Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

who, while insinuating that the system of journalism is mercenary throughout-mercenary in origin, mercenary in management, mercenary in every detail, has stated the case against the individual writers with a distinctness and a formality with which it is not usually considered safe to invest sneers of this kind. Mr Conybeare wrote various articles in the Edinburgh Review which he collected and republished; but as if not satisfied with the circulation thus given to his opinions, he threw some of these articles into the form of a novel, which he published under the title of Perversion; a Tale for the Times. The most prominent character in the novel is a person named Archer, a man without conscience, who is represented as writing leading articles on foreign policy for a daily newspaper of vast circulation. In a conversation with this personage, which occurs in the second volume, the principles of newspaper management are dis cussed, the general conclusion being this that journalism is a mass of corruption, and that all its highsounding professions are but a fraud upon the public. No one, of course, would charge the English press with the vulgar sort of corruption-with the acceptance of bribes, with the levying of blackmail. The charge is that there is no sincerity in the individual writers, and that the conductors of the press have ulterior views. It is with the writers that we have here to do, and of these he says that they are precisely in the position of barristers writing for a fee; that there is nothing indeed degrading in the duty of a barrister, but that, nevertheless, there is a fraud practised on the public when he who is nothing but a barrister assumes the position of a judge. A leading article, which is but the speech of an advocate, is presented to the public as the charge of an impartial judge, and the public, in all simplicity, accept it as such. It is not without a sense of the humiliation involved in answering such trash that we proceed to point out that this reverend censor of the press is wrong in fact, and wrong in argument. He is wrong in fact, in

VOL. LXXXV.-NO. DXX,

asmuch as the subordinates of journalism are by no means in the position of mere barristers. It would be simply impossible for an editor to work with subordinates who had not a general sympathy with him in his views and aims, however they might differ from him in details. It sometimes happens, no doubt, that a writer may be called upon to discuss a subject with regard to which he has absolutely no opinion, so that he is ready to take whichever view of the case may suit the management of the newspaper. But in this instance his position is not that of a barrister; it is that of the member of a ministry who has not a seat in the cabinet; who, having a perfect sympathy with the leaders of his party, follows their guidance implicitly; who is willing to sacrifice his own crotchets, if need be; who rises in the House of Commons to explain or to defend what personally does not interest him, or what may be opposed to his own private views. Is it wrong in an Under-Secretary of State to act in this way? Does he lose in selfrespect-does he deceive the public by becoming the mouthpiece of a ministry with which he is united in sympathy? Is he, thus acting, to be regarded as a mere barrister talking for a fee-ready to defend a murder to-day and a burglary tomorrow? The under-secretaries of the press are exactly in the position of the under-secretaries of State; but even if they were in the position of barristers, the argument of Mr Conybeare would be utterly false.. The argument is, that the speech of a barrister is fraudulently presented to the public as if it were the charge of a judge. It is forgotten that, according to the barrister theory, the leading article in question is supposed to have been commissioned by the conductors of the journal, that it is accepted by them and published as their opinion-their judicial opinion, which indeed it is, whatever may be the individual views of the penman. Therefore, to speak of a deception is the merest nonsense; and in dismissing this part of the subject, we can only smile at the poverty of thought and ignorance of human nature displayed by

