IS THE PRESS IN DANGER?
SOME of our contemporaries have answered this question in the affirmative a little too hastily. We are not aware that any of them has stated that a continuance of the system of repressing its luxuriance by ex-officio informations would destroy the press; but the most temperate of the whole, the Globe, was at one time of opinion, that under such a system, "bold writers would not be reasonable, and reasonable writers would not be bold"—that though there might be here and there one extravagant declaimer, "the general tone of public writing would be base and crawling." This opinion that able journalist has since very greatly modified, if not retracted. He now thinks, and with more reason it seems to us, that there is "no fear but that sort of freedom we have hitherto enjoyed we shall continue to possess." On the impolicy of the late trials we have already spoken. With the exception of those against Lord LYNDHURST, the libels conveyed 'no definite charge, and could be met by no definite disclaimer. The persons whom they intended to bring into contempt came out of Court no more honourable than they went in. They gave a general denial to a general assertion, and twelve men said they believed them. A million of men at least, that same twelve included, had said so before. In the libels against Lord LYNDHURST, we had the oath of the party accused to the falsehood of the accusation. The prosecutions might make people believe that the Chancellor's oath needed bolstering; they could answer no earthly purpose beside. But granting all this —granting Ind Ministers have gained no advantage by these motions—granting that Sir JAMES SCARLETT has by the openness of his _zeal exposed himself to a good deal of obloquy with the best possible public instructors —granting that he despises their enmity, (as it is probable he does, or he would not have braved it so boldly,) and means to renew from term to term the same scenes as were enacted on Christmas week, provided he can find materials—will he by so doing reduce the press of England to a crawling and cowardly instrument in the hands of the many, Its baseness being relieved only here and there by a reckless and raving declaimer ? In other words, is it essential to the healthy operation of the public press, that libels such as those of the Morning Journal and the Atlas should be written and published ? About the Atlas libel there can be no difference of opinion. Unquestionably the press can suffer no damage by being forbidden to publish a heavy accusation against either lord or lady on the authority of a rumour picked up by the editor half an hour before publication and without the possibility of his searching into its truth or falsehood. The libel was a false one, but even had it been true, it was not truly put. The " rumours in the highest political circles" were mentioned as if the editor had been personally cognizant of their currency there, whereas all that he knew about them was derived from a casual informant whom he met on returning from the theatre. The publication lacked the only excuse which could ralliate or justify it, namely, the belief of the writer in the truth of what he reported. If he had really thought there was a foundation for the charge insinuated against Lord LYND. HURST, we should have said he acted honestly, though perhaps not prudently,in proclaiming his opinion and-the grounds of it. But even in asserting, he denied ; in circulating, he discredited ; and lie aggravated his offence, by involving in an accusation so groundlessly hazarded, a private and irresponsible individual, whose sex gave her a title to the forbearance of a public writer. The press need not tremble at the compulsory repression of such libels as this. Let us turn to the Morning Journal. What since the commence ment of its career has been the character of that newspaper ? .Has its editor ever, by chance, employed the language or the arguments of a man who sought after truth, or cared anything about it ? Has he not for the last fourteen months been running a muck at every man in the country? Is there one epithet of vituperation that he has not abused by using on every occasion, for any or for no cause, against high and low, learned and ignorant, good and bad, public and private ? Had his attacks been merely political, he would not have wanted precedents for his violence ; but he was ever in the "huffing vein." It mattered not who crossed his path—the Duke of WELLINGTON or PETER JEFFREY, Lord LYNDHURST the Chancellor or Mr DILLON the merchant—apostate, ass, dotard, thief, were served out with most indiscriminating impartiality to all and every comer. The press received no gentler treatment than the public. The Chronicle and the Courier, the Post 'and the Sun, the Times and the Globe, received each in its turn. the benefit of the Journal's castigation. We will not say that such a newspaper is properly put down by prosecution—for we must do the public the Justice to say. that no means, either legal or otherwise, can long be necessary to terminate the career of one who so wofully mistakes the spirit of the age that he presumes to instruct : but, properly or improperly put down, will the, rest of the press become base and crawling in consequence ? What was the character ofthe press of London before the Morning Journal commenced? Was it base or crawling? What would be its character were the Journal extinguished to-morrow? Would the Times abate one jot of its independence? Would the Chronicle forego its economy or its logic? Would the humorous causticity of the Globe cease; or the learning and subtlity of the Standard be no more? What would be the consequence to the/0 urnantself,if, instead of destroying it, these prosecutions should (as we hope they will) induce it in future to substitute intelligible statement for confused declamation, sober argument for virulent invective, and authenticated facts for idle and improbable conjecture? Will they not in that case, however sharp in their working, be most salutary to the paper and to its readers ? There is, with submission be it said, a great deal of cant in the zeal of brotherhood affected by our contemporaries. We should like to see them combined for some better purpose than the defence of an erring brother, amiable as that may be. The real drag-chain of the press is not the law of libel, much as in some of its parts it requires revision—not Government prosecutions, much as these may be abused. The STAMP-DUTY is the cause why the press, with all its boasting, is so feeble. So long as Government levies one tax of 200 per cent, on a newspaper, and another of 100 per cent on an advertisement, so long will the press be trammelled and timid. Prosecutions, like comets, come once in an age. The Stamp-duty is an evil of daily recurrence. The intolerable pressure of this impost is the grand cause why the less regardful part of the press seek a bad notoriety from the publication of private and public libels. The expense of getting up even a weekly paper is so great, that a poor or an unscrupulous proprietor is irresistibly tempted to catch at the nearest means of realizing a profit. With a daily journal that is seeking to rise into notice, the struggle is for the most a neck or nothing one. All the terrors of law are small compared to the utter ruin of a large fortune embarked beyond recovery in the most hazardous of speculations. Take off the tax, and what would ensue ? The cool-headed and the reputable could afford to "bide their time," and their numbers would speedily put to shame the reckless and ruffian part of the press. The increase of newspapers would of itself put a stop to the system of abuse and blackguardism ; or if it did not, would effectually neutralise them. No community can suffer where every party has its representative and its advocate. At present, numerous interests are neglected, not because of their unini portance, but because of their smallness. Carent vate stwro—they can't afford a newspaper. The tax on advertisements is still more extensively injurious and far less defensible than the tax on newspapers. The latter affects the newspaper proprietor alone—the former affects him and every one of the community. Why should a dealer pay Government three shillings and sixpence for telling the world, in the pages of a public journal, what wares he has for sale, more than for hanging out a sign over his door? We talk of freedom of trade—freedom, forsooth Let the newspapers unite honestly and heartily to get the taxes which crush them to the ground removed,—and which, by the by, are as contemptible in amount as they are injurious in operation and indefensible in principle ;—and should they succeed in the attempt, they will do more towards securing their independence, than they wculd by procuring the abolition of the office of public prosecutor.
Previous page
