The Newspaper Press

THE NEWSPAPER PRESS AN ADDRESS BY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD HEWART OF BURY, LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND (At a joint meeting of the Empire and Canadian Clubs. Toronto.) 26th August, 1927.

COLONEL ALEXANDER FRASER, President of the Empire Club, presided, and briefly introduced LORD HEWART, who was received with cheers, and spoke as follows

Mr. Chairman, My Lords, and Gentlemen, my first words to you this afternoon must be words of sincere thanks to the kind hosts who have given me the opportunity of meeting this representative gathering in this great and wonderful city. And I thank you also, and thank you most sincerely, for the cordiality with which you have greeted me.

Gentlemen, not many days ago an eminent lawyer, whose name nothing could induce me to mention--(Laughter)--said in a company exclusively composed of lawyers, that he knew he was addressing lawyers without distinction. (Laughter). I am bound to say, sir, that the phrase appeared to me to be a phrase of undoubted, though I am sure uncalculated, ambiguity. (Laughter). But nobody will have any doubt that Chief Justice Taft is a lawyer of distinction, and I remember-and every hour that I stay in your hospitable country makes me remember with more and more vividness-a remark which Chief Justice Taft made a few years ago in the hall of the Inner Temple, in London when he was enjoying, or at any rate taking part in (Laughter) the thirteenth successive banquet in thirteen days. When he rose at ten o'clock in the evening to reply to the toast of his health, he said.he thought he must adopt the language which he had used once in Minnesota at half past three in the morning when he thanked his hosts for their terrific hospitality (Laughter). Gentlemen, this terrific hospitality carries with it, among other penalties, as I am finding out, the duty of making a terrific number of new speeches (Laughter), unless indeed you have the fortune or misfortune to be a politician, for whom topics are made, ready-made, for whom enthusiasm is always waiting if he touches or happens to know the right note (Laughter). Instead of being a politician I am a person who at any rate 'is not expected to talk about topics of political controversy. It is therefore not always easy to find a text. I was wondering this morning whether I should say something on that text in the Gospel of St. Matthew, "Lord, it is good for us to be here" (Laughter and applause). Of course if I had chosen that text I would have gone on to suggest that we should erect three tabernacles, one for the Canadian Bar Association, one for the Empire Club and the Canadian Club, if indeed that is not saying the same thing twice, because I cannot conceive of the Empire without Canada -(Hear, hear, and applause)-and I absolutely refuse to contemplate Canada as something apart from the Empire. (Hear, hear, and applause). And the third tabernacle ? What should I have suggested for the third tabernacle? Well, I think that perhaps that might be reserved for graduates of the University of Toronto, with power to add to their numbers (Laughter and applause).

Then I wondered whether I might not find a text in the story which you all know so well of the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon. You remember the words which are used, I think in the First Book of Kings, that on her visit to Solomon she came with a very great train. Now that is the first reference so far as I know, the first literary reference, to the Canadian Pacific Railway. (Laughter). I also came with a very great train, and, you know, the analogy does not end there, because you recollect that when she had seen with her own eyes some of the wonders of that land she said that the half had not been told her. But that is one respect at any rate, Mr. Chairman, in which the comparison if it were made, would undoubtedly break down, because you recollect that the faithful historian concludes that part of his narrative when he has described the stupefaction which she felt at all the wonders of the wealth and the possibilities which she saw, you remember the historian says -let me give his very words-" there was no more spirit in her" (Laughter). And that, gentlemen, I think, at any rate so far as I am aware, is the first literary reference to prohibition (Laughter). And I think it shows clearly, among other things, that the hotel manager had not been to the Queen of Sheba and told her that she would get everything she wanted in Room 602 (Laughter).

Now, gentlemen, these being topics which are impossible, in what direction am I to turn ? There are a great many delicate topics, and you know a delicate topic has been defined, I think accurately defined, as a topic which lends itself to indelicate treatment. Avoiding all those topics, or at least I hope avoiding them, I propose to say a word or two to you about the newspaper press, and I will presently remind you of the text of this discourse.

Now, gentlemen, there is a story, a familiar storyall stories, I am quite sure, are familiar here-of a middleaged professor who was about to marry a lady famed for her beauty, her learning, and her wit. When an inquisitive person asked him a question about her, he replied in some such way as this: " My future wife has her /nose slightly on one side, she is irritable when thwarted, and her dates are wrong in her essay on Spinoza. On the other hand, there is much to be said for her; indeed, she has certain qualities which I have seldom met with elsewhere. " Now it is entirely in that spirit that readers of the newspaper press permit themselves to think of some blemishes which it does not always escape, some perils into which it sometimes falls.

