The Dominion. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1912. THE LONDON "TIMES" AND JOURNALISM.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1581, 26 October 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1912. THE LONDON "TIMES" AND JOURNALISM.

On September 10 last the London Times printed its Forty Thousandth Number, and it marked the occasion by publishing a wonderful supplement of 44 pages dealing with the history of printing, the British press, and the Times itself. It is a remarkable testimony alike to the undimmed prestige of this great journal and to the burning faith of journalists the world over in the greatness of journalism that nearly every newspaper of importance in Britain,' Europe, and America hailed the issue of "No. 40,000" as an event of high importance as well as of unparalleled interest. From small beginnings the Times lias grown into an organ of tremendous power—the most influential, the best printed, and the most authoritative newspaper in the world. Although it is the fashion with some eccentric or bilious people to say that the Times does not exercise its old influence, this is an assertion which can be correctly met by an adaptation of Sik Francis Buhnand's famous reply, "It never was," to the critic who said I'unch was not as good as it used to be. The influence of the -Times is still enormous—in the region of foreign affairs because it has always been recognised by the statesmen of the party that happons to be in power as quite indifferent to any interest but the nation's; in I Home politics because it has at its command, and because everybody knows it commands, directly or indirectly, the services of the acutcst and best-informed people in Britain. Its news is authentic; its correspondents in Europe, Asia, and America are journalists of superlative skill, experience, and enterprise. Its contributors of special articles arc men of the highest authority in their fields, and include amongst them the greatest statesmen, philosophers, scientists, and men of letters in Great Britain. To quote the statistics of tlw Time' oi to-day would only bo to i bowilder our readers; it is enough to

sav that its writing and contributing staff number just under 2000, and that on the average a single copy of the Times contains as many words as two average novels. The growth of the newspaper from a tiny sheet written laboriously by one pen and often printed by the hand that wrote it, to the large and complex organism to-day is a theme which has been so frequently discussed that few things are more difficult than to find a new angle from which to consider the flooding of the twentieth century with newspapers. We are not going to attempt to do that; but there is one line of thought which "No. 40,000" must suggest to everyone who reads it. ~,,•• In the lengthy and remarkable history of the British press which is published in the supplement the arresting fact is that the growth and liberation- of the press made only one phase of the liberation of the people. The history of the seventeenth century is full of incidents showing the strength of the opposition and persecution which newspaper publication had to face. The Crown and the Government were always sure opponents of free printing; for the reason, as set forth by Sir Roger L'Estiunge, appointed "Surveyor of the Presses" by Charles 11, that "a public mercury (or newspaper) makes the public too familiar with the actions and counsels of their superiors, and gives them not only an itch, but a kind of colourable right and license to be meddling with the Government. Long after the press had secured some measure of freedom, it had still to contend with such disabilities _ as stamp duties and the prohibition against publishing Parliamentary debates. It was not until 1803 that there was any real publication of Parliamentary reports. Now, it has often been remarked as very curious that in this country and in Australia | at the present time there have been evidences that many politicians and some few Governments would, if they could, restrict the liberty of the press once more. In Australia there has lately been enacted a law which imposes upon newspaper articles certain conditions for the express purpose of. hampering the dissemination of free opinion. A similar proposal has been brought forward in our own Parliament; and in recent times we have seen in New Zealand a deliberate, undisguised, and long-sustained campaign against the now universally recognised principle that a free press is essential to a free society. It is due, of course, to the special conditions of Australasian lite—so unfavourable to the development of caution and thoughtfulness amongst the people, and so favourable to rash and reckless ideas and experiments— that such infractions of the press's liberty have been possible. In Britain such things are impossible: Lord Morley, it will be remembered, was surprised at the Australian Act. But political parties and Governments are always at heart resentful of control by the "multitude" or its organs. That those who have sought to shackle the press have posed, and are posing, as Democrats is the most astonishing thine about it, _ ', Perhaps it is that democracy gives the demagogue his opportunity, and the demagogue hates free criticism as nobody else docs. It is a commonplace that, while the liberty of printing was but one of many goals won by the awakening of the human spirit, it is to the liberty of printing that the further enlargement of human liberty is mainly due. In an illuminating , passage the Times makes this" clear, by referring to the society of the Roman Empire. Intellectually that society was perhaps better than the society of to-day, but politically it was weak and hopeless. The most obvious failure of the ancient world was a political one, the failure to carry the real liberty existing in the small city State into tho larger State. The Times remarks that in larger States the mass of the citizens could not know how the Government was carried on, as they could, and did, know in the smaller city State; Had there been a free daily press this failure_ would not have been recorded. It is not representative Government, but the printing press, that has established liberty, through tho "multitude's" control of the governors, in the vast modern State.

If electors (the "Times" points out) know nothing of what is done by their representatives, they are for nil practical purposes at the same disadvantage as citizens of a city State which has outgrown its constitution. In that case power is sure to be concentrated in tho hands of the few who know what tho representatives ore- doing and so can control them. That is what happened in England in the eighteenth century, and might have gone on happening until our Government' was an undisguised oligarchy, if it had not been for the invention of printing.

It is the simplest wisdom to regard as suspect every Government or every politician who seeks to interfere with the goneral liberty of the press. The fact that the Times has survived, and thriven upon, all the vicissitudes of human affairs for nearly 128 years, is a testimony to the essential necessity of the press. That it is to-day sin r/eneris— unexcelled in almost every particular that is of importance, and actually unrivalled in many of them —is also a testimony to the value in a newspaper of courage, and steadfastness, and a clear and continuous aim. For these have been the characteristics of the Times : it has fulfilled, and is a continual inspiration to the fulfilment by all its contemporaries, its duty of extracting from the liberty' of printing all its social value by never being timid, vacillating, or fickle.