MR. BELLOC THE PUBLICIST
So far as this article in the _Daily Mail_ was confined to an exposure
of Mr. Belloc's errors in judgement, it may be regarded as a piece of
legitimate and fair, if foolish, criticism. But the irrelevant jeering
which the article also contained, and, even more, the manner in which
the article was given publication (accompanied, as it was, by the
circulation of posters bearing the words "Belloc's Fables"), constituted
nothing short of a violent personal attack. To understand how such an
attack came to be made it is sufficient to possess an acquaintance with
the methods of Carmelite House or a knowledge of the personality of Lord
Northcliffe--a subject on which we could enlarge. It will better suit
the present purpose, however, to give Mr. Belloc's own explanation of
the reason why this attack was made upon him. In his "Reply to
Criticism," before proceeding to the part which has been quoted in the
foregoing chapter, he says:
It has been the constant policy of this paper to avoid controversy
of any kind, both because the matters it deals with are best
examined as intellectual propositions and because the increasing
gravity of the time is ill-suited for domestic quarrel. I none the
less owe it to my readers to take some notice of the very violent
personal attack delivered by the Harmsworth Press some ten days ago
upon my work in this journal. I owe it to them because I should
otherwise appear to admit unanswered the depreciation of my work in
this paper, but, still more, because the incident would give the
general public a very false impression unless its cause were
exposed. I will deal with the matter as briefly as I can. It is not
a pleasant one, and I doubt whether the principal offender will
compel me to return to it. I must first explain to my readers the
occasion of so extraordinary an outburst on the part of the
proprietor of the _Daily Mail_. I have become, with many others,
convinced that a great combination of newspapers pretending to
speak with many voices, but really serving the private interests of
one man, is dangerous to the nation. It was breeding dissension
between various social classes at a moment when unity was more
necessary than ever; pretending to make and unmake Ministers;
weakening authority by calculated confusion, but, above all,
undermining public confidence and spreading panic in a methodical
way which has already made the opinion of London an extraordinary
contrast to that of the Armies, and gravely disturbing our Allies.
They could not understand the privilege accorded to this one
person. I, therefore to the best of my power, determined to attack
that privilege, and did so. I shall continue to do so. But such
action has nothing to do with this journal, in which I have
hitherto avoided all controversy.
Now this matter, as Mr. Belloc rightly says, is not a pleasant one, and
we owe some apology both to Mr. Belloc and the public for returning to
it here. It forms, however, so noteworthy an example of that aspect of
Mr. Belloc and his work which it is proposed to examine in this chapter
that any consideration of that aspect without some mention of this
unpleasant affair would necessarily be incomplete.
The attitude of mind expressed by Mr. Belloc in this explanation should
be carefully noted. In this he appears, not, as we have seen him in the
previous chapter, as the exponent of intellectual propositions, but as
the champion of an opinion of his own. He is here expressing and
upholding his particular view of the necessity, during the war, of unity
among social classes and of the strengthening of public confidence. This
view of his proceeds from two co-related causes; the first, his
conception of the nature of the war, and, second, his knowledge of the
part played in government by public opinion.
These two causes must be examined separately.
Mr. Belloc has made clear his conception of the nature of the war in the
following words:
The two parties are really fighting for their lives; that in Europe
which is arrayed against the Germanic alliance would not care to
live if it should fail to maintain itself against the threat of
that alliance. It is for them life and death. On the other side,
the Germans having propounded this theory of theirs, or rather the
Prussians having propounded it for them, there is no rest possible
until they shall either have "made good" to our destruction, or
shall have been so crushed that a recurrence of the menace from
them will for the future be impossible.... The fight, in a word, is
not like a fight with a man who, if he beats you, may make you sign
away some property, or make you acknowledge some principle to which
you are already half-inclined; it is like a fight with a man who
says, "So long as I have life left in me, I will make it my
business to kill you." And fights of that kind can never reach a
term less absolute than the destruction of offensive power in one
side or the other. A peace not affirming complete victory in this
great struggle could, of its nature, be no more than a truce.
