THE PRESS IN FRANCE.
THE decree modifying the constitution of 1852 has been followed up by a Ministerial act of the new Home Minister, M. de Persigny, who, having seen that a free press is consistent with order in Eng- land, has issued a general invitation to the French journalists to discuss the acts of the Government, and especially of himself, with snore freedom. The degree of liberty to be enjoyed is not defined at all. It is only vaguely referred to in large and elastic phrases. The system of warnings, whereby extinction may be held in ter- rorem over the head of any journal, is admitted to be exceptional, dictatorial, but it is preserved ; M. de Persigny, as an earnest of goodwill, however, has prevailed upon the Emperor to cancel all warnings given before the 10th instant. But, perhaps, the frank tone of his circular to the Prefects will do more to call forth some- thing like free discussion than the cancelling of warnings. The following extract is a fair example of the spirit of M. de Persigny's eiroular- "luat abuses in society or in the Government be exposed—that the acts ; of the administration be discussed—that injustice be revealed—that the , movement of ideas, of sentiments, of contrary opinions, shall everywhere ; awaken social, political, commercial, and industrial life—who can reasonably complain? But if there are parties who propose to themselves, not to have their ideas, their doctrines, and their sentiments accepted by the Govern- talent of the state, but to overthrow the state itself—to oppose to the Govern- ment such another Government—and to the dynasty another dynasty, then, I whatever may be the weakness of those parties, respect for national will, ; public interest, and the law, do not permit that passions hostile to established order shall be kept alive ; for, without speaking even of any danger, all that retards the fusion of parties in the great family of the State retards, at the same time, the enjoyment of the liberties of our country." Here we have a tolerably distinct rule laid down, or the ap- pearance of one. Attack policy, attack conduct, attack legisla- tion; but—touch not the elect of December, stop short of the constitution. No matter how weak the party may be which hurls its little arrows at the chief of the State, and aims at overthrow- ing one dynasty to set up another—crush that little party ; warn its journals out of existence, after you have fined and impriacined its journalists. It is for the French Government, and notably for Louis Napoleon, himself once a journalist aiming at the over- throw of a dynasty, to judge what is needful to its and his own security, and to take the consequences. It is for the journalists of France to judge how far, under the existing system, they can carry criticism of Imperial acts and, politics without being re- garded as trenching upon forbidden ground. .51. de Persigny has apyealed_to _Rnglis'n history to justify the restrictions placed on the press of France. He is eager to acclimatize free discussion, and he paints our history under William and the early Georges to show the severity of the regimen imposed upon the press, and even comes down to 1819, and picks Castlereagh's Gagging Act out of the famous bundle of six, in order to show to what ex- tremes our Tory Governments have gone.
While admitting the severity of early legislation and the pliable spirit of early judges, there is one broad distinction to be drawn between French practices and our own. No system of warnings ever flourished here. No Minister was ever made the judge of what was offensive to the State and an infringement of the law. Governments have often prosecuted, but juries have found guilty, and judges have passed sentence. Even before Fox passed his Libel Bill, even under the rigorous rule of Castlereagh, it was the jury which determined the final operation of the law. And now, although the laws are still severe against the excesses of the press, there is such a confidence in the purity and impartiality of the judges, and so firm a reliance on public opinion, that the very free- dom operates as a restraint. So long as reason alone is appealed to, politicians, idle theorists, and speculative men may propound any doctrine. Even if force be hinted at as the final court of ap- peal, the probable answer is not a public prosecution, but a shout of hilarious contempt ; the Dublin repealers furnishing a contem- porary specimen. And if the Dublin repealers or their news- papers were to be prosecuted, they would be tried by jury. The difference is very marked. In France the Minister watches over a journal through his subordinates, determines what is and what is not libel, sedition, treason, and issues warning upon warning, ending with suspension or final extinction. In England, a jury is called upon to declare whether a journal has infringed the law. The first is a stretch of arbitrary power, for the Minister is judge in his own cause ; the second is the constitutional method, for twelve men impartially chosen are called in to decide between the Minister who prosecutes and the journalist who is supposed to have offended.
Still any relaxation of the press law will probably do good in France. At all events, it will diminish the tendency to hold the Government responsible for everything uttered in the newspapers. Some relaxation was the inevitable complement of the freedom of discussion to be enjoyed by the Chambers, and probably the Go- vernment may require, before long, to throw some share of the burden of responsibility for its acts and its policy upon the coun- try. It is perilous steering without an opposition. How far the press will use the accorded liberty with prudenceit is impossible to say, but if any of the old leaven of "sensation" journalism has survived the coup d'etat, we shall not have to wait long for an avertissement signed "F. de Persigny."
Previous page
