bias of
his class, and that its voice, if it speaks his sentiments, is not that
of the English people, but of a rich conservative squire.

The editor is distinct from the proprietor, but his connections are
perhaps still more aristocratic. A good deal has been said among us of
late about his position. Before his time our journalism was not only
anonymous, but impersonal. The journalist wore the mask not only to
those whom he criticized, but to all the world. The present editor of
the "Times" wears the mask to the objects of his criticism, but drops
it, as has been remarked in Parliament, in "the gilded saloons" of rank
and power. Not content to remain in the privacy which protected the
independence of his predecessors, he has come forth in his own person to
receive the homage of the great world. That homage has been paid in no
stinted measure, and, as the British public has been apprised in rather
a startling manner, with a somewhat intoxicating effect. The lords of
the Money Power, the thrones and dominions of Usury, have shown
themselves as assiduous as ministers and peers; and these potentates
happen, like the aristocracy, to be unfriendly to your cause. Caressed
by peers and millionnaires, the editor of the "Times" could hardly fail
to express the feelings of peers and millionnaires towards a Republic in
distress. We may be permitted to think that he has rather overacted his
part. English peers, after all, are English gentlemen; and no English
gentleman would deliberately sanction the torrent of calumny and insult
which the "Times" has poured upon this nation. There are penalties for
common offenders: there are none for those who scatter firebrands among
nations. But the "Times" will not come off unscathed. It must veer with
victory. And its readers will be not only prejudiced, but idiotic, if it
does not in the process leave the last remnant of its authority behind.

Two things will suffice to mark the real political position of the
"Times." You saw that a personal controversy was going on the other day
between its editor and Mr. Cobden. That controversy arose out of a
speech made by Mr. Bright, obliquely impugning the aristocratic law of
inheritance, which is fast accumulating the land of England in a few
hands, and disinheriting the English people of the English soil. For
this offence Mr. Bright was assailed by the "Times" with calumnies so
outrageous that Mr. Cobden could not help springing forward to vindicate