The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3519, 3 June 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3 1874

It is certain that in one very important respect the people of England and of Australasia are far in advance of those other members of the same race, the English-speaking people of America. They have far better manners. The very best index of the general tone of society in any community, and of the respect or contempt which its members entertain for one another is undoubtedly to be found in the columns of the newspapers which circulate most widely amongst that community. A newspaper will, as a rule, be acceptable to a large number of subscribers only when it reflects, as it were, the feelings, manners, modes of thought, and even prejudices of a very considerable section of the people. Men and women will, in the long run, refuse to pay for a thing which is constantly causing them more or less irritation, annoyance, or disgust. We may therefore take it for granted that if we can learn what sort of newspapers are most popular in any country, we may also form a very good idea of the sort ef people that read them. No one can glance over a New York, a New Orleans, or a Toronto paper, without at once perceiving that its tone is altogether different from that of a leading English journal. We may briefly describe this difference, by saying that English journalists are bet-ter-mannered than their Transatlantic brethren. The leading English papers, when combating the views held by their opponents, almost invariably show some consideration for the feelings of those who differ from them ; the American papers show none. There are few people, we believe, who are in the habit of reading the journals from these two countries who have not been struck with their striking dissimilarity in this respect. We conclude, therefore, that the English people are more polite, more kindly, more considerate than their American cousins. This is also true, if we may apply the same test, with regard to the people of the Australasian Colonies as compared with those of Canada. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the leading articles of, say the Melbourne ‘Argus,’ with those of the ‘ Toronto Globe,’ he will see that lor one “ strong expression ” in the ‘ Argus ’ there are at least ten in the ‘ Globe.’ It is true that of late the Canadians have had a Pacific “scandal” to deal with, which has probably justified to a certain extent the use of a great deal of the invective and fierce denunciation which have been current amongst them ; but even if the articles on this subject were allowed to count for nothing, the Canadian paper would be found to be far ahead of the Victorian one in the art of calling people bad names. Of course we do not intend to imply that a newspaper never does anything but reflect the opinions, manners, and modes of thought of the general public; on the contrary, it may be, and sometimes is, in such a position that its example may have a very great influence in directing and modifying the tone of thought of a very considerable section of the community; and this influence may be exerted either for good or for evil. If a paper has once gained a firm footing in a community, experience shows that its decay is seldom sudden ; years generally elapse before a paper that has once been popular becomes defunct. If, for instance, a popular paper, one that fairly represented the opinions of the people, and acted in accordance with the recognized rules of a society that was neither harsh nor boorish, nor accustomed to disregard the feelings and prejudices of its members—if "such a paper began all at once to “ hit out” right and left, to apply strong adjectives to all those who might happen to disagree with any doctrine of which it was for the time being the advocate; in short, if it were to attempt to introduce the American style of journalism into a British community, its influence would at once begin to decline. Butthis decline would be by no means sudcfen. years would have to pass by before it would be utterly extinguished, indeed a long time even would elapse before a complete recovery would become an impossibility ( and during this period the paper might, by. mending its ways, quite regain its old influence. If, however, it persisted in its folly, its ultimate extinction would be certain. But, during the period of its decadence, it might inflict very great injury on the community as a whole by infecting those who were still influenced by it with its own disease. Its tendency would be to make people more inclined to be captious, disagreeable, and illmannered than they would otherwise be.

Our readers will all remember that masterpiece of tbe great Scottish poet, the “Address to the Deil.” Burns, after remonstrating with the Author of Evil, for taking pleasure in torturing “puir damned bodies,” and other similar amusements, suggests to him that repentance might possibly be of avail even in his case. It is with a somewhat similar end in view, and with almost as much hope of success, that we have penned the foregoing re-

marks, though our benevolent efforts are not directed to the improvement of exactly the same personage. The fact is that it would give us great satisfaction to see our contemporary, the ‘ ota g° Daily Times,’ “tak a thocht an’ mend.” We cannot help thinking that many of its articles are calculated to do an immense amount of harm to this community, by setting sect against sect, and class against class. It does not follow that because a man is a Sabbatarian he is also a fool. But an article in a late number of the ‘Times’ broadly asserted this doctrine. (The word “fool” was not used; but there is no difference to apeak of between fools and the “ stupidest of the stupid.”) Statements like this, which have not a shadow of foundation, are at the same time most annoying. They irritate those against whom they are directed, and they may fatally injure the cause they are intended to serve. The case seems to be this, There is a certain class of the community who hold that the Sunday is a Sabbath—to be kept much after the fashion in which it was observed by the Jews; they believe that it is the duty of the State to enforce the observance of this Sabbath, and to prevent people from “desecrating it;” they believe that the Sabbath is a divine institution. Surely there is no reason why people should be called bad names because they believe this. Their motive for acting as they do is one which all ought to respect, however much they may refuse to be guided by it. The proper weapon to be used against such people is neither abuse nor insult, but fair, respectful argument. It must be remembered, too, that the tone of the article in question was all the more reprehensible because it was entirely unprovoked. The discussion, and indeed the whole of the recent contest on the Sunday question was conducted without any display of bad temper, or use of bad language, on either side. The Anti-Sabbatarians won the day; but the ‘ Times ’ was not satisfied with the victory. The Sabbatarians were down ; the ‘ Times ’ thought that, being down, they were in a favorable position for being trampled upon, and it did its best to trample upon them accordingly. We repeat that this introduction of American customs into an English community will eventually not be tolerated. In the meantime it will be productive of very bad results to the community.