ENGLISH JOURNALISM ON THE FRENCH QUESTION.
IN our last Postscript, we briefly pointed out a reiterated asser- tion by the Morning Chronicle, that the Moutpensier marriage and the annexation of Cracow were equally violations of treaty ; and we expressed an opinion that the totally unfounded state- ment ought to be given up, as descreditable. It has been given up, though not by the journal that last advanced it. The Globe makes the disclaimer, with what apology it may- " The mistake was made, in the leading article of a morning contemporary, (and how easily mistakes may be made, currente calamo, no public writer need be told,) of treating the recent Montpensier marriage as involving an actual breach of the treaty of Utrecht. Thereupon a weekly contemporary makes our Govern- ment responsible for the exalt don; therein following the lead of that foreign journal (published in London of which might be said, with a slight alteration of the Marseillaise contre nous des Tuhlerles L'Etendard sanglant eat lave.'
" It will be a piece of quite new information to us, that the present Government is in such communication with any journal, as to be held fairly answerable for its mode of advocacy. This sort of responsible editorship we can confidently say that the Government disowns. It is altogether absurd to assume any such article as official, or as indicating a contrast between ' the official spirit ' in London and Paris."
The position, then, that the Montpensier marriage was an
" actual " breach of the treaty of Utrecht, is at length discovered and confessed to be a " mistake." That it occurred in writing " currente calamo," is an excuse that will scarcely serve, since the error has been the object of our correction any time these three months. In passing, we may observe that the Spectator has " followed " no other journal in that matter, but was, we be- lieve, the first, in this country at least, to point out the " mis- take," and has continued to discuss it with a careful limitation to the known facts and the data before it. We pretend to no ex- clusive information. We do not know what is or is not the amount of editorship, responsible or irresponsible, that Cabinet Ministers may exercise; though we incline to doubt whether there is any instance of responsible editorship. We freely accept the disclaimer of the Globe as applied to itself : we willingly be- lieve that no official statesman writes in it, though that journal shows in its disclaimer a statesmanlike view of necessities. But we do not know what right the Globe has to speak for the Morn- ing Chronicle. The question is, do the Ministerial papers, or do they not, receive communications from Ministers? The Globe seems to aver that they do not, and we are bound to accept that disavowal as true of the Globe; but then, we do not know how it should know what Ministers do or do not do with other papers. We never imputed " responsible editorship," but merely ac- cepted the journals as one reflex of the official spirit. When we refer to the Morning Chronicle, we find a striking accordance between the views directly imputed to Lord Palmerston in the authenticated correspondence of that journal and the comments in the editorial part. The correspondence professes to give ac- counts of diplomatic communications, which could hardly be re- ceived through any but an official source. Does the Globe mean to say that the intelligence communicated by the Morning Chro- nicle under that head is false and fraudulent ? We must leave the two journals to settle that question between themselves.
But it is not any special point that is censurable, so much as the spirit that animates, not only the editorial columns of the Morning Chronicle, but the parts which profess to report Lord Palmerston's recorded views. For that spirit at least the " cur- rente calamo" excuse will not serve, since it still continues. In the Chronicle this week we read the following passage- " Even those who believe in the good faith of the King [of the French] and the Cabinet are keenly alive to the humiliation and the danger of their present position. They are sensible, too, that it is to the abrupt and insolent severance of the English alliance they may attribute this great European calamity. Since the Revolution of 1830, there has never been a question discussed by France with any other Power in which the nation took so little interest as the Montpensier mar- riage. It is felt to be altogether a personal question—one of pounds, shillings, and pence, without the merit of being so in a national sense. That this question might be settled to the King's satisfaction, France is isolated'—not merely in the rhetorical sense of the tribune, but really and in truth alone, crying out by her newspapers and agents, exhibiting her fruitless contortions to, we fear, a rather uncharitable political world. Depend upon it, there is a public opinion in France that lays all this up to the heavy account of the dynasty. As for the Minister, his day of reckoning is close at hand. Whether he is about to fall before the em- barrassment of his position, or, as is more generally believed, he is to be the scape- goat—sacrificed, like so many others who have preceded him, to those personal interests that occasionally override national policy in France—it is beside our pre- sent purpose to inquire. It is enough that amongst the beat-informed people the eel-mutation of M. Guizot's Government is considered to be close at hand, The Minister who has placed France in the position in which she now finds herself cannot hope to do more than formally meet the Chambers. Whether he will be able to do even so much, is matter of some doubt. Such are the fruits to France —to the nation, to the King, to the Minister—of the affair of Cracow, itself the direct consequence of the Spanish marriage." The avowed desideratum of the Whig journalist is to oust M. Guizot. Such also, according to the uncontradicted reports, has
been for some time the only intelligible object of Lord Palmer- ston's policy. He professes indignation at the way in which the treaty of Utrecht has been disregarded; but what reparation does he demand—what does he call upon the French Ministers to do f He calls upon them to renounce, for the Infanta Isabella of Spain, the right of her progeny in the succession to the Spanish throne. That is a thing that belongs to Spain, not to France ; it is utterly beyond the province and power of the French Ministry. Lord Palmerston's policy, therefore, is aimless, unless he aims at dis- placing M. Guizot, by insisting on a demand which cannot be fulfilled by that Minister, and cannot be made to any other.