N

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The great weight of the accesstion, however fals por CLOSE WOD have to do WIL the managemens of the periodic press, and Wu are supposed to have at ere to proft in & that they undertake The estab listment of a journal is the eas listment of a trafic în nEWS CLIEÉT, but also in opinion: and is sup posed that this traffic has a pomer tendency to degetente 1107 a kind of semiar EROTY. It is assumei that the moment opinion becomes an item of meroban lise it becomes a marter of doubt. There wil & WATE be a tendency to make priampie square with prejudice, to adapt open ion to popularity, to swim with the tide and to fab for subscribers. Perhaps, however, we are entitled to ask those who urge such an obiec tion, whether they are perfectly sure of the major premiss in their argument, that opinion is subject to laws different from every other article of merchandise, that it is worthless when sold, and that it is to be respected only when coming from those who have no interest in maintaining it: for it must be remembered that we are speaking not of opinion in the abstract, but only of such opinion as it comes within the scope of a journal to dictate-worldly wisdom, in short. It may be a highly immoral doctrine that the value of such opinion is to be estimated by its popular acceptance-in fact, by the Sale which it can command; but it would be difficult to prove its immorality in a country where the principle of governing by majorities stay recognised. A prime miniscer in this country holds his power dependent on a majority; the punishucus of a murderer, in Scotland at easy hangs on the decision of a typeace and war await the sets h à ma erity; the true religion ne region of a majority; stance of life, from -anakng to the pay15. le opinion of the ma

jorry is sacred, the will of the ma Jonny is paramount. And yes in the same county jor a newspaper 2 DItall the sutraces of the multitude 1 L'on.it: the Balotion which

popnie 0.20 BUC national acespace give 10 TE TIEWE is to be TECKTGET ING AF evidence of the trunk, The justice, and the wisdom of the journ.. but of ne pandering to igmorali prejncise and democratie ryTALIT: THE Mony WLICL it commable is different from & other

Kajorities make and

make everything: they are Our

Gelties, We are their creatures; there is not a mar among us who in tis pabor conduct has not an eye to their option, who does not reckon upon the Amit of their endurance, whe in speaking does not speak in order to see them, who does not cal

en ate the chances of one day being able to obtain them, who, even when be deems their decision wrong, is not wing in nine cases out of ten to accept it as firal But an editor is to more the principle of majorities; be is to treat it as a snare; he is to despise success; he is to tremble at popularity; he is to shun opinion that obtains national assent and universal subscription; he is to regard the sale of his paper as the selling of his soul to the evil one. We venture humbly to submit that, in a country habituated to the exercise of private judgment, opinion is not different from any other item of merchandise; that it follows the known laws of supply and demand; that if a journal sends forth bad articles and unsound advice, it must suffer; that if it issues good articles and trustworthy opinions, it will reap the reward; that the maxim is infallible

Magna est veritas et prevalebit. Where there is no freedom, no education, no discussion, no private judg ment, we admit that the commerce of opinion is liable to abuse; the buyers are as little capable of weighing the opinions presented to their notice as savages are of discerning the relative value of beads and pearls, a few inches of looking-glass and a few ounces of gold. But among a people who think for themselves, who decide for themselves, who during two centuries have regarded the vote of a majority as the

voice of an oracle, and who, so far from repenting such a practice, have good reason for the utmost confidence in it, there is something exquisitely absurd in the idea that a journal obtains great favour and great sale by pandering to prejudice, or that any real good can accrue to it from the maintaining of a policy which, however popular at the moment, and however stimulating to the appetite for news, is in the end to be reprobated and recanted. The periodical press of this country have so little faith in such an idea, that by far the larger portion make it their chief business to present their readers not with advice but news, not with opinions, but with facts, by which they can form opinions for themselves. "This indeed," said the Times lately (10th September 1858), in commenting upon the character of newspapers, "is the guarantee which the Press offers for the proper use of its power. It cannot hope to pervert the judgment of those whom it furnishes daily with elaborate details on all the subjects treated of. The newspaper which will be most read, and, consequently, the articles of which will have the widest influence, will be precisely the one which gives in another column the fullest narrative of the event it comments on, with, perhaps, a verbatim report of half-a-dozen speeches by men of widely-differing views. In the dissemination of accurate intelligence, then, lies the advantage of both press and public, and it is a happy sign that of late years a taste for descriptions both comprehensive and minute has been created, and that every series of events in the most remote parts of the world is laid before the British public with a completeness which until lately was unknown. The influence of this daily instruction on our countrymen is remarkable, and must strike any one who compares the conversation of average Englishmen with that of far more studious and bookish Continentals. For a knowledge of contemporary history, at least, we would back the newspaper-reading Englishman against half the diplomatists and privy councillors in Europe," Now the result of this

