Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

be remembered, that to attack is always an easy task; for you take every thing for granted, and have nothing to prove; you have only to assert and to vituperate. Politics are growing to be a more noble pursuit. They are more removed from the sphere of court caballing or caprice, and cabinet intrigue, and are more and more open to the influence of public opinion. New laws of political morality are thereby rendered necessary. One significant fact must have been remarked. Sir Robert In

glis, although he deprecated, more in sorrow than in anger, the conduct of Sir Robert Peel, adopted a very moderate tone throughout the session. Does he perceive that the Whigs are already preparing an organisation against the Church, beginning with the Irish branch of the Establishment, and foresees therefore a reunion of the Conservative party in its defence? If so, his evident desire not to exasperate Sir Robert Peel, or to drive him beyond the pale of Conservatism, may be accounted for.

MORELL'S HISTORY OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY.

In our article on Mr. Morell's History, we asserted that he had given no evidence of any direct acquaintance with the works of the philosophers treated of. He has met this by a counter-statement, in which he pledges his word that he has read them. We are bound to accept his word, but can only say, that the evidence afforded by his book is such that he must have read with very little profit, or with a very poor memory, as the public will conclude from the following statement. For the sake of brevity, we confine ourselves to the French philosophers as exhibited by Mr. Morell.

We open Mr. Morell's book at the various places where he speaks of French writers, and compare with it, page by page, M. Damiron's book; and we solemnly assure the reader that in M. Damiron we find all the passages given by Mr. Morell, all the exposition, and, what is still more surprising when we think of the original authors, we find absolutely nothing of this kind in Mr. Morell that is not in M. Damiron. This may be fortuitous, but it is somewhat marvellous. Coincidences so striking as occur between M. Damiron and Mr. Morell are curiosities of literature. M. Damiron cannot even quote the Journal des Débats of twenty years ago, but Mr. Morell must also have seen the very paper and quoted the very passage (for all we are given to understand to the contrary)! When, therefore, we find Mr. Morell giving the same extracts and expositions of Cabanis, Garat, Volney, Destutt de Tracy (called by him Destout Tracy), Broussais, De Maistre, La Mennais, Ballanche, Baron d'Eckstein, Azais, as M. Damiron had given, somewhat differently worded and arranged,-when we find Mr. Morell's views sometimes only differing from those of M. Damiron as a bad translation differs from the original-for example, the ton d'amertume said by one to characterise the style of De Maistre, is by the other altered to "the gloominess of his opinions "what are we to conclude?

Ex uno disce omnes!

London:-Printed by George Barclay, Castle Street, Leicester Square.

FRASER'S MAGAZINE

FOR

TOWN AND COUNTRY.

No. CCIV. · DECEMBER, 1846. VOL. XXXIV.

ENGLISH JOURNALISM.

THE events of the last few years have brought about a revolution in the political world, of which it would be impossible to underrate or to overlook the social consequences. The Reform-bill was a fact, of which we have as yet seen only the first-fruits. The conditions of society in which we move forbid us to imagine that this enactment, momentous as it was, can be the be-all and the endall of our civil changes, or the limit of popular progress.

We do not, indeed, profess to coincide with the opinions of those who look with unmixed satisfaction on the doctrine of "progress" or the dissolution of parties. Indeed, we think the two terms inconsistent. That any advance can be made by the legislature without the assistance of party, appears as impossible as that the world could perform its present revolutions if the laws of motion were in abeyance. Whatever progress has been made in any direction, has been made by the combination of several parties or the victory of one. Whatever advance may hereafter be made, must derive its force and momentum from the strength and direction of the parties which produce it. The names, indeed, may change, but the things will remain. Bodies of men will continue to be influenced by the same laws of gregarious at

VOL. XXXIV. NO. CCIV.

traction and individual submission, long after the terms "Whig" and "Tory" have lost their application and their influence.

It becomes, therefore, a question of some importance, What are to be the representatives of that motive power which is to give an impulse to this anticipated progress? Suppose that the present names of party become obsolete the present leaders of party effete, who are to be the interpreters of the popular will, the guides of popular counsels, the controllers and the instigators of popular passions For some one class there must be to intervene between the people and their legislators, between design and action, between hopes and realisation. Who, then, are the men on whom is to devolve the duty of "moral suasion "the responsibility of political guidance-the power of political excitement ?

