utopia of usurers and other essays-第10部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


as　Tom　Pinch　felt　towards　Mr。　Pecksniff　immediately　after　he　had　found　him
out。　　The　war　upon　Dickens　was　part　of　the　general　war　on　all　democrats；
about　the　eighties　and　nineties；　which　ushered　in　the　brazen　plutocracy　of
to…day。　　And　one　of　the　things　that　it　was　fashionable　to　say　of　Dickens
in　drawing…rooms　was　that　he　had　no　subtlety；　and　could　not　describe　a
complex　frame　of　mind。　　Like　most　other　things　that　are　said　in
drawing…rooms；　it　was　a　lie。　　Dickens　was　a　very　unequal　writer；　and　his
successes　alternate　with　his　failures；　but　his　successes　are　subtle　quite
as　often　as　they　are　simple。　　Thus；　to　take　〃Martin　Chuzzlewit〃　alone；　I
should　call　the　joke　about　the　Lord　No…zoo　a　simple　joke：　but　I　should
call　the　joke　about　Mrs。　Todgers's　vision　of　a　wooden　leg　a　subtle　joke。
And　no　frame　of　mind　was　ever　so　selfcontradictory　and　yet　so　realistic　as
that　which　Dickens　describes　when　he　says；　in　effect；　that；　though　Pinch
knew　now　that　there　had　never　been　such　a　person　as　Pecksniff；　in　his
ideal　sense；　he　could　not　bring　himself　to　insult　the　very　face　and　form
that　had　contained　the　legend。　　The　parallel　with　Liberal　journalism　is
not　perfect；　because　it　was　once　honest；　and　Pecksniff　presumably　never
was。　　And　even　when　I　come　to　feel　a　final　incompatibility　of　temper；
Pecksniff　was　not　so　Pecksniffian　as　he　has　since　become。　　But　the
comparison　is　complete　in　so　far　as　I　share　all　the　reluctance　of　Mr。
Pinch。　　Some　old　heathen　king　was　advised　by　one　of　the　Celtic　saints；　I
think；　to　burn　what　he　had　adored　and　adore　what　he　had　burnt。　　I　am　quite
ready；　if　anyone　will　prove　I　was　wrong；　to　adore　what　I　have　burnt；　but　I
do　really　feel　an　unwillingness　verging　upon　weakness　to　burning　what　I
have　adored。　　I　think　it　is　a　weakness　to　be　overcome　in　times　as　bad　as
these；　when　（as　Mr。　　Orage　wrote　with　something　like　splendid　common　sense
the　other　day）　there　is　such　a　lot　to　do　and　so　few　people　who　will　do　it。
So　I　will　devote　this　article　to　considering　one　case　of　the　astounding
baseness　to　which　Liberal　journalism　has　sunk。