Matthew Arnold, as you remember, said that he was not an enemy to Nonconformists; on the contrary, what he desired was their perfection. In like manner those who, while they entertain a mental reservation on behalf of their favorite newspaper, venture to make remarks about other newspapers, have no other desire or injunction than "Be ye therefore perfect." Let us then, in that and no other spirit, see what has been said about the newspaper press by persons who have written in it and presumably, therefore, know something about it.

Leslie Stephen, as you know, pleasantly opens his "Hours in a Library" with a series of opinions of authors about books. It may be helpful to begin these few remarks with the opinions of one or two writers about newspapers. John Morley not only wrote a great deal for the press but he had also the experience of editing an evening newspaper and a monthly review. He speaks of the newspaper press as that huge engine for keeping discussion on a low level (Laughter). He says that the multiplication of journals duplicating brawling judgments unashamed on all things all day long, has done much to deaden the small stock of individuality in the public mind. It has done much to make vulgar ways of looking at things and vulgar ways of speaking of them stronger and stronger, by formulating and repeating and stereotyping them incessantly from morning till afternoon, and from year's end to year's end. "

Again, John Ruskin, who in his time turned out a lot of copy for the newspapers, has much to say of what he calls " the hireling scribes of the newspaper press, who daily pawn the dirty linen of their souls for the price of a bottle of sour wine and a cigar" (Laughter).

And again, not to multiply examples, Sir Edward Cook, brilliant scholar and admirable writer, the editor successively of I forget how many evening and morning newspapers, which somehow were always being sold by the proprietors behind his back, said in the year 1903, as I have the very best means of knowing, "Journalism has ceased to be an occupation for an educated man" (Laughter).

Well, Mr. Chairman, judgments like these are undoubtedly severe. Are they at all true ? And if so, what is the explanation ? And now I come to my text. You remember that at a very early stage of the Christian era a certain person sought to get near to a certain source of illumination, and it is said " He could not for the press" (Laughter). He could not for the press. The obstruction in that instance was perhaps the more remarkable as we are told that Zaccheus was the chief among the publicans and he was rich (Laughter).

Now, sir, in my humble opinion, the explanation of the trouble, whatever its precise dimensions may be, is two-fold. I say twofold, not three-fold. There was a speaker, you remember, in the Oxford Union, a speaker with a very agreeable lisp, who traced drunkenness in England to three causes; "The firtht," he said, "wath the adulteration of liquor; the thecond wath the dethire for drink; and the third, and above all, thir, wath the dethire for more. " (Laughter) But, Mr. Chairman, in the present case two causes are enough. One is the printing machine, and the other is what it prints (Laughter). Gentlemen, have you ever reflected what an appalling thing a printing machine is ? There is a doctrine of the common law that if a man brings a wild beast upon his premises he must in the interests of the public control it. But the very purpose of these wild beasts is to give birth at ridiculously short intervals to a vast offspring, a multitudinous litter which shall circulate far and wide. And so monstrous is the fecundity of the beasts that the offspring of every one of them has, or at any rate claims to have, the largest circulation in the world. (Laughter and cheers). Mr. Chairman, the printing machine is indeed a wonderful and terrible weapon. Many of us have seen it, and not to put too fine a point upon the matter, have smelt it, at work. You put an enormous roll of nice clean paper at one end, you set the wild beast going, and at the other end in the twinkling of--an eye there come out like so many snowflakes, soiled by fog, thousands and tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of newspapers, all printed, folded, and counted. Sir, the printing machine could behave like that even thirty years ago; today I gather the newspapers come out of the machine in wrappers, duly addressed and stamped, the wrapper being a receipt for an unpaid premium of insurance, and the stamp being affixed by means of gum which is not only adhesive but also nutritious (Laughter). And the awful, the dreadful, the devastating fact is that anybody can buy a printing machine if he happens to have enough money. Consider the consequences of this alarming form of investment. If a man invests a million or two in soap or mustard or chocolate or biscuits or automobiliousness, nothing in particular happens. If his friends thought him a wise man before, they will think him a wise man still. If they thought him a donkey before they will think him a donkey still. Substantially in every case, as they say in the House of Commons, the status quo is maintained (Laughter). But let the very same man, being by nature, training, and ingrained habit, a perfect donkey, invest his odd millions in what is called newspaper enterprise, and a very different result may follow. His protemporaneous opinions or caprices, expressed with the entire shamelessness and the inexhaustible vocabulary of Falstaff, may, through mere mechanical multiplication, shatter the reputations of individuals, deflect the policy of a nation, and even make hay of the peace of two hemispheres. Sir, it is easy and perhaps comforting to suggest that this is a slightly exaggerated view, but I should like to know is the defence of the newspaper to be this, that its articles do not matter because nobody reads them and its news columns do not matter because nobody believes them ? When somebody said to Douglas Jerrold, " Punch is not so good as it used to be, " you remember that the wise man answered, "No, and it never was" (Laughter).

