creator of political force, and invite the public to discuss the
incident, to exercise authority in the matter, to give their views,
and not merely to give their views, but to carry them into action,
to dictate to the man upon all other points, to dictate to his
party, to dictate to his country; in fact, to make themselves
ridiculous, offensive, and harmful. The private lives of men and
women should not be told to the public. The public have nothing to
do with them at all. In France they manage these things better.
There they do not allow the details of the trials that take place
in the divorce courts to be published for the amusement or
criticism of the public. All that the public are allowed to know
is that the divorce has taken place and was granted on petition of
one or other or both of the married parties concerned. In France,
in fact, they limit the journalist, and allow the artist almost
perfect freedom. Here we allow absolute freedom to the journalist,
and entirely limit the artist. English public opinion, that is to
say, tries to constrain and impede and warp the man who makes
things that are beautiful in effect, and compels the journalist to
retail things that are ugly, or disgusting, or revolting in fact,
so that we have the most serious journalists in the world, and the
most indecent newspapers. It is no exaggeration to talk of
compulsion. There are possibly some journalists who take a real
pleasure in publishing horrible things, or who, being poor, look to
scandals as forming a sort of permanent basis for an income. But
there are other journalists, I feel certain, men of education and
cultivation, who really dislike publishing these things, who know
that it is wrong to do so, and only do it because the unhealthy
conditions under which their occupation is carried on oblige them
to supply the public with what the public wants, and to compete
with other journalists in making that supply as full and satisfying