The second cause, Mr. Belloc's knowledge of the important part played by
public opinion in government, he has expressed in the following terms:--
The importance of a sound public judgment upon the progress of the
war is not always clearly appreciated. It depends upon truths which
many men have forgotten, and upon certain political forces which,
in the ordinary rush and tumble of professional politics, are quite
forgotten. Let me recall those truths and those forces.
The truths are these: that no Government can effectively exercise
its power save upon the basis of public opinion. A Government can
exercise its power over a conquered province in spite of public
opinion, but it cannot work, save for a short time and at an
enormous cost in friction, counter to the opinion of those with
whom it is concerned as citizens and supporters. By which I do not
mean that party politicians cannot act thus in peace, and upon
unimportant matters. I mean that no kind of Government has ever
been able to act thus in a crisis.
It is also wise to keep the mass of people in ignorance of
disasters that may be immediately repaired, or of follies or even
vices in government which may be redressed before they become
dangerous.
It is always absolutely wise to prevent the enemy in time of war
from learning things which would be an aid to him. That is the
reason why a strict censorship in time of war is not only useful,
but essentially and drastically necessary. But though public
opinion, even in time of peace, is only in part informed, and
though in time of war it may be very insufficiently informed, yet
upon it and with it you govern. Without it or against it in time of
war you cannot govern.
Now if during the course of a great war men come quite to misjudge
its very nature, the task of the Government would be strained some
time or other in the future to breaking point. False news, too
readily credited, does not leave people merely insufficiently
informed, conscious of their ignorance, and merely grumbling
because they cannot learn more, it has the positive effect of
putting them into the wrong frame of mind, of making them support
what they should not support, and neglect what they should not
neglect.
The view, then, which Mr. Belloc holds, and which these two factors
combine to form, is one of enormous importance. This view is the key to
all Mr. Belloc's writings on the political aspect of the war. He has
expressed it over and over again, but never in more solemn terms than in
the following passage. After showing the existence of the political
effect of the German advance to the borders of Russia, he points out how
necessary it is to control, by public authority and through our own
private wills, any corresponding political effect in England:
If, here, the one territory of the three great Allies not invaded
[he says] any insanity of fear be permitted, or any still baser
motive of saving private fortune by an inconclusive peace, then the
political effect at which the enemy is aiming will indeed have been
achieved. These things are contagious. We must root out and destroy
the seed of that before it grows more formidable. If we do not, we
are deliberately risking disaster. But be very certain of this:
That if by whatever lack of judgment, or worse, an inconclusive
peace be arranged, this country alone of the great alliance will,
perhaps unsupported, be the target of future attack....
He then goes on to show how the enemy's great offensive through Poland
began in April, 1915, and throughout the summer failed and failed and
failed. He concludes:
It is not enough to know these things as a proposition in
mathematics or as a problem in chess may be known. They must enter
into the consciousness of the nation; and this they will not do if
the opposite and false statement calculated to spread panic and to
destroy judgment be permitted to work its full evil unchecked by
public authority.
These passages will suffice to show not only that Mr. Belloc works with
an object, but also the very important nature of that object. In his own
words, he works "for the instruction of public opinion." His whole
desire is to elucidate for the general public who have not the
advantages of his knowledge and pursuits, events which are both puzzling
and urgent. In his commentary in _Land and Water_ he deals with those
problems which belong of their nature to the military aspect of the war,
and we have seen how extraordinarily qualified he is to undertake that
task as well as with what marked success he has accomplished it. His
writings on the political aspect of the war are to be found chiefly in
the _Illustrated Sunday Herald_, while many articles which he has
contributed at various times to other journals and newspapers are of a
similar character.
In so far as he is writing, as he is in these articles, on general
topics of the day for the public of the day, Mr. Belloc is a journalist.
In its former restricted meaning the word "journalist" expressed this.
