The Fabian movement, which was a drawing-room movement, compelled the discussion in the Press of Socialism, for and against.  Although every effort was made to boycott the Socialist contention in the Press, the Fabians were at last strong enough to compel its discussion, and they have by now canalized the whole thing into the direction of their “Servile State.”  I myself am no more than middle-aged, but I can remember the time when popular newspapers such as “The Star” openly printed arguments in favour of Collectivism, and though to-day those arguments are never heard in the Press—­largely because the Fabian Society has itself abandoned Collectivism in favour of forced labour—­yet we may be certain that a Capitalist paper would not have discussed them at all, still less have supported them, unless it had been compelled.  The newspapers simply could not ignore Socialism at a time when Socialism still commanded a really strong body of opinion among the wealthy.

It was the same with the Suffrage for Women, which cry a clique of wealthy ladies got up in London.  I have never myself quite understood why these wealthy ladies wanted such an absurdity as the modern franchise, or why they so blindly hated the Christian institution of the Family.  I suppose it was some perversion.  But, anyhow, they displayed great sincerity, enthusiasm, and devotion, suffering many things for their cause, and acting in the only way which is at all practical in our plutocracy—­to wit, by making their fellow-rich exceedingly uncomfortable.  You may say that no one newspaper took up the cause, but, at least, it was not boycotted.  It was actively discussed.

The little flash in the pan of Chinese Labour was, I think, even more remarkable.  The Press not only had word from the twin Party Machines (with which it was then allied for the purposes of power) to boycott the Chinese Labour agitation rigidly, but it was manifestly to the interest of all the Capitalist Newspaper Proprietors to boycott it, and boycott it they did—­as long as they could.  But it was too much for them.  They were swept off their feet.  There were great meetings in the North-country which almost approached the dignity of popular action, and the Press at last not only took up the question for discussion, but apparently permitted itself a certain timid support.

My point is, then, that the idea of the Press as “an organ of public opinion,” that is, “an expression of the general thought and will,” is not only hypocritical, though it is mainly so.  There is still something in the claim.  A generation ago there was more, and a couple of generations ago there was more still.

Even to-day, if a large paper went right against the national will in the matter of the present war it would be ruined, and papers which supported in 1914 the Cabinet intrigue to abandon our Allies at the beginning of the war have long since been compelled to eat their words.