Now, what interest has the English people in displacing M. Guizot? What advantage would the English nation obtain from that result, what honour from contributing to it? None. On the other hand, although it may not very seriously concern the English nation what gentleman happens to be King Louis Philippe's Premier, it might produce very serious inconveniences to us if the change were brought about by the meddling of our statesmen. Critically, we may draw distinctions between the King, the Ministers, and the French people ; from a considera- tion of different motives severally animating them we may shape our own course ; but the distinctions of that kind can never be avowed and recognized in formal communications. We can never advantageously interfere in the purely internal affairs of any foreign people. The nonintervention now preached by the Morn- ing Chronicle must not be broken by meddling in the very details of French politics. Suppose we could oust M. Guizot : in thrust- ing him from office, how can we be sure what else we might not unsettle—the dynasty, the constitution of the country, its Euro- pean position, its influence as our fellow champion in maintain- ing political liberty? And if we oust one Minister, are we to meddle in the choice of his successor? To leave refinements and contingent expectations, what is to repay us for the jealousies and heartburnings which these impertinencies and arrogant meddlings must provoke in our powerful neighbour? It is remarkable how the motives and the responsibilities of such a policy. are now successively disclaimed by journals not hostile to Ministers. In declaring that Ministers are not respon- sible for the views of the Morning Chronicle, the Globe con- demns the views imputed by the Chronicle to Ministers—con- demns the policy which the public at large have been ascribing to Ministers. What can be the reason for that disclaimer, except the feeling that the policy is one which is odious, unpopular, and likely to bring discredit on whomsoever really is responsible? The Globe is not alone among journals, usually disposed to the Whig interest, who have found out the imprudence of " endor- sing " the old Whig journal's foreign policy. But the most sig- nal counter-declaration is that put Airth by the Times on Mon- day, and closing thus- " We by no means share the opinions of those ill-advised writers on this side of the Channel, who traduce the real opinions of English statesmen when they affect to repel with supercilious indifference the overtures made on behalf of the French nation, or to make the acceptance of them depend on the compliance of the French dovernment with a preposterous requisition. This country might indeed subsist in undiminished power and dignity without the ties of any close Continental alliance; but as long as our interests are mixed up in every part of the world, and exposed to a thousand accidents of rivalry and collision, the peace of nations absolutely requires that we should maintain something more than a frigid decorum towards the only Power which is really interested like ourselves in the great cause of freedom and civilization. The spirit of the people of France is opposed to that narrow policy which makes the aggrandizement of a family the first object of the state. Whatever is common to the two nations is worthy of their noblest exertions; whether it be the maintenance of treaties, the redress of public injuries, the extension of commerce, or the improvement of the arts. Whatever is dictated by a petty jealousy, or suggested by a paltry advantage, costs more than it is worth, and shakes that mutual confidence which is the basis of our common prosperity."
This general declaration is followed up, on a later day, by a still more powerful argument in detail,* enforcing several of the po- sitions which we have before established. What is the meaning of such a manifesto from the Times office ? The Leading Journal shows no hostility to Ministers ; we can perceive in this very arti- cle no disposition inimical to the Foreign Secretary. But the first allegiance of the Times is to the British public. It usually re- flects, in a broad and freely interpreted sense, the dominant opin- ions of the times ; and it has fulfilled the office of a national voice with extraordinary tact and power for a long series of years. There can be no doubt that all, whether statesmen or writers, who should be convicted of dragging us into a decided quarrel, possibly a war with France, would incur general odium, if not contempt for their bungling. John Bull would fight a war as bravely as ever, and as munificently—for a war is more than anything an affair of taxes; but he would not be the less disposed to whip those of his own sons who had dragged him into it. War Ministers and war journals would just now be equally unpopular : and accord- ingly, there is a general disposition in the press, which is more immediately responsible to the public than even Cabinet Minis- ters are, to eschew the consequences at home of the Foreign policy supposed to prevail in Downing Street.
* The greater part of the article alluded to will be found in our Supplement, PP. 24.
Previous page