To-day, however, we include under the designation of journalist all
those workers in the editorial departments of newspaper offices who,
though skilled in various ways, are not necessarily writers at all. In
referring, then, to Mr. Belloc as a journalist we are using the term in
its older and more restricted sense: in the sense in which the term was
employed when journalism was a profession and not a trade, when the
newspaper was not merely an instrument to further the ends of a
capitalist or syndicate, but a means of communicating to the public the
views of an individual or group of individuals, each of whom was
prepared to accept personal responsibility for the views he expressed.
The journalist in this sense is a rare figure to-day: so rare, indeed,
that we have forgotten he is a journalist and invented a new name for
him. In the field of journalism as it is at the present time it is
possible to count on the fingers of one hand the number of men who write
constantly on general topics of the day and sign what they write, thus
accepting personal responsibility for the views they express and not
leaving that responsibility with the newspaper in which their views
appear. Every weekly or monthly journal as well as the greater number of
daily newspapers contain, it is true, signed articles. The leader-pages
of the halfpenny dailies make a feature nearly every day of one or more
signed articles. But these articles, in the main, deal only with
subjects on which the writer who signs his name is a specialist. They
are written by men who happen to possess special knowledge of some
subject which is of pronounced interest to the public owing to the
course of events at the moment. For instance, when the Germans were on
the point of entering Warsaw, articles dealing with various aspects of
the city, its history, character and buildings, appeared in nearly every
newspaper: and the better articles of this nature were written and
signed by men who possessed an intimate knowledge of the subject on
which they were writing. In the same way, all signed criticism,
literary, dramatic or musical, which appears in the columns of the
newspapers of to-day is, or professes to be, the work of specialists.
Many of the larger newspapers, indeed, pay retaining fees or salaries
and give staff appointments to such specialists. Thus, the _Daily
Telegraph_ has as its literary specialist Mr. W. L. Courtney, its
musical specialist Mr. Robin H. Legge, its business specialist Mr. H. E.
Morgan.
It is the practice, then, of newspapers at the present time to make
personally responsible for the opinions they express those who write in
their columns on subjects which, though of great interest and
importance, can of their nature only concern certain classes of the
community. It should be noted, however, as perhaps the most curious
anomaly among the mass of anomalies which constitute modern journalism,
that the newspapers do not insist upon this personal responsibility of
the writer in their treatment of those matters which concern not one
class but every class of the community. What the newspaper insists upon,
on the ground, presumably, that it is right and natural, in the minor
affairs of life, it entirely ignores in the major matters of life. While
it insists, for example, that the writer who expresses an opinion in its
columns on the ludicrous inadequacy of the Promenade Concerts shall
accept personal responsibility for that opinion, it allows views and
opinions on such vital matters as the sovereignty of Parliament, the
invincibility of Capitalism and the immorality of Trades Unionism to be
expressed anonymously.
This practice is now firmly established. These anonymous opinions are
the "opinions of the paper." But what does that phrase mean? A newspaper
itself, as a mere material object, is incapable of forming or holding an
opinion. Some person, or group of persons, must form and hold and be
ready to accept the responsibility for the expression of these "opinions
of the paper." And since the ultimate responsibility can fall on nobody
but the proprietor or proprietors of the papers, these anonymous
opinions must properly be regarded as the opinions of the capitalist or
syndicate owning the paper in which they appear. In other words, the
opinions anonymously expressed in the leading articles of the _Daily
News_ can only be the opinions of Messrs. Cadbury: of the _Daily
Telegraph_ of Lord Burnham or the Lawson family: in the _Manchester
Guardian_ of Mr. C. P. Scott and his fellow-proprietors: in the _Morning
Post_ of Lady Bathurst: in the _Daily Mail_ of Lord Northcliffe and the
Harmsworth family.
