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.