Transocean, in a message concerning German indignation over a story appearing in the London *News-Chronicle" alleging that Germany was endeavouring to separate Great Britain and Portugal, concludes the message with the following sentence Political circles here fail to understand the attitude of the British Government in the present case, and inquire whether the Government intends to continue indefinitely to regard with indifference the repeated endeavour by various British news organs to destroy through agitation' articles the progress that is being made towards the pacification of Europe, It is by no means a new complaint that the British Government fails to exercise that control over the British Press which certain other governments maintain over newspapers coming within their jurisdiction. Nor does it ari: merely out of the present political developments in Europe, for in the reign of Queen Victoria the Kaiser Wilhelm LI had occasion to complain of the manner in which he was being held up to ridicule in the British Press, and asked that the Government should do something in the matter.
The request was transmitted to her ministers by Queen Victoria, but it was pointed out that the Government had no right to inter-fore with the constitutional freedom of the Press, and that all that could be done was to make representations to the editors of the journals concerned in the hope that they would modify their attitude. It is to their credit that, once representations were made, the editors concerned did change their tactics, and, though criticism of things German continued, it was along happier lines than those which had created the original offence. It is necessary to emphasize the point that there was nothing then in the law of Great Britain, any more than there is now, to permit interference with the liberty of the Press, and, though it may be difficult for political circles in Berlin to understand how such a state of affairs can be permitted, that liberty does, nevertheless, exist and the task of endeavouring to make any change in the law is probably one which practically any government would hesitate to shoulder the risk of undertaking. The freedom of the Press was secured as the result of a very long and bitter struggle, and there would be very strenuous opposition offered to any attempt to bring about control such as German opinion appears to hold to be necessary.
The term "freedom of the Press" to many people seems to carry a significance entirely of its own. There are persons who believe that in some mysterious way the newspapers have been endowed with rights and privileges which are not the lot of the ordinary common man, but an examination of the facts serves to show that the Press has no rights additional to those which pertain to any subject of the British Crown. Newspapers occupy no privileged position in the eyes of the law, and as freedom of speech is guaranteed to Britons as a constitutional right, subject to special enactments regarding such matters as libel, etc., the freedom which the Press enjoys is no more and no less than that which belongs as of right to the ordinary individual. In totalitarian states it is impossible to permit of the existence of independent news organs which might criticize the government and by doing so tend to undermine its authority. That accounts for the unanimity with which the acts of totalitarian governments are general welcomed by the Press of the countries over which they have jurisdiction: criticism is not tolerated as being subversive of government, and with the disappearance of the freedom of the Press has gone the liberty of the individual. It is difficult for some nations to understand why the British Go ernment allows the Communist Party, or the British Fascists to have their meetings and their parades. There has been some limitation on the latter, but only when it was thought likely that a breach of the peace would occur, but on any Sunday throughout the year Hyde Park at the Marble Arch is the scene of political disputation, those taking part in which r would speedily find themselves behind the bars in quite a number of other countries. Newspapers in Great Britain so long as they do not preach actual sedition are free to express whatever political opinion they choose and in this respect the law is quite liberal. There are, how-bounds beyond which a newspaper dáre not trespass except at the risk of being punished. But those bounds are set upon the individual himself and in the freedom of the British Press is to be found only a reflection of the liberty of the subject. To endeavour to limit it in the way German criticism seems.to suggest would in effect about the constitutional rights of the individual, and any government who sought to do any such thing would find itself so bitterly opposed that in all probability it would deeply regret the day it ever tried to do anything of the sort.
That is by no means intended to excuse the "News-Chronicle" if indeed it has been wantonly circulating an untrue report. "There is, however, a great difference between being misinformed, and circulating tendentious reports for the. purpose of stirring up trouble. It has been shown in the despatch referred to that in.a former case when incorrect reports concerning Germany's intentions in Morocco were circulated, the falsity of those reports was subsequently admitted by the British Press. It would be unfair to the "News-Chronicle" to suggest that, because of its political leanings, it was unscrupulously doing its utmost to discredit, the German cause. There is nothing to support such a suggestion, and it has to be remembered that such misrepresentation as that complained of has not been solely confined to the Press of democrátic nations. In Scme instances the possibility of mere mischance had regretfully to be disregarded. It is, however, tobe deplored that anything should appear in the newspapers of any country in Europe calculated in any way to impair the very delicate balance with which a precarious peace is being maintained. That applies as much to inspired comment in the Press of totalitarian states, where the government's responsibility has been fixed by their own actions, as it does in democracies where constitutional rights have not yet been subordinated to the general functions of government. There has been in Britain itself no little resentment at the manner in which certain sections of the Press have been behaving themselves, and the Fourth Estate generally has been bluntly warned by some of the leading stàtes-men that unless it mends its manners of itself, it is likely to have it done for it. Be that as it may the fact remains that the British Government does not have, and cannot have without the express sanction of Parliament that degree of control over the Press that is to be found in other countries, and that any Government seeking to obtain save under the impelling necessities of war, would probably very soon find itself out of power.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.