This is a question well worth considering. It is one, we fear, which many Conservatives too frequently and too carelessly overlook. They forget a few important facts. They shut their eyes to a striking chapter of history. They avert their faces from great and new phenomena. The Reform-bill has been passed, and they still look on England as though it had never been enacted. But the Reform-bill, though the

TT

fruit of many aspirations, has been but the seed of many others. It is regarded by many but as the prelude to other and greater changes. It has put in motion new longings. It has created new desires. Yet there are men who look upon it as the barrier of the popular impetus-the consummation of a turbulent and soonsatisfied ambition. They think the people may be ruled as they once were; by the same men and the same means that sufficed in the olden times. They forget that great civil revolutions leave an impress on the character of the age which has witnessed them and the generation which follow them. An error of this kind proceeds rather from indolence than from obstinacy, but, unattended to, is soon hardened into a creed of obstinate and exclusive dogmatism. It is not only to the change which came over the nation's dream at the time of the Reform-bill that we I would call the attention and the recollection of our Conservative readers, but also to the attendant circumstances, which have given it importance and extension. Since the year 1832, upwards of two million souls* have been added to the population; but that population differs much from the myriads that preceded it. It is no longer an uneducated, no longer a brutal, no longer a mere drudge-like population. It may not be thoroughly educated, yet its instruction is better, its knowledge is more complete than formerly. Although our system is open to the charge of sectarian exclusiveness, it yet merits the praise of sectarian rivalry. Churchman, Papist, and Dissenter have done the best that the circumstances of the case allow of their doing for the education of their poorer brethren. That much remains to be done, and that much hereafter will be done by the State, for the mental no less than the physical improvement of their condition, there is, happily, little reason to doubt. But imperfect as the instruction hitherto given is, it is equally impossible to deny that it is very powerful both for good and for evil. A curiosity on political subjects has been awakened which can never be

lulled. A criticism of political personages has been called into play, which it would be easier to conciliate than suppress. Men in high station are judged with a keen and scrutinising minuteness; the relations and the tactics of parties are canvassed with warmth and interest by classes who were formerly supposed to be blind or indifferent to the progress of the political drama. Above all, the inconsistency between the promises and the performances of statesmen affords to every one who can read, write, or only talk, abundant material for severe comment and rigorous condemnation. With the facilities which now exist for communicating knowledge, the opportunities of political discussion are indefinitely multiplied. Every club and every publichouse has its oracles and its declaimers. Almost every body reads a newspaper, and those who do not read listen with attention to those who do.

In such a state of things a new order has been called into existence, or rather has grown into importance. With the cultivation of the national intellect has increased the power of those who communicate with it on national subjects. The newspaper has become something greater than the vehicle of news. The newspaperwriter is far superior to the old hack commentator on trite events, or the wholesale dealer in party scandal. The experience of the last four years has shewn that "leading articles" need not necessarily be heavy, or abusive, or personal. We now know that they may be written with salient piquancy, sportive humour, and even argumentative eloquence. It would be possible to refer to articles in our principal journals which have displayed learning without pedantry, and the graces of composition without the appearance of labour. This, in a literary point of view, shews a great improvement on the journalism of our ancestors. But the literary part of the subject is the least important. The social and the political consequences of such an advance are immeasurably more momentous than the graces of style and the beauties of writing. But grave though they

See Returns moved by Mr. F. Scott last January, and made by the Board of Trade,

be, we fear that they are too generally overlooked by those to whose hands we would see the government of this country committed, and whose influence we would preserve over the minds and fortunes of the people. It is the nature of the Conservative party in all countries to be indifferent where it should be jealous, and indolent where it ought to be active. Suspicion is roused too late when a new foe has come into the field, and energy is out of place when the enemy has gained confidence and strength. Knowledge is power. Opinion is power. But greater power is exercised by those who diffuse knowledge or build up opinion. And yet they who are the creators of public opinion and the diffusers of political knowledge hold a position which is deemed equivocal by the arbiters of social etiquette, and viewed with jealousy, mixed with a simulated contempt, by the leaders of political factions.

This is not as it should be. Nor can it be so long. Journalism has by a combination of events been raised to the rank of a profession. By a concurrence of conspiring circumstances, it has gained influence over the hearts and intellects of the people. It has drafted into its ranks education, information, and ability. It has exhibited earnestness, eloquence, and brilliance. It has altogether fulfilled its mission with dignity and integrity. It has used power beneficially where it might have abused it. It has remonstrated with factious license and popular passion, where it might have ministered to the one and pandered to the other. It has rarely forgotten the great interests of the country or the duties of the legislature. It has spoken out fearlessly against oppression, against cruelty, against cant. It has been, in almost every instance, truly national. On a recent occasion, it has displayed a singular union of strong English feeling with the love of peace and the desire of reconciliation. Of course, we now speak of the more unbiassed and influential journals, of journals too long established to compromise their character, and too wealthy to prostitute their functions. That there are others of less character, of less circulation, also of less principle, we admit. We

admit, also, that their forfeiture of principle and advocacy of wrong became almost indispensable to the increase of their circulation and the augmentation of their influence. But this very admission is an argument in favour of that which we are urging, the necessity of giving to journalists a recognised position in the social and political scale. It is an argumentum ad hominem, addressed to men who dream not of the motives which