process, by which the English press makes it a primary object to collect intelligence, to give every possible information on every possible subject, and to publish without fear even the attacks that are made upon itself, is that day by day its power is at once increased and diminished. It is increased as the information which it supplies becomes more and more complete, and becomes more than ever a recognised necessity. It is diminished, inasmuch as it cultivates the faculty of judgment in readers, gives them the most ample means of judging, therefore voluntarily deprives itself of the power to err with impunity, and of all that is arbitrary in its function. Its power is enormously increased, but only on conditions that effectually prevent the arbitrary exercise of it. The more powerful the monarchy of an editor, the less absolute it becomes and the more limited. It is the universal law. The slave who has no power is comparatively free he has few responsibilities, and no cares. His master is a greater slave than hẹ, and the more his power is increased, he is surrounded by all the more responsibilities and checks. "Whoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant," is a natural law as well as a divine command; and those who look with jealousy on the increasing power of the press, may take comfort in the assurance that the more this power is increased, the more is it delegated, the more is it amenable to the public conscience, the more must it defer to truth and

reason.

And this brings us to the point on which we desire mainly to insist. We stated in the outset of this paper that the course of events had introduced a new element into the present discussion which enabled us to give a more satisfactory solution of the problem as to the destiny of the press than was possible, say about the quarter of a century back. Now, the view of the press which was taken some twenty or thirty years ago will be found in its most philosophical form in de Tocqueville's work on America, and in its most common form might be stated somewhat in this fashion: "The press is a very

terrible engine, and threatens society. It is so beneficial, and yet so dangerous, that it is difficult to say whether its extinction or its preservation were better. We have only a choice of evils before us. What a blessing it would be if we could only preserve the press and yet control it! Unfortunately a censorship, or anything like an external control, is out of the question. There is but one cure; the press must cure itself. We have only to increase the evil and we shall cure it. Let us multiply the newspapers. The multiplication of newspapers will create a Babel of opinions which will neutralise each other. The more newspapers, the weaker each will be, the more harmless will be the aggregate result." Such were the views of American statesmen which de Tocqueville regarded as self-evident, and which he clothed with all the charms of his style. It is not improbable that they apply with tolerable accuracy to the United States, where the newspapers may fairly be described as the organs of individuals. But if they were meant to apply, as it would seem, to the press generally and universally, they are open to criticism. De Tocqueville was right in supposing that the multiplication of newspapers must create differences, and must, apparently at least, diminish the power of the press; but he was utterly wrong in his calculation as to the manner in which this result must infallibly be obtained. It was natural, we say, that the multiplication of newspapers should be the multiplication of differences. We have done our best to show that multiplication necessarily entails a difference of some kind; that, in the technical phrase of the physiologists, all growth proceeds on a law of differentiation; and the reader may perhaps remember our homely parable of the increase of publicBut it was wrong to suppose that these differences must of necessity be differences of opinion. Every fresh paper must have its speciality, but its speciality, in this country at least, is determined hot by differences of opinion, but by restriction of subject and by distincLion of interest. When we read these sociations as to the differences of

