and that, therefore, we have no right to canvass | either the policy or morality of every step which j has been taken. As regards statesmen this is true; as regards journalists it is utterly false ; it is not only our right, but our duty to discuss the policy and morality of the steps which have been taken, to look at them in every possible point of view, and to extract from them every inference of which they are capable. The free press of Europe, so long as there was a free press, exercised the same right towards us, with- ! out offence and without question. The press does not, as Lord Derby says, aspire to exercise the influence of statesmen, but its own, and reserves that respect which Lord Derby is content to profess for a sanguinary and unscrupulous despotism for something more respectable than absolute power and brute force. We do not interfere with the duties of statesmen ; our vocation is, in one respect, inferior to theirs, for we are unable to wield the power or represent the collective dignity of the country ; but in another point of view it is superior, fox*, unlike them, we aie able to speak the whole truth j without fear or favour. Yet, in discussing | French politics we have never assumed a tone so offensive as that which the Earl of Derby ; has introduced into his homily. We have never said that for the last 60 years the Government of France has been a succession of usurpations of one kind or another, and then contradicted ourselves and libelled our neighbours by stating these usurpations were,' one and all, the deliberate choice of the nation, or, still worse, that the extraordinary powers of the French President have been conferred upon him by the most unanimous expression of the public opinion of France. Such statements are

insulting to French honour and nationality. Those who make them and believe them treat the gallant French nation as a race of slaves, barely competent for the choice of the tyrant who is to trample on them. In their respect for I rank and power they transfer the crimes of a ! guilty individual to an innocent people. We j would rather believe that Frenchmen have, like Englishmen., a love of liberty and a hatred of tyranny; that their rights have been surprised and wrenched from them by fraud and j violence ; and that the vote which we are called | upon to respect was extorted by terror and the misrepresentations of a press drilled in Lord Derby's own school, to echo in parrot notes the tone of the dominant class of French statesmen. Which of the two is more just to our neighbours it is for the public to judge, but we cannot take leave of Lord Derby without expressing our apprehension that he would be a more tolerant censor of the press had its shafts been levelled at the license of republics instead of the excesses of despotism. It is strange that in the same speech in which he so emphatically denies the right of one country to canvass the institutions of another, Lord Derby goes out cf his way to insult the only sincere and trustworthy ally we have left, by telling the United States that they enjoy far less liberty than ourj selves, and that the tyranny of a majority there | is worse than the despotic rule of other coun- | tries. We hope that the next time the Earl of 1 Derby condescends to administer a lecture to the press lie will set us a better example of the prudence and moderation which he preaches, and not, as in this instance, first cruelly defame , the nation which he undertakes to defend, and j then seek an opportunity for ungracious and j injurious comments on our most valuable ally. j We trust also that he will not wholly forget, j while dealing out his censures on ihe press, j th&t .the utmost flights and vagaries of a news- ! paper fall immeasurably short of that intemperance in language in which it has sometimes been his delight to indulge at the expense of his political opponents, and which has converted many a debate in the House of Commons ; in-to something little more dignified than a i prize-fight. Of Lord Grey we have little to say ; for, after adopting every word of Lord Derby's indiscretions and contradictions with an unqualified concurrence, he expressed his opinion that the duty of every individual in his private capacity was to abstain from all interference in, that is, from all discussion of, the internal politics of France. His Lordship was, moreover, indignant, and declared that, though the newspapers might express the opinions of those who write in them, they do not express the opinions of any large party in this country. How much of this has been retracted by his subsequent apology we .do not know, nor is it very important to inquire, for we really think we may fairly claim to be as good judges of public opinion as a nobleman who derives his knowledge of its existence by .continually outraging it. If we do not represent the opinion of the country w,e are nothing. No family influence, no aristocratic connexion, no balance of parties can preserve to us our influence one ,motncnt after we have lost ihe esteem and .approbation of the public. We assert that the opinion of this country, against which all else is powerless, claims and demands to be freely exercised, not merely on the account of our Government, but on that of every Power on the face of the earth, and that the conclusions which the press has arrived at with regard to Louis Napoleon are also the feelings of the sound English heart, and the ideas of the vigorous English understanding. Let those who will preach silence on crimes which they cannot deny, anil dare not even' palliate; we 'have been trained in another school, and will not shrink from boldly declaring what we freely think, though jtshowW be pur disagreeable duty to tall . Lord $$$$, that he condescends to be the tool of the which he pretends to lead, and Lord, Crrey^at. he is the scourge of/She -party which l*Q v ispeF-'; mitted to govern. " , ' ■"?, , ; ;'-j|