Mental　Breakdown　in　Fleet　Street

One　of　the　two　or　three　streaks　of　light　on　our　horizon　can　be　perceived
in　this：　that　the　moral　breakdown　of　these　papers　has　been　accompanied　by
a　mental　breakdown　also。　　The　contemporary　official　paper；　like　the　〃Daily
News〃　or　the　〃Daily　Chronicle〃　（I　mean　in　so　far　as　it　deals　with
politics）；　simply　cannot　argue；　and　simply　does　not　pretend　to　argue。　　It
considers　the　solution　which　it　imagines　that　wealthy　people　want；　and　it
signifies　the　same　in　the　usual　manner；　which　is　not　by　holding　up　its
hand；　but　by　falling　on　its　face。　　But　there　is　no　more　curious　quality　in
its　degradation　than　a　sort　of　carelessness；　at　once　of　hurry　and　fatigue；
with　which　it　flings　down　its　argumentor　rather　its　refusal　to　argue。
It　does　not　even　write　sophistry：　it　writes　anything。　　It　does　not　so　much
poison　the　reader's　mind　as　simply　assume　that　the　reader　hasn't　got　one。
For　instance；　one　of　these　papers　printed　an　article　on　Sir　Stuart　Samuel；
who；　having　broken　the　great　Liberal　statute　against　corruption；　will
actually；　perhaps；　be　asked　to　pay　his　own　finein　spite　of　the　fact　that
he　can　well　afford　to　do　so。　　The　article　says；　if　I　remember　aright；　that
the　decision　will　cause　general　surprise　and　some　indignation。　　That　any
modern　Government　making　a　very　rich　capitalist　obey　the　law　will　cause
general　surprise；　may　be　true。　　Whether　it　will　cause　general　indignation
rather　depends　on　whether　our　social　intercourse　is　entirely　confined　to
Park　Lane；　or　any　such　pigsties　built　of　gold。　　But　the　journalist
proceeds　to　say；　his　neck　rising　higher　and　higher　out　of　his　collar；　and
his　hair　rising　higher　and　higher　on　his　head；　in　short；　his　resemblance
to　the　Dickens'　original　increasing　every　instant；　that　he　does　not　mean
that　the　law　against　corruption　should　be　less　stringent；　but　that　the
burden　should　be　borne　by　the　whole　community。　　This　may　mean　that
whenever　a　rich　man　breaks　the　law；　all　the　poor　men　ought　to　be　made　to
pay　his　fine。　　But　I　will　suppose　a　slightly　less　insane　meaning。　　I　will
suppose　it　means　that　the　whole　power　of　the　commonwealth　should　be　used
to　prosecute　an　offender　of　this　kind。　　That；　of　course；　can　only　mean
that　the　matter　will　be　decided　by　that　instrument　which　still　pretends　to
represent　the　whole　power　of　the　commonwealth。　　In　other　words；　the
Government　will　judge　the　Government。

Now　this　is　a　perfectly　plain　piece　of　brute　logic。　　We　need　not　go　into
the　other　delicious　things　in　the　article；　as　when　it　says　that　〃in　old
times　Parliament　had　to　be　protected　against　Royal　invasion　by　the　man　in
the　street。〃　　Parliament　has　to　be　protected　now　against　the　man　in　the
street。　　Parliament　is　simply　the　most　detested　and　the　most　detestable　of
all　our　national　institutions：　all　that　is　evident　enough。　　What　is
interesting　is　the　blank　and　staring　fallacy　of　the　attempted　reply。


When　the　Journalist　Is　Ruined

A　long　while　ago；　before　all　the　Liberals　died；　a　Liberal　introduced　a
Bill　to　prevent　Parliament　being　merely　packed　with　the　slaves　of
financial　interests。　　For　that　purpose　he　established　the　excellent
democratic　principle　that　the　private　citizen；　as　such；　might　protest
against　public　corruption。　　He　was　called　the　Common　Informer。　　I　believe
the　miserable　party　papers　are　really　reduced　to　playing　on　the
degradation　of　the　two　words　in　modern　language。　　Now　the　word　〃comnon〃　in
〃Common　Informer〃　means　exactly　what　it　means　in　〃common　sense〃　or　〃Book
of　Common　Prayer；〃　or　（above　all）　in　〃House　of　Commons。〃　　It　does　not　mean
anything　low　or　vulgar；　any　more　than　they　do。　　The　only　difference　is
that　the　House　of　Commons　really　is　low　and　vulgar；　and　the　Common
Informer　isn't。　　It　is　just　the　same　with　the　word　〃Informer。〃　　It　does
not　mean　spy　or　sneak。　　It　means　one　who　gives　information。　　It　means　what
〃journalist〃　ought　to　mean。　　The　only　difference　is　that　the　Common
Informer　may　be　paid　if　he　tells　the　truth。　　The　common　journalist　will　be
ruined　if　he　does。

Now　the　quite　plain　point　before　the　party　journalist　is　this：　If　he
really　means　that　a　corrupt　bargain　between　a　Government　and　a　contractor
ought　to　be　judged　by　public　opinion；　he　must　（nowadays）　mean　Parliament；
that　is；　the　caucus　that　controls　Parliament。　　And　he　must　decide　between
one　of　two　views。　　Either　he　means　that　there　Can　be　no　such　thing　as　a
corrupt　Government。　　Or　he　means　that　it　is　one　of　the　characteristic
qualities　of　a　corrupt　Government　to　denounce　its　own　corruption。　　I　laugh；
and　I　leave　him　his　choice。



