Let us, if possible, divest ourselves of this superstitious veneration for everything that appears “in print,” and examine a little more systematically the evidence which is adduced.

* * * * *

I suppose it will not be denied that the three following are among the most important points to be ascertained, in deciding on the credibility of witnesses; first, whether they have the means of gaining correct information; secondly, whether they have any interest in concealing truth, or propagating falsehood; and, thirdly, whether they agree in their testimony.  Let us examine the present witnesses upon all these points.

First, what means have the editors of newspapers for giving correct information?  We know not, except from their own statements.  Besides what is copied from other journals, foreign or British, (which is usually more than three-fourths of the news published,)[6] they profess to refer to the authority of certain “private correspondents” abroad; who these correspondents are, what means they have of obtaining information, or whether they exist at all, we have no way of ascertaining.  We find ourselves in the condition of the Hindoos, who are told by their priests that the earth stands on an elephant, and the elephant on a tortoise; but are left to find out for themselves what the tortoise stands on, or whether it stands on anything at all.

So much for our clear knowledge of the means of information possessed by these witnesses; next, for the grounds on which we are to calculate on their veracity.

Have they not a manifest interest in circulating the wonderful accounts of Napoleon Buonaparte and his achievements, whether true or false?  Few would read newspapers if they did not sometimes find wonderful or important news in them; and we may safely say that no subject was ever found so inexhaustibly interesting as the present.

It may be urged, however, that there are several adverse political parties, of which the various public prints are respectively the organs, and who would not fail to expose each other’s fabrications.[7] Doubtless they would, if they could do so without at the same time exposing their own; but identity of interests may induce a community of operations up to a certain point.  And let it be observed that the object of contention between these rival parties is, who shall have the administration of public affairs, the control of public expenditure, and the disposal of places:  the question, I say, is, not whether the people shall be governed or not, but, by which party they shall be governed;—­not whether the taxes shall be paid or not, but who shall receive them.  Now, it must be admitted that Buonaparte is a political bugbear, most convenient to any administration:  “if you do not adopt our measures and reject those of our opponents, Buonaparte will be sure to prevail over you; if you