opinion that were to be created by the increase of newspapers, and as to the manner in which these differences were to neutralise each other so that the result should be zero, we ask, is this to be the sum total of our faith in education, in the march of intellect, in the flight of ignorance? On the contrary, we believe that education tends to unanimity, that "truth, like a torch, the more it's shook it shines;" that discussion is not an evil, and that the result is not chaos. We confidently appeal to the facts, and ask whether the multiplication of newspapers, and the increased power of the press, has not produced, with regard to subjects that have been sufficiently handled and properly sifted,-so far from chaos, a most startling unanimity? This is the great fact which the history of the last quarter of a century proves, and which every day's experience renders more and more clear. What is the complaint which we hear on every side but this, that we are all too much agreed; that party government is no longer possible, that the change of a Ministry is a change not of principle but of men? It is a result which we may fairly attribute to the advance of education, to the extension of the periodical press, and to the ample opportunities of discussion which it has created. Thus the theoretical anticipations of men remarkable for their power of thought, and strong even in their democratic sympathies, have been completely baffled by the experience of the last twenty years. The multiplication of newspapers has produced endless differences, but not the differences upon which they had calculated-not differences of opinion. And de Tocqueville and the American statesmen were equally wrong in the idea that the dissemination of newspapers must diminish their influence by causing a confusion. The apparent diminution of influence is the result not of neutralised opinions and nullified efforts, but of harmony, of success, of the creating a public opinion in the main so true to reason, and therefore, in spite of differences and distortions innumerable, so unanimous in the end, that the authority of any individual journal is forgotten in the

universal sentiment. This is a diminution of power which the press has no cause to regret, for it is the victory of reason-it is the triumph of opinion-it is the perfect achievement of all that journalists have ever sought

for; and we point with no misgiving to the fact, as showing pretty clearly what has been the aim of journalists in the interest of a commercial speculation, and what has been the result of their endeavours.

*

RAWLINSON'S HERODOTUS.

66

In an article written about three years ago, in which we reviewed Mr Talboys Wheeler's illustrations of Herodotus, we adverted to two different classes of historians, of one of which, as existing in ancient times, we considered Herodotus-of the other, Thucydides, as a representative man." While we qualified Herodotus as a historian of nature, a delightful gossip, full of human sympathies, laughing and weeping by turns, according to the circumstances of those he meets, and charming rather than overawing the reader, we spoke of Thucydides as a sage and philosophic historian, in whose presence we feel inevitably abashed, and of whom in moments of weakness we feel afraid, because, whether rightly or wrongly, he claims to regard human nature from a pedestal of intellectual pre-eminence.

But while, in speaking thus of Thucydides, we said nothing of the great Athenian which we have since seen cause to retract, we must protest, with the greatest possible emphasis, against classing him with the philosophical historian of modern times, who ignores the hand of God in the world, and can see nothing grand, or noble, or heroic, or divine in the dealings of Man with Man, or the workings of Man upon Matter, but only the progress of civilisation. It is true that Thucydides may have been the unconscious originator of the movement which sent history rolling with increasing velocity and angle of fall down the steep of scepticism into the abyss of unbelief, as it is probably true that Luther inaugurated

a mode of thinking on religious matters which has led, in later times, to the most astounding aberrations from primeval simplicity of faith; but we should be well content to assign to Thucydides the same relation with regard to history that we assign to Luther with regard to faith; and while we consider that both of these great men had his mission to fulfil in asserting the legitimate employment of the spirit of inquiry, and indicating its due bounds by his silence on subjects which he dared not touch upon in all the consciousness of mental superiority, we must maintain to the last, that as wide an interval separates Thucydides from the model philosophic historian of the present day, as that which lies between the sober reasonings of a real reformer and the frantic and fallacious sophistry of a destructive,-in a word, between a Luther and a Voltaire.

If Thucydides was sceptical of human goodness in the masses, contemporary as he was of Euripides and the Sophists, he never for a moment ceased to believe in individual heroism; and his personal portraits of Brasidas, and Demosthenes the General, will attest, as long as language lasts, even in their sober colourings, his heart-felt admiration for the true stamp of patriot. If he mistrusted the Athenian democracy when its reins were held by the reckless hands of Cleon, he could sympathise to the full with its glorious developments as long as it obeyed, even in its disobedience, the guidance of the king-like Pericles,

The History of Herodotus; a New English Version, &c. By GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A., late Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford; assisted by Colonel Sir Henry Rawlinson, K.C.B., and Sir J. G. Wilkinson, F.R.S.

Blackwood, Dec. 1855.

« AnteriorContinua »