The Press. — London, England, 1857-04-18 00:00:00

374 on the Legislature, and they did not thoroughly understand England or English. men. They confided, also, in the success which had attended their former efforts. They had, however, performed great services to the Liberal party, and they had powerfully aided in its sudden restoration to power in 1846. The manner in which these things are for gotten, and. the way in which Liberal organs have since treated thern, is certainly not creditable to the character of the popular party. We refer to the deposition of those eloquent and able men for the purpose of showing how little the tribunitian element can be relied upon in a settled country like England, with positive institutions, endeared by enno bling associations. In the early stages of a great democratic revolution the mission of a tribune is formidable, and may have a crea tive utility, whose permanent effects must be recorded in history. But as the revolution advances, rival tribunes start up, jealousies intervene, discord ensues, and conquering energy "scatters dust over the angry insects." The power of a tribune, though fierce, is fatally fugitive. Custom soon reconciles one to his thundering voice, and time shows that there is no real proportion between his big words and small deeds. His boldness degenerates into brawling, and for arguments he substitutes in vectives. Too often the mere tribune sup• poses the platform to be a place of power. His eyes and ears deceive him. Smiling faces and resounding cheers delude him with a hollow popularity. In grasping at applause from the multitude, the tribune may have alienated the opinion of those formidable classes who are slow to give their confidence, but who are quick in dealing roughly with the inordinate pretensions of eloquent declaimers, who end as they began, with words. We do not think, therefore, that England is a country fit for tribunes. Parliament is open to the talents of the gentlemen of all connec tions, and " success in the House " is the hall-mark by which Englishmen for ages have agreed to test the character of eloquence. But " success in the House" can be attained only by deference to the peculiarly constituted assembly which represents the commonage of England. Men may have a temporary suc cess on particular questions by bold speaking in Parliament, but, in the long run, they must submit to the ordinances which have ruled the House of Commons since Parliamentary Government has been firmly established amongst us. The spectacle of the deposition of Mr. COBDEN and Mr. Bateau, and of the envenomed attacks made on them by politicians of the Liberal connection, shows the hollowne as of tribunitian power, as well as the inconstancy of the multitude to idols precipitately wor shipped, and just as hastily abandoned. It is only by the Crown and Parliament, and not by " popular leaders," that Englishmen can be permanently ruled. AUTHORITY AND THE PUBLIC PRESS. IN the political article of tho current number of the Edinburgh Review, the manner in which the public press is mentioned has much signi ficance. In the absence of decided party con nections, and with several chiefs of Parlia ment opposed to them, it is not unlikely that the present Ministers will rely strongly upon "the influence of the press." It is said by the reviewer : No sooner is a question distinctly raised in Parliament, than it is thoroughly ventilated and discussed by the public press ; opinion is formed, and against that opinion no party trader in the House of Commons is bold enough to make a resolute stand. We may be supposed to appreciate as highly as others the working of the profession of journalism, and we have had long experience of its power. But we must say that the "influence of the press" is overstated by the reviewer. " Opinion," as represented by the public press, has often been overruled. In the case of individuals especially, " newspaper opinion " has' been frequently disregarded. But without recording the uses of individuals, and confining the argument to " questions," THE PRESS. - - ' surely any one with an ordinary memory must see that with a right case au honest Govern , ment need not quail before , the public press in the fashion described in the Edinburgh Review. On the question,. for example, as to whether the old dtystal Mace Ahould be allowed to remain in Hyde-park or hot, the journals were of one opinion, rind the Government of an other. -On the propriety of opening the Crystal Palace on Stindays, several powerful journals were in favour Of the affirmative, but Government decided in the negative. " The Sunday Bands" was another subject on which journalists and official authority were adverse to each other. On the subject of " Foreign Policy " the " leading journal " was for twenty years opposed to Lord PALMERSTON, and yet a bold stand was made against it. The in fluence of the press is certainly both vast and various, but it is not of that crushing omnipo tence which the reviewer claims for it. " I "rejoice," said Mr. WHITESIDE in the Chinese - debate, " that the Noble Lord (J. RUSSELL) " has shown that he cannot be written down ;" and we think that the result of the last London election might induce the reviewer to qualify his assertion. And surely he might have recollected the case of " Ballot." For twenty years the areat majority of Liberal organs were in favour of secret suffrage, yet chiefs of party continued to stand against it. The press is, indeed, transcendently power ful when it is clearly in the right, and when the general voice is in one direction. But journals of professed independence often diminish their power by vacillation, and by unsaying to-day what they asserted yesterday. We need not, in this instance, discuss the limits of the powers of journalism. We would rather call attention to the fact that there might be political personages who would like to use journalism as the right arm of bureau cracy. "Public opinion" may be artfully simulated by servile organs affecting " inde pendence." The Monarchy of