Let us beware, of course in this matter, as in other matters, of an evil heart of unbelief. It may be that the grace, the wisdom, and the understanding exhibited by the press today are not less but more than the grace, wisdom and understanding exhibited by the press many years ago. It may be that what a distinguished critic of a quarter of a century ago described as "the bouncing and brutal realism" of many of our leading papers, is not more bouncing or more brutal today than it was then. And it may be, in spite of some evidence to the contrary that the domination of a purely commercial purpose, and the tyranny of personal or public stunts, as they are called, are not really more rampant now than they used to be. These and other questions of comparison may deserve careful examination. But in the words of the philosopher, they are matter for a separate treatise.

Avoiding comparisons, whether invidious or not, let us consider for a moment what it is that the newspaper printing machine does, in fact, print. Some years ago the editor of a newspaper published in Oxford, a University magazine, at the close of his editorship reviewed in a memorable article the topics which he had treated, and the method which he had observed. "All these," he wrote, "and other phases of thought and action the magazine has embraced as occasion offered, has nourished as long as convenience served, and has laid aside as the lessons of public interests or the rise of new excitement seemed to suggest. " And a little later on he added "To criticism the paths are many. The voice of the magazine is one, and of all editors alike this much may be said, they have never hesitated to stand for the right when they felt that public opinion was with them" (Laughter) "they have always protested against the wrong when they saw it to be unpopular; they have stated the truth when they have happened to know the facts, and they never hesitated to resort to fiction when they have been convinced of its superior validity. They have never employed the lumbering and tedious methods of demonstration when they have felt that they could rely upon the credulity of their readers. They have never asked for gratitude when they found self-satisfaction a surer road to happiness. Their merits have not met with general recognition, but they have not taken to the blues. " Don't you observe that pleasant phrase, "Of all editors alike this much maybe said"? Perhaps the ingredient of universality is a little excessive, but let me ask you to reflect for one moment upon the materials among which chiefly, though not exclusively, newspapers move and work. It has been said that if you would love mankind you should not expect too much from them, and it would be no less grotesque to expect a newspaper to be competent, complete, and impartial history than it would be to expect it to be an oratorio or an epic poem. Not long ago in a leading article in a leading newspaper in London I read these words, "Normal people attract less attention than abnormal, and eccentricities and heresies have in any subject a better dress than orthodoxy. " Precisely. There is no copy in what is normal and orthodox. If, for example, the country vicar lives on terms of unity, peace and concord with his wife, there is not a line of copy in it. But if his devices and desires are such as to induce him to observe one day after dinner, " My dear, you are too fat," and thereupon to shoot the lady dead, our special correspondent gets busy at once. Our criminal investigator assumes the role of the sleuth-hound, and the shop window is ablaze with headlines. What is sauce for domestic is sauce for international relations. In the humdrum life of peace and amity, there is nothing doing. But if a cloud, no bigger than a man's hand, appears upon the horizon, the whole vast apparatus of international mischief-making becomes on the instant a miracle of competitive, zeal (Applause). Now, sir, when Burke spoke of that chief defence of nations, the best opinion is he was not thinking of the newspaper press (Laughter).