THE　FATIGUE　OF　FLEET　STREET

Why　is　the　modern　party　political　journalism　so　bad？　　It　is　worse　even
than　it　intends　to　be。　　It　praises　its　preposterous　party　leaders　through
thick　and　thin；　but　it　somehow　succeeds　in　making　them　look　greater　fools
than　they　are。　　This　clumsiness　clings　even　to　the　photographs　of　public
men；　as　they　are　snapshotted　at　public　meetings。　　A　sensitive　politician
（if　there　is　such　a　thing）　would；　I　should　think；　want　to　murder　the　man
who　snapshots　him　at　those　moments。　　For　our　general　impression　of　a　man's
gesture　or　play　of　feature　is　made　up　of　a　series　of　vanishing　instants；
at　any　one　of　which　he　may　look　worse　than　our　general　impression　records。
Mr。　Augustine　Birrell　may　have　made　quite　a　sensible　and　amusing　speech；
in　the　course　of　which　his　audience　would　hardly　have　noticed　that　he
resettled　his　necktie。　　Snapshot　him；　and　he　appears　as　convulsively
clutching　his　throat　in　the　agonies　of　strangulation；　and　with　his　head
twisted　on　one　side　as　if　he　had　been　hanged。　　Sir　Edward　Carson　might
make　a　perfectly　good　speech；　which　no　one　thought　wearisome；　but　might
himself　be　just　tired　enough　to　shift　from　one　leg　to　the　other。　　Snapshot
him；　and　he　appears　as　holding　one　leg　stiffly　in　the　air　and　yawning
enough　to　swallow　the　audience。　　But　it　is　in　the　prose　narratives　of　the
Press　that　we　find　most　manifestations　of　this　strange　ineptitude；　this
knack　of　exhibiting　your　own　favourites　in　an　unlucky　light。　　It　is　not　so
much　that　the　party　journalists　do　not　tell　the　truth　as　that　they　tell
just　enough　of　it　to　make　it　clear　that　they　are　telling　lies。　　One　of
their　favourite　blunders　is　an　amazing　sort　of　bathos。　　They　begin　by
telling　you　that　some　statesman　said　something　brilliant　in　style　or
biting　in　wit；　at　which　his　hearers　thrilled　with　terror　or　thundered　with
applause。　　And　then　they　tell　you　what　it　was　that　he　said。　　Silly　asses！


Insane　Exaggeration

Here　is　an　example　from　a　leading　Liberal　paper　touching　the　debates　on
Home　Rule。　　I　am　a　Home　Ruler；　so　my　sympathies　would　be；　if　anything；　on
the　side　of　the　Liberal　paper　upon　that　point。　　I　merely　quote　it　as　an
example　of　this　ridiculous　way　of　writing；　which；　by　insane　exaggeration；
actually　makes　its　hero　look　smaller　than　he　is。

This　was　strange　language　to　use　about　the　〃hypocritical　sham；〃　and　Mr。
Asquith；　knowing　that　the　biggest　battle　of　his　career　was　upon　him；　hit
back　without　mercy。　　〃I　should　like　first　to　know；〃　said　he；　with　a　glance
at　his　supporters；　〃whether　my　proposals　are　accepted？〃

That's　all。　　And　I　really　do　not　see　why　poor　Mr。　Asquith　should　be
represented　as　having　violated　the　Christian　virtue　of　mercy　by　saying
that。　　I　myself　could　compose　a　great　many　paragraphs　upon　the　same　model；
each　containing　its　stinging　and　perhaps　unscrupulous　epigram。　　As；　for
example：〃The　Archbishop　of　Canterbury；　realising　that　his　choice　now　lay
between　denying　God　and　earning　the　crown　of　martyrdom　by　dying　in
torments；　spoke　with　a　frenzy　of　religious　passion　that　might　have　seemed
fanatical　under　circumstances　less　intense。　　'The　Children's　Service；'　he
said　firmly；　with　his　face　to　the　congregation；　'will　be　held　at　half…past
four　this　afternoon　as　usual。'〃

Or；　we　might　have：〃Lord　Roberts；　recognising　that　he　had　now　to　face
Armageddon；　and　that　if　he　lost　this　last　battle　against　overwhelming　odds
the　independence　of　England　would　be　extinguished　forever；　addressed　to
his　soldiers　（looking　at　them　and　not　falling　off　his　horse）　a　speech
which　brought　their　nat