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.

For the strength of a newspaper owner lies in his power to deceive the
public and to withhold or to publish at will hidden things: his power