THE LION'S MOUTH IN PRINTING-HOUSE SQUARE. MEN may live in
society and still remain as liable to purchase green spectacles as Moses Primrose, and in the very centre of the most knowing circles this everlasting simplicity may survive. In Parliament, or in office, may be found men who make a por- tentous mystery of the most obvious and intelligible affairs, and who put wonderfully constructive interpretations where the plain- est is transparent. On Saturday last, the Times performed a pub- lic service by explaining one point in regard to Eastern and Rus- sian affairs, which is of the first importance, yet has remained shrouded in so much obscurity that it escaped even curiosity ; and straight there is an outburst of angry surprise at the circum- stance that the knowledge should have reached the public through that channel. Lord Derby thinks it must be Lord Aberdeen who acted as reporter ; Lord Aberdeen retorts, that it may have been a young gentleman appointed to the Foreign Office by Lord Malmes- bury ; Lord Malmesbury repels the insinuation, but wants "a searching inquiry to ascertain who it was that betrayed these Cabinet secrets to the public press "; Lord Grey thinks it the more serious because the Times was completely informed on a pre- vious occasion, and was able to answer a question in Parliament to which Lord Aberdeen had refused an answer ; while Lord Fitz- william thinks it "a very serious affair that all Ministers, perhaps the noble Lords near mm as well as his noble friend opposite, might feel there was a great necessity for courting the press."
This is the old story—always some idea of illicit affiance and subserviency as characterizing any relations between the press and the statesmen of the country. It is the more remarkable that this idea should prevail in certain circles, since there are many men in the ranks of statesmen who are not unfamiliar in relations with the press, and who know perfectly that their own share is as pure as that of the press is independent There have been times when the position of newspaper-men was less defined than it is now, and when by consequence equivocal methods of approaching the public through the press were feasible. There are still, no doubt, as there are in all professions, men hanging upon the skirts of the press whose characters are as equivocal as their abilities, and to whom a trifling gift, the means of some present gratification, is more valuable than character. It never has been our custom to boast, but on this occasion let us say for other journals, that there is certainly as much of independence and virtue to be found in the newspaper profession as elsewhere. There may be many who give up to party what was meant for mankind, as much in the press as in. the Parliament, or anywhere else ; editors, like other men, have their own objects to pursue, and individuals vary in this as in any other class. lint we venture to say, that if these men talking in Parliament about improper influence were to try to reduce their theory to practice, they would meet with the usual reception which is merited by insult. Any one who is acquainted with the working of the press knows that the editor of a journal has the best opportunities of becoming aware that it would be shortsighted policy indeed if he sacrificed his character to a casual and transi- tory temptation. The same may be said of individuals in less conspicuous positions ; for if sometimes a poor devil, who strains the phrase when he boasts himself as "connected with the press," is detected taking a bank-note to forget a coroner's inquest, how often does it happen that vulgar ignorance suggests offers to bribe the silence or the notice of the press,—offers which are rejected with equal courtesy and indifference by the men to whom such a rejection becomes habitual.
There is, however, a much more serious mistake of ignorance in those who talk of " Cabinet secrets oozing out" and "Government courting the press." The very foundation of their theory is a blunder. In their simplicity, they evidently imagine that the newspaper is dependent for information either on some particular reporter or on communications direct from Government or other public body. Now the fact is altogether different. The channels by which information reaches the journal are so numerous that they are neither to be computed nor classified. Besides the pro- fessional reporters, who are themselves various in class and func- tion, the very art of journalism consists in attracting information
from every conceivable quarter. The newspaper is like the ani- real organism, which not only drinks fluid by a particular mouth, but imbibes it through every pore; and it may be said that the true journalist is never awake and in possession of his faculties Without being in the process of learning something.
The Times avers that it receives its information from no mem- ber of the Government, and that it has its sources abroad as well
as at home. We can well believe that it is not necessary to de- rive information from members of the Government to form a shrewd guess at what passes in the Cabinet, or sometimes even to
know—literally, to know—facts unknown to the members of the Cabinet themselves. The espionage of the press exceeds that of Austria in universality and in efficiency, and principally because it is an honest espionage. But, independently of channels through which information may flow in one complete stream, there is such a process as that of obtaining information by putting several parts of a story together. And it is within our knowledge that the most profound secrets, both in private and public life, have reached newspaper-men solely by that process. One person tells a frag- ment of a story, in itself quite harmless to be told ; another tells a second fragment ; a third, the remainder ; and through the thou- sand pathways that converge in the newspaper-office, the three severed and unintelligible fragments come together into their places, and the story is complete. Lord Malmesbury thinks that "the great advantages which we enjoy living under a constitutional government are somewhat counterbalanced by our disadvantages as compared with those go- vernments which are entirely despotic " ; and he speaks of news- paper revelations as one of the disadvantages. We will not now discuss the question as to the comparative benefits of constitu- tional and despotic governments; presuming that no theoretical discussion on that point will induce the English people to give up the Bill of Rights and invoke an autocracy. We must take things as we find them. English Ministers live in a country where secrecy is not the habit of society, and where, therefore, trans- fusion is established between all parts of that society in which statesmen as well as newspaper-men move ; and since that is the case, it becomes a question for those Ministers to consider how far they should modify their conduct to harmonize with the publicity that cannot be avoided. We are indeed by no means in favour of hasty and premature disclosures on the part of those who deserve the public trust; but in order to know that the public trust is de- served, accounts must be squared at one time or other, and public distrust is excited by too long a postponement of ac- counts. Publicity has its advantages as well as its duties, and an explicit statement at the right time may give strength to Ministers as well as confidence to the public. A. speaking ex- ample is the case of that particularly frank explanation on the sub- ject of Prince Albert which at once extinguished all the preposter- ous stories and honest uneasiness that had previously been excited. Having this necessity for ultimate account in view, English Min- isters will perhaps be cautious not to accept a relation towards foreign governments incompatible with English frankness. It is true that even in the most republican situations some degree of honour and discretion in the confidential recep- tion of confidential communications must be expected, and may be a valuable resource for the public service. But in a matter depending so entirely upon personal discretion, that resource must still rest upon personal grounds. The man who thinks it right to run the hazard of resorting to that means of com- munication, must be content to take the advantages along with the risk ; and must not rely upon anything more certain than personal honour in the man with whom he confers. A consciousness of that risk is a great check upon indiscretions ; and if a man make a mistake—if the risk take effect in disaster—there is no help. No redress can be obtained in such cases; to repine is useless; and the calamity which befals the man who is deceived becomes the ex- ample to make other statesmen place a greater restraint upon the resort to a species of action which is always questionable. The only safe ground for the Minister of a constitutional country to stand upon, is that ground which he can throw completely open to the Parliament ; for be it remembered, that practically the English Minister, nominally the servant of the Crown, is in fact the agent of the country.
Previous page