I pass over the whole field of deliberate and calculated offence; the paragraph which is the work of an assassin, the article which is a breach of confidence, the report which would make any respectable tomcat vomit. (Laughter). And I pass over every other sort of clumsy or ingenious wickedness. The point is, that the very nature of the subject matter, and the very circumstances of production offer pitfalls and temptations of a perilous kind. It is sometimes said that the journalist is like a barrister, he may be the mouthpiece of his client. But the analogy is false. The barrister may not, but the journalist must tell the jury what his own personal opinion upon the facts is. Or it is sometimes said that the journalist is like a judge, his function is to sift and to marshall the evidence. But again the analogy is false. The journalist not only marshalls the evidence but he also collects it, and he is responsible both for that which appears and for that which does not. Who was it who said "Let me compose a newspaper's headlines, and I care not who writes its opinions?" I know who it was, but I am not going to tell you, who said not many years ago, "After all the real power of the press is the power of suppression. " Somehow or other our great grandfathers persuaded themselves that the newspaper duty was a tax upon knowledge. So true is it that the errors of one generation are the calamities of another, and the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children.

Well, sir, I have merely touched a bit of the fringe of a large and varied subject, and I do not presume even to suggest remedies. I suppose that you cannot abolish newspapers utterly, and probably in the existing state of parties there is no patriotic statesman who will have the heart to link the newspaper and duty, and to condemn it; but it may perhaps sometimes be right to reflect, at least in a Pickwickian sense that the newspaper press, and even the individual newspaper, cannot fairly be regarded as one undivided whole. On the contrary there are in it forces which make for mischief, and forces which make as hard as they can in the opposite direction, and that the business of good citizens, to the best of such minor opportunities as may occur to them, is to resist the one and to help the other of the two forces.

Gentlemen, I thank you for the patience with which you have heard me. I have been dwelling, and dwelling deliberately, upon one side of the question only. If I live (Laughter) and if I return as I hope to return (Applause) to this dangerous country, I will try to say something to you upon the good side of the newspaper press; and in the meantime I will try to find out what it is. (Laughter and applause).

MR. MEGANN, Vice-President of the Canadian Club said: Gentlemen, you would not wish this afternoon to pass by without presenting a few words of thanks to the distinguished guest, for the most entertaining address he has given us. I have great pleasure in moving that we tender a very hearty vote of thanks to the speaker.

THE CHAIRMAN: I shall ask the Honorable Mr. Ferguson to second this motion.

PREMIER FERGUSON:--Mr. President, you do me honor indeed in asking' me to voice what I know is the unanimous sentiment of this splendid gathering today. While endorsing the vote of appreciation expressed by the Vice-President of the Canadian Club, I would like to give assurance to the Lord Chief justice that we apparently in this country have not gone entirely to the bowwows as they have in the Old Country (Laughter). Our newspaper press, with few and conspicuous exceptions (Laughter) conduct themselves most admirably, and of course I have not any political idea in mind in saying that (Laughter). Of course there are exceptions. But I should tell you, sir, as a public man in the Province of Ontario for almost a quarter of a century, that my relations with the press, whether sympathetic to the political party to which I belong or not, have always been the most happy; and again I say, with few exceptions I have always found them entirely reliable. Of course I think we have some members that write ante-mortem obituaries for you-harmless things, but they still sometimes require explanation. I have read in the newspapers, some newspapers, my own political obituary a number of times, and I have read as well of the dire punishments and worries and torture and suffering that was to be meted out to me after I had passed away politically. And I have even read my physical obituary in one newspaper. That one, I may say, was good enough to refrain from making any reference to the future (Laughter). I am quite sure that those here, even the newspaper men, will appreciate the spirit in which the Lord Chief justice has spoken (Hear, hear, and applause). I think I can say frankly that never have

I heard a greater masterpiece of serious humor, instructive and suggestive, given in potions that even the youngest newspaper man can take without revolting or nausea, and it will be to his advantage. I am sure we are all delighted to have the Lord Chief justice here and delighted with his splendid address, and we will wait with impatience the enlightenment he is to get on the further examination he is to make (Applause).

THE CHAIRMAN : Lord Hewart, I have much pleasure in conveying to you this hearty vote of appreciation. (Applause.)

LORD HEWART : Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I thank all of you very much, and I hasten to add three things. First, I entirely agree with every word that has fallen from the wise lips of the Prime Minister. Secondly, I can say also that my relations with the press have always been most happy, at any rate up to now. (Laughter.) And in the third place, I am quite sure that my brethren of the press know a joke when they see it, and they know when things are said in a Pickwickian sense. The mischief of it is, that when I am serious I am thought to be joking, and when I am joking I am thought to be serious. (Applause.)