Of this system of purveying to the public opinions which, by an absurd,
illogical and pernicious tradition, are supposed to be those of the
public, but which, in reality, are those either of a single capitalist
or syndicate, Mr. Belloc is not merely the avowed enemy but the most
active enemy. It was his persistently inimical attitude, ruthlessly
maintained, which evoked the angry personal attack made upon him by Lord
Northcliffe; and we have seen how Mr. Belloc explains, justifies and
maintains his attitude. In this we see his enmity avowed, but we do not
perhaps realize how practical and active is the expression he gives it.
It has been said, indeed, just above, that of this system he is the most
active enemy; and, in truth, we can find no other to equal him in this
respect except such as are working in co-operation with, if not under
the leadership of, Mr. Belloc. We have seen how, in so far as he is
writing on general topics of the day for the public of the day (as he is
doing, for example, in his articles which are concerned with various
phases of the political aspect of the war in the _Illustrated Sunday
Herald_ and other journals and newspapers), Mr. Belloc is a journalist
in the older and more restricted sense of the term. It has been further
shown that the journalist in this sense is a rare figure to-day, it
being the practice of modern journalism to deal with general, as
distinct from special, topics of the day in the form of leading
articles, which, in reality, contain what can only logically be regarded
as the opinions of the proprietors of the newspapers in which they
appear. The journalist who writes what may be called signed leading
articles is so rare among us to-day that we have forgotten he is a
journalist and invented a new name for him. We call him a publicist.
Among the writers of the day the number who rank as publicists is very
small. The names that occur to one are those of Mr. G. K. Chesterton,
Mr. H. G. Wells, Mr. Bernard Shaw, Mr. A. G. Gardiner, Mr. E. B. Osborn
and, possibly, Mr. Arnold Bennett. In addition there are a few
publicists who speak through organs which they personally control, such
as Mr. A. R. Orage, Mr. Sidney Webb, and Mr. Cecil Chesterton. Mr.
Arnold Bennett, indeed, has only occupied the position of publicist
since he has been a regular contributor to the _Daily News_, and we can
only say that, high as Mr. Bennett stands in our estimation as a
novelist and writer, we fail to see any particular in which his views on
political and social matters of the day are of extraordinary importance
to the welfare of the community at large. In a word, it seems to us that
those articles of his which from time to time occupy so prominent a
position on the leader page of the _Daily News_ might appear as fitly in
the correspondence column. Mr. G. K. Chesterton has won for himself a
high place in contemporary letters, but it is more probable that that
place is due rather to the excellence and individuality of his writing
than to the originality of the opinions he holds. It may be said,
indeed, of Mr. G. K. Chesterton, as an exceedingly competent critic has
said of Mr. Shaw, that it is his manner of expressing his philosophy
rather than his philosophy itself that will be valued by posterity. And
as Mr. Shaw has expressed most of his views in his plays and prefaces
rather than in the columns of the newspapers (and this is said in full
remembrance of his manifold and copious letters to _The Times_), so Mr.
H. G. Wells has given us his philosophy in his novels and fantasies. His
appearances in the newspapers have been rare and invariably regrettable.
The two other gentlemen whose names are mentioned, Mr. E. B. Osborn and
Mr. A. G. Gardiner, should be classed, perhaps, rather with those other
three who are in control, more or less, of the papers in which their
writings appear, since both Mr. Osborn and Mr. Gardiner are definitely
attached, the one to the _Morning Post_ and the other to the _Daily News
and Leader_, of which, before the amalgamation, he was editor. This
being the case, it is to be assumed that these two gentlemen express and
sign their views in these papers because their views correspond to a
determining extent with those of the proprietors of the papers. This
must logically be the case with Mr. Gardiner. So far as Mr. Osborn is
concerned, he occupies on the _Morning Post_ the same position as was
occupied on that paper by Mr. Belloc and on the _Daily News_ in former
times by Mr. Gilbert Chesterton. That is to say, he is an essayist of
such standing as to make a regular contribution from him of value to the
newspaper so long as the views and opinions he expresses in those essays
do not contrast too violently with the opinions expressed in the leading
articles.