Louis PHILIPPE rested not upon an aristocracy, nor a great army (for the National Guards swamped the troops of the line), nor so much indeed on the interest of great commercial classes, as upon a bureaucracy dictating its mandates through organised journalism. The Liberals in England have before now tried the system of writing down their adversaries, but in some notable instances (which we need not par ticularise) the plan heavily recoiled. The free opinion of the public press, reallyindependent, as journalists we regard with respect and pride. But let journalism be warped to sinister purposes—let it be devoted to personal ends—let it be used as the ladder for the unsuccessful ambition which may have failed in debate, or not carried the palm of honour in the learned professions, and the mission of the political writer is virtually degraded. These exaggerations of the power of journalism in the Edinburgh Review are cal. culated to entrap the unwary. Journalism (and on a large scale) has often been unscru pulously used (as at the time of the Reform Bill), and a free people, self-ruled and self judged, will hesitate before giving unqualified submission even to the greatest journals when maintaining an unavowed coalition with official power. THE FRANCHISE QUESTION. IT is not likely that even the next short session of Parliament will be allowed to pass without the renewal of Mr. LOCKE KING'S motion. The whole subject of extension of the franchise will probably be brought under public consideration, and it is well to have clear views on a constitutional question of so much importance. No two things can differ more from each other than " Extension of the Suffrage " and " Degradation of the Electoral Body." The word "extension," like the word " people," has often been artfully used to mislead the public judgment. The Liberals have employed the word " extension," not in a true enlarging sense for the comprehension of persons now shut out from the franchise (and entitle i to enjoy it), but for the vulgarising of SATURDAY, the whole electoral body. They seek to change the distribution of political power, t o remove it froth thd iiiidditt p olitical and bestow it on the mtiltitude. A town with eight hun dred eleotonti voters, Mittel: the present law liiight, With'just enlatitiiimettitif its boundari es , obtain It legitimate extihsiod of the franchise, Which Would prevent su'illirviency to some leading,perddhal intereStg Of rich brewer, or a great flittdil , lord WHIR a heavy wages bill. Such an extension of the franchise might be constitutional and fair, but it would not be one to satisfy the clamourers of the Liberal party. What they aim at, we repeat, is the degrada tion of the franchise. They seek not to extend, but to lower—not to popularise, but to intro duce plebeian elements, disconnected from property. If the Liberals were allowed to carry out their intentions, every constituency in the kingdom would have a local platform, dictating the politics of its neighbourhood. The whole condition of political power in England would be entirely altered. The counties would be virtually turned into metro politan boroughs, and none could seek their representation but capitalists with a Radical popularity and ready to spend enormous sums on their candidature. Along with such an extension of the fran chise, the ballot would probably be offered under the flimsy pretence of protecting the rights of the minority. Some opponents of the " Ballot" (like Lord JouN RUSSELL) have argued that secret suffrage would be required for democratic constituencies, and advantage will be taken of their admissions. We have little doubt but that when the Liberals make up their minds to committing themselves to a vast extension of the suffrage that they will swallow the ballot. There can be no confi• deuce placed in their disclaimers on this point. They are in the hands of persons who will give them no option ; and hitherto Eng land has been saved from the ballot only by the votes of the Conservatives. It may almost be taken for granted that the mass of the Liberals will urge the necessity of adopting secret suffrage, and Conservatives must be ready to meet them. We must not be taken unawares by the artful management of the supporters of Liberalism. It is neces sary to regard with vigilance the movements of the Reform leaders. Let not Conservatives forget that they have rights of property to uphold and preserve. What Liberals mean by " Extension of the Franchise" is the virtual swamping of social respectability under a mere multitude. The educated classes would be trampled on and tyrannised over in such a system, and the relationship now existing between the two Houses of Parliament would be seriously compromised. As the Conserva tives were not fairly treated by the provisions of the former Reform Bill, it will be doubly necessary for them to see that they receive no injustice from any fresh attempt of the Libe rals to introduce another and (possibly) still more partial Reform measure. THE PROFESSORSHIP OF POETRY. MosT readers of the following observations will be familiar with the arguments for and against the predominance of professorial teaching. It is said, on the one hand, that the professor could take broader views of his subject than the college tutor, and, being a man chosen for his special proficiency and apti tude, would communicate an interest to his teaching which the average college lecturer could never hope to inspire. On the other hand, it was urged that the price to be paid for this supposed advantage would be nothing less than the loss of that depth and thorough ness which had hitherto distinguished Oxford and Cambridge education—that the professor could not meet the difficulties of each indivi• dual mind, or dwell upon points of detail with that indefatigable perseverance necessary to the communication of accurate knowledge on difficult and complex subjects. For our part, we have always held that in scholarship, logic, and metaphysics, the tuto rial or catechetical system was, on the whole,