sway their fellow-men. It is an argumentum ad timorem, addressed to those who never move until they are frightened into motion. If power so great as that which newspapers possess can be exercised over the masses by the less distinguished writers,if satire devoid of point, if scurrility without humour, if buffoonery without wit, and scandal divested of truth

can

exasperate sluggishness into wrath, indifference into indignation, apathy into partisanship,-if they can give a tone, and a colour, and a direction to the thoughts, passions, and creeds of many thousands amongst the partially educated and the easily influenced of our countrymen, what, think you, would be the effect of the same disposition and the same endeavours, adorned with more garish qualities, inspired with a subtler sophistry, and guided by a definite and uniform purpose? Let it be borne in mind that now we sail

"On the smooth surface of a summer

[merged small][ocr errors]

the elements of popular disturbance are at rest; the clouds of political difficulties have sunk below the horizon. But when a new crisis arises -when distress broods over our large towns-when want and stagnation darken the homesteads of our wealth, then the power of the press for evil may be found to be as great as it has hitherto been for good. It is difficult to prevent men from seizing an opportunity which may exalt themselves. It is almost impossible to prevent the gratification of a passion which is at once composed of unsatisfied ambition and mortified egotism. long as there are ready writers and anxious readers, so long will the former devote their energy and their talent to vindicating an unrecognised position, and avenging an undeserved stigma.

As

But our friends say, "We must trust to the honour and the justice of the press, as well as of every other profession." How ungenerous is the reply! A body of men are first ostracised from a state in which they are most powerful, and then required to fulfil every moral duty under the sun. They are expected to discharge their functions with unswerving faith and unaltered ability; but they are expected to sit down in unrepining and unrelieved obscurity. They are to interpret between the senate and the peoplethey are to illustrate complex argu. ments by a graceful and felicitous composition-they are to make the difficult easy and the dry amusing— they are not unfrequently to furnish arguments for those who, in parliament, propose or resist great measures of legislation; and after discharging all these duties with fidelity and talent, they are to be merged in the obscurity of the anonymous, where they are not punished by the infamy of notoriety. "They manage these things better in France." But they have had a fearful lesson. "I am going to punish a young writer for a libel on the court," said D'Argenson to Madame de Barri. "Don't be a fool!" was the reply of the shrewd mistress: "if he is clever, take him into your service; if he is stupid, take no notice of him." "I wish," was the penitent remark of a terrified Loyalist to Madame Roland, "I wish that we had enlisted on our side some of those terrible pens and mouths that have raised this storm against us!" The causes of the second have confirmed the inferences to which the first Revolution might have led any but the most perverse and stubborn minds. The journalist in France has a station which is recognised, because it is impossible not to recognise the workings of his talents and the operations of his intellect. But the French journalist often exercises a fatal and pernicious power. We, as a nation, have had reason to complain of partial statements, inflammatory doctrines, and sectarian jealousy. The French journalist addresses men of quick feelings, not of sober judgment. He seeks to excite and to please, not to convince or to conciliate. Instead of assuaging he provokes evil passions; instead of consulting the in

terests, he ministers to the prejudices of his countrymen. But the French journalist is in the best society. He is flattered by the homage of the rich and the attention of the fair. His name is known in all political circles with advantage, in his own with fame and honour. He is sometimes a peer, always a celebrity. His violence is described as zeal, his asperity as eloquence, his encouragement of war as nationality. But to his English compeer, who neither condescends to vulgar abuse nor deals in the fermentation of wretched prejudice, there is no place assigned in the social circle. As for political rewards, except of the lowest kind, such things are never dreamed of. Occasionally, indeed, a clever writer steals into a nondescript office, without a name and almost without a salary, to exert on behalf of an ambiguous and an unintelligible minister the cleverness and the vigour which he had displayed in the columns of The Times, or The Chronicle. But what English minister would ever dream of holding the conductors of those two journals in the same consideration in which the editors of La Presse and the Débats are held by MM. Thiers and Guizot; or such writers as Mr. Everett and Mr. Webster, by the government of the United States?

And who are the men that are thus robbed of a well-earned estimation, and defrauded of their proper reward? They are, for the most part, men of scholar-like attainments, gentlemanly notions and associations. They are emphatically ἐλευθέρως πιπαι dúμvo. They have, many of them, up to that time of life when the divergence of different pursuits commences, been the companions, the rivals, or the friends of those whom the advantages of birth and fortune elevate to rapid promotion and early power. They are generally members of one of two laborious professions, each of which is capable of eliciting the highest mental powers of its votaries. As lawyers or medical practitioners, they are conversant with the more hidden passages of human life, and the prevailing motives of human conduct. Divided between the study of books and the study of men, they are peculiarly able to generalise the scattered incidents of their experience, as well as

« AnteriorContinuar »