Page images

finger on the dark spot which bodes the storm, would point to that, which as yet but dimly visible, indicates a struggle between the few who have much, and the mass who have nothing.

I do not ask-whether it be better for a nation, that its property should be so disposed— but I say merely if it be better that such should be the distribution of property, it is most necessary that all classes,-that the class which is poor as well as the class which is wealthy-should be informed of it. If such a state of things is to continue it can only continue by its advantages being generally proved; if such a state of things is to be altered, it can only be safely altered by keeping each class in constant communication with the views and feelings of the other.

This is the difference between the past and the present: in the past you kept the people ignorant, and the people weak. In the first place, they did not busy themselves about their condition; in the next it signified little to you if they did. But you have now given them intelligence and power: you must therefore either satisfy them with their condition, or you must, by frequent interchange of opinion, arrive gradually at a safe method of changing it.

Let your newspapers address the great mass

of the nation, they will, in a certain degree, adopt they will, in a certain degree, form-the opinion of the great mass of the nation. The government will as a matter of course accommodate itself to the guide which will then be there to steer its course. Where there is a tendency to one great opinion there will be no great convulsion-but keep opinions separate; let the rich think one way and the poor another, and I defy you to prevent a war between the poor and the rich.

If I say that the daily press in France embodies more of the intelligence of France, than the daily press of England does of the intelligence of England-if I say that the differences of opinion among the papers which find circulation in this country are more marked and more dangerous than those which are exhibited by the journals in circulation at the other side of the channel, I am very far from intending to assert or to prove that French journalism is a model of wisdom or moderation.

You cannot have the French press what the French nation is not.-As the one is quick, passionate, light in its judgment, and fickle in its ideas, so the other will neither be wise nor wary in its expressions. But observe! As a natural

consequence of the French press, as a whole, addressing itself to the great mass of the French nation, any fraction of it, advocating a favorite class, or a particular opinion, is the least influential when it is the most violent; while the press itself, considered altogether as a political engine, must ever be the most powerful when it is the most moderate.

The first is a fact, and requires no argument in its favour. The most moderate liberal paper is the Constitutionnel.

The subscribers to the Constitutionnel in the departments are 8,300-in Paris, 3,500. Nearly double the number of any other liberal newspaper. The Temps, for instance, has for subscribers in the departments 4000—in Paris, 1,200.

The Gazette de France is the most moderate of the Royalist papers. The Gazette has for subscribers in the departments 6,700—in Paris, 2000. The Quotidienne has in the departments 3,704, and in Paris 1000.

The National is the most moderate republican paper, and it has 2,700 subscribers in the departments, and in Paris 1000. The Tribune 850 in the departments, and 800 in Paris.

The moderate papers then of the three opinions-liberal, royalist, and republican—have

about double the number of subscribers, possessed by their less moderate competitors.

This is my first assertion-now for my second!-viz: that the press in France will be most powerful when it is most moderate ;-or rather that-the press in France, as a political engine, will not be very powerful, except where it is very moderate.

Let us see how far this-which all must grant, involves important considerations-is a true proposition!

The French press addresses itself to the entire nation; i. e. every class that can reador which has an opinion in the nation.

Now let us suppose it has any given object in view-say the overthrow of a dynasty, or a ministry—in order to be powerful, it must endeavour to unite the different classes it addresses in favor of that object.

But for the press, as a whole, to effect thiseach part of the press, the tendency of which is to address a certain class, must make concessions to the other-the more concessions that are made by each part of the press, the more united the whole press becomes; and when the press is the most united, it is the most powerful. But what is moderation? the mean way between opinions-in proportion to the

number of opinions brought to a standard by the press, is the moderation of the press-and in proportion to the number of opinions brought to a standard by the press-is the power of the press :-the power of the press and the moderation of the press then, are, in fact, the same thing, where the press addresses itself to every reading class among the people.

Supposing, however, that the press from its price or any other cause, address itself only to one class; it will then have no occasion to be moderate-if it address itself to two classes, it will have only occasion to conciliate these two classes-three the same.

The more classes, therefore, that the press addresses, the greater certainty you have of coupling its power with a necessity for its moderation.

This is what I admire in the press of France -only powerful when it is moderate; it is only dangerous to a government which is not so.

The time when the press was most powerful in France, was during the ministry of M. de Polignac. It was then that all shades of liberal opinions were united, and it was this which made the liberal tone, that it adopted, at once so calm and so strong. The revolution destroyed the power of the press,

« PreviousContinue »