THE LIBERAL DAILY PRESS.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] Sra,—Referring to your very just reflections on the extra- ordinary line taken by the Daily News relative to the Suez- Canal question, allow me to give an instance or two of the -oscillation of opinion indicated in the two leading articles of that paper on Saturday, July 14th, and Monday, July 16th. On Saturday, the leader remarked thus,—" M. de Lesseps could -scarcely make his second Canal without British money," &c. Again,—" He cannot make it at all, without English co-opera- -tion." Again,—" There is no reason, as it seems to us, in spite of Mr. Childers's ingenious answer to the deputation from the Chambers of Commerce, why the agreement should not be recon- sidered, nor why M. de Lesseps himself should not consent to -terms which will be regarded as fair by the country which finds the money for the extension, and gives nearly all the trade which renders the undertaking profitable. He cannot do with- -out England, and England has no desire to do without him." Sunday brought other reflections, and the leader of Monday, generally moderated in tone, states :—" It is by no means certain that M. de Lesseps would have difficulty in obtaining the loan necessary for the construction of a second canal in- dependently of England. Even France itself, now that its feeling is aroused on the matter, might contribute the whole of it."
Constant readers of the Daily News are by no means unac- customed to these sudden alternations of policy shown by its 'leaders. On the Irish question, similar perturbations have been -exhibited. On the Egyptian policy, our accommodating journal -quickly passed from the attitude of Sir Wilfrid Lawson to that -of cordial support of the war. It would be a mistake to view this affection very gravely, or to imagine that anything more than the surface of the opinion of the country is touched, even by the Daily News. It has happened, on one or two important occa- sions, to have followed the strong current of national feeling, and to have echoed that sentiment with no very marked ability. The sources of those movements lay far beyond the influence of the Daily News, and would have done their work, whatever its attitude might have been. The obligation of the Liberal Party to the Daily News is by no means great ; the indebtedness of the Daily News to Liberal opinion is inestimable. Surely it is
not too much for earnest Liberals to expect that if they cannot -find, in the only leading Liberal newspaper of the city, un-
deviating loyalty to the Government, it at least should present the grounds of its difference with some signs of consistency and force.
The constituencies have of late shown the vigour and the intelligence of their patriotism by requiring their re- . presentatives in Parliament to do justice to their convic- tions by supporting the Ministry at critical divisions. To exercise healthy influence of that kind, and to be con- tented with a journalism that claims absolute licence of support or hostility in the day of battle, is not the wisest
policy. To have to read the articles of the Standard to find a fair discussion of the procedure of the Admiuistration is rather humiliating to a party abounding-with journalistic talent and political sagacity. Is it not time this question received the earnest attention of men of light and leading in the party ?— I am, &c.,
Previous page
