New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-06-05
MR.. BALFOUK.
HIS VIEWS OF THE BRITISH NEWSPAPER
PRESS AND HIS METHOD IN THE HOUSE
OF COMMONS

public man in England has little 10 do with
newspapers. lie is. suppose. the only one who
never reads them, and who has therefore much
time for other things more important TO him. Yet
be has never thought il worth while 20 make war
on them as Mr.. Gladstone does: or on such If
them as do not support him. On this occasion, at
any rate, he could not make var He there
for peace, for civity, and for philosophical rcfec
ton on the newspaper in general 1t is for civil
tty's sake that he reckons himself one of those
whose connection with the Press consists in en-
ioying what the Press from day TO day gives us
II Is interesting to heal that, though lie has
stumbled into print" in other walks of literature
be has never had any direct communication with
the Press lie meyer wrote for II. that is, as his
uncle, Lord Salisbury, so long did, with such ad-
mirabe point and finish. ! imagine Lord Sails
bury would say. were he asked, that bis clrly
training on the Press had been OF much service
20 him in his later carecr-that both his dispatches
and his speeches were the better for it, Writing,
said Lord Verulam, maketh an exact man. Few
orators, and even few dirlcmatists. though il Is
their business TO be exact are exact as Lord
Salisbury in the Of words.
II am convinced snid the First Lord Of the
Treasury, that there are many persons in this
country who would rather go without their daily
bread than their daily newspaper" He does not
himself belong 10 that extreme section" lie
does, nevertheless. pay bis proper tribute TO the
power OF the Press. Unlike Mr.. Gladstone who
exats the Platform and brlittes the Press, Mr..
Balfour declares the newspaper TO be at the pres
ent moment the most important wheel Of the pc
litical machine. lie does not object to that He
accepts it as part OF the conditions and crcum-
stances of life: as Of the Institutions of the
country Of which lie means to make the best. 81
ho~~ ;,,tO tbn NJ
century, and / mean to make the best of the
period in which my lot is cast" No pessimism in
that, surely. The sharpest American ear might
fail to detect in il the ring of Toryism.
IL has always been Characteristic of Mr.. Bal
four to take large views. The practical politician
makes his philosophy reproach to him. II has
not thus far. or not lately, appeared TO hinder his
success In the field OF practical politics. When
he became Leader of the House of Commons, his
opponents called him failure. Their eagcrncss
to decry him was, perhaps, symptom of their
fear Of him. The cry was taken up in the Pres
the Gladstonian Prcss-and made the most of for
o few weeks. Then it died away, and you no
longer hear that the Leader Of the House is
failure. 1t is admitted that he leads il very we'll.
lie was little careless at first took matters too
easily was ineXact in some details; did not suf-
foiently study the moods and humors of body
most jealous legislature known Experience soon
taught him. He put himself on good terms with
the House, and with his own party lie attended
to business, and he enforced discipline which, in
the Tory ranks, had become a little lax. The
work of legislation went smoothly on, and the
Tory majorties which. on some occasions, had
fallen dangerously low, rose to near their normal
numbers. And on the whole, the bosses and ma
chine-men begin 10 be OF opinion that culture
and capacity do not entirely disqualify man for
success in public life, or even unfit him for those
duties which connect themselves most closely
with success at the ballot-boX itself.
II IL hardly possible to read any speech OF
Mr. Balfour without seeing that he has that rather
intellectual quality known detachment Of mind.
He can place himself outside Of any given set of
circumstances, and consider them independently
of their relation to him. or of his TO them,-in-
dependently, also, of either party or personal
interests and independently Of those influences
which so often make the judgment the mere slave
OF conditions. What he says on the Press shows
this power plainly enough. II is not the view OF
the mere politician or mere statesman. nor merely
the view OF the philosophical thinker lie looks
at his subject from various sides, approaches 1t
from more points than one; and subordinates his
mind TO no particular authority CT custom. This
Is saws Mt. DdIOuT u uoNtIiIhtHt W ucpd't, anu
the Press is one instrument by which the debate,
and therefore the Government is carried on. The
Press is looked at, not so much as q separate
power by itself, but as part of ono stupendons
whole,-not Pope's stupendous whole indeed, but
q political and social whole 1t has function
in relation to other functions So close is the
connection that to break it might he to break up
The entire fabric This may be called too pho-
sophie for popular use, hut the speakers audience
was not popular or platform audience, nor did
he express his view quite so abstractly as have
done He expressed it by illustrations.
lie adopted the same method in considering the
socialism of the period. People are in the habit,
he saws. of connecting the socialistc agitation
with the great extension of the franchise and
the consequent development Of democracy during
the last twenty years. He, on the contrary,
separates them. The two phenomena are in his
opinion, entirely distinct. lie bases that opinion
on the fact that the Press and the Governments
of other countries, where the franchise has not
been extended, are just as much occupied as Eng
land with the same sort Of problems. That may
or may not be a sound opinion. II is in either
case, equally interesting example of Mr.
Palfours way o: handling such qucstions and
of making people listen after dinner; itself no
mean art.
They who care for politics think Mr.. Balfours
performance last night in the House of Commons q
more interesting event than his more academic adj
dress to the mendicant journalists ut the White
hall Rooms Politics or not, il is interesting. The
young Tory leader had TO reply TO the Ola parlia-
mentary Hand himself. Mr.. Gladstone had spoken
at length against the second reading of the Irish
Local Government Bill spoken with wonderful
fire, and force, and freshness; whether you con-
slider his age. or whether you don't. lie had done
more than that lie had attacked the Prime
Minister for his Ulster speech at Covent Garden.
He had flung challenge across the table 10 the
Prime Minister'S colleagues. do you or do you
not agree with Lord Salisbury, and how do yon
defend him ?" To those who know Mr. Glad
stones manner, who have seen him in his most