Of the other three gentlemen we have named, Mr. Orage, Mr. Cecil
Chesterton and Mr. Webb, it is difficult to speak as of individuals.
They are referred to more properly as the _New Age_, the _New Witness_,
and the _New Statesman_, and their respective personalities and
attitudes of mind are fitly expressed in the names of the organs through
which they speak. All three agree in finding the times out of joint and
desiring new and better conditions of life: they differ in the
standpoints from which they approach an analysis of present conditions
and in the solutions they propound. The _New Age_ is the most valuable
because it is the most thorough. Not only is its analysis of present
conditions the most acute and the most sound that we have to-day, but
the solutions it propounds to the problems it analyses are the most
fearless, the most thorough and the most idealistic. The _New Witness_
is equally thorough but more immediate. The scope of its analysis is not
so wide. Although its views are based on principles similar to those of
the _New Age_, it is concerned more to influence the actions than the
thoughts of men. Its object is to bear testimony to the wrongs that are
being done to-day, the crimes that are committed every day against the
welfare of the community, and to cry aloud for the immediate righting of
those wrongs, the stern punishment of those crimes. Though these two
journals are aiming at the same object, the methods they adopt are in
almost direct contrast. Mr. Orage looks down from the height, not of
philosophic doubt, but of philosophic certainty (where he alone feels
happy) upon the petty house of party politics, and seeks, by the magic
music of his words and phrases, so to move and draw after him the sand
of human nature on which that house is built, that it may no longer
stand but fall and be banished utterly. Mr. Cecil Chesterton, on the
other hand, only happy in the role of the new David, gives fearless
battle to the modern Goliath, caring no whit if at times the struggle go
against him and he find himself hard pressed at the Old Bailey, but
gleefully and dauntlessly springing at his monstrous assailant, in the
hope that some day a lucky stone from his sling will find its mark.
Somewhere between these two extremes stands (or wavers) the _New
Statesman_, sometimes inclining more to the one, more to the other
method. It is concerned neither entirely with the thoughts nor entirely
with the actions of men, but with each in part. Its object is so to
influence the thoughts of men that they will find natural expression in
the clauses of beneficent Bills.
These are the publicists. As individuals they are of value to the
community according to the value of the views they hold and express. As
a class they are of value to the community because the views they hold
and express, whether right or wrong, are _sincere_. In contrast with the
great body of the Capitalist Press that expresses anonymous opinions
which, whether sincere or not (and it can be proved that they are often
quite insincere), must still necessarily aim at the maintenance and
strengthening of present social and economic conditions, these men
express their own personal convictions as to what is wrong with the
world and how, as _they_ think, the world may be made a better place.
It is this inestimable quality of sincerity which links Mr. Belloc with
the too small band of publicists of the day. It has been said of Mr.
Belloc that he is a "man of independent mind, and, where necessary, of
unpopular attitude ... his estimates, right or wrong, are his own ... he
carries a sword to grasp not an axe to grind." In the following chapters
a brief exposition of Mr. Belloc's views both of Europe and of England
will be given with a short summary of his translation of these views
into the language of practical reforms; and we shall then be able to
form some estimate of Mr. Belloc's particular value to the community. In
his articles both on the military and on the political aspect of the war
Mr. Belloc is working, as we have seen, "for the instruction of public
opinion." That this is to-day true, moreover, of Mr. Belloc's whole
attitude towards the public is not fully realized. Large numbers of
people have found in Mr. Belloc's war articles their only hope of sanity
in the midst of distressing and unintelligible events. In the general
course of modern life events move less rapidly, but are equally
important, and there, too, Mr. Belloc has attempted with almost
pathetic lucidity to explain. His true earnestness will not be rewarded,
his true purpose will not be attained, until the thoughtful public
realizes that it can find in Mr. Belloc's historical and political
writings at large the guide to the formation of opinion and the help to
sanity which it has already found in his explanations of the war.