Page images
PDF
EPUB

the foreigner remains not much the wiser for the questions I have taken the liberty to put into his mouth; for it never for one moment occurred to him that the writing of a paper has very little to do with its success ;-if it had, Mr. Fonblanque would monopolise public attention.

Why is this in England? On account of the fourpenny tax? not on account of this tax alone perhaps ; but on account of this tax and the system of government, and the state of property which is connected with this tax. A paper has got a great capital-it has been established a long while. It would require a fortune to start a competitor against it. These are the circumstances which make a paper powerful, and as a paper can be powerful in spite of its writers, so the paper is respected when the writers are not.

In France, on the contrary, where the stamp duty is low and fortunes small, a paper depends wholly upon its writers. Good writers are absolutely necessary for good newspapers -the power of the newspaper then, is the power of the writer; and therefore the writers for newspapers take the rank of the newspapers in which they write.

Besides, as newspapers must profess their opinions with ability or those opinions lose ground, all persons interested in particular

opinions are interested in supporting particular newspapers. From this double action, as it were-from the rank and power which writing with ability in a paper gives, and the interest which all persons, whatever their political rank, have in supporting with their pen the journals which profess their political sentiments, journalism in France is perfectly different from journalism in England.

The effect of a high tax in a country where there are great fortunes, is to encourage rich men and to exclude poor men from entering upon newspaper speculation. Rich men once so occupied, they erect expensive machinery, and collect expensive information. The effect of a low tax in a country, where there are not great fortunes, is to engage men of talent and not to engage men of wealth in such undertakings-poor men of talent must rely upon talent. So that in one country success depends chiefly upon capital: in the other, success depends altogether upon ability-here consequently the paper is esteemed,* there the writer.

* Let us remark this: capital is more necessary than talent for newspapers in England, here the tax operates —and French newspapers are written better than English ones-talent is more necessary than capital for reviews in England-here no tax does operate-and the English eviews are far superior to the French ones.

The power of the journals in England then is what the power of the boroughmongers was the power of money in a particular channelbut with this difference, that its agents are invisible and irresponsible to that public opinion which they evoke.*

The system of governing by wealth-the natural consequence of large accumulations of wealth extends itself into the newspapers as it extended itself into the senate — and

upon the same principle that a man of large fortune is even still considered, ipso facto, the proper person to make laws (never mind his intellect) for the greater number who are poorer and more intelligent than himself, so a newspaper of great capital is considered the proper organ of just opinions.

I believe it is a-not-to-be-controverted fact that Blacks and Whites have invariably con

*It may so happen that the press, conducted ably in one country, will produce more mischief, than worse conducted, it produces in another-because the people in this country may be more exciteable and less sensible than the people of that; but I do think it will be acknowledged, that where power is to be conferred it is safer in the hands of the most talented and considerable men in the country, whose names are known and whose lives may be inquired into, than in the hands of a set of anonymous agents-the anonymous agents of a mysterious corporation.

demned the Almighty to be of their own peculiar colour.—

The castes of mankind have followed this example, and the revolutionary populace of Paris, as the formidable council of Venice, equally declared that the only honest class of society was that which happened to be in power.

This country has long been governed by very rich men, and very rich men have very naturally laid it down as a principle that great riches are an unequivocal sign that the persons possessing them will take care of the wealth of their neighbours. Now, so much of this is true, that a very rich general, wish to do any thing welfare of very rich men.

man will not in

injurious to the

Whether a very rich man is, or whether many very rich men combined are, likely to govern for the interests of the far greater mass of very poor, or moderately rich men, has never yet been taken soberly into consideration.*

* The richer a man is, the better guarantee people imagine they have for his good conduct : "He has got a great stake in the hedge and you may depend upon it he will take care of the hedge," is the common expression : which ought rather perhaps to be-" you may depend upon it he will take care of the great stakes in the hedge," for it is not quite so certain that he will not try to get hold of the little ones.

VOL. I.

E 3

That a man, who has got great property will preserve property, seems an undeniable axiom, until we consider the various ways in which property may be taken away. For instance, the old nobility of France had great property, but it is not quite clear to me, when by the power which this property gave them, they refused to pay any share in the contributions of the state, that they did not rob their fellow citizens who were thus obliged to pay an ampler share than was just of the public burthens. The borough-possessing aristocracy of England had great property, but it is not quite clear to me, that they did not rob the people of England, when, by means of their great property, they got great parliamentary influence, and by means of their great parliamentary influence they got great sinecures, many of which we-the people of England— are still paying to this aristocracy and their relations.

Whenever great wealth can give great power, great wealth is just as likely to lead to abuses as if this great power came from any other source. The rich man, in short, is just as likely to rob the poor man, if he has the capability of doing so, as the poor man is to rob the rich one-always supposing in either case that principle is not there as a preventive.

« PreviousContinue »