But this period which brought so many bright intellects into the activities of political life was distinguished also, not merely for the material advance in industry, but notably for some performance in the less hazardous walk of literature. The newspaper press with the progress of population, the increase of wealth, the diffusion of education, the construction of railways and telegraph lines, and the development of political liberty, found itself stimulated to new energy and enterprise. A daily press now commenced to meet the necessities of the larger and wealthier cities and towns. It must be admitted, however, that from a strictly intellectual point of view there was not in some respects a marked advance in the tone and style of the leading public journals. Political partisanship ran extremely high in those days--higher than it has ever since--and grosser personalities than have ever characterized newspapers in this country sullied the editorial columns of leading exponents of public opinion. No doubt there was much brilliant and forcible writing, despite the acrimony and abuse that were too often considered more necessary than incisive argument and logical reasoning when a political opponent had to be met. It was rarely that one could get at the whole truth of a question by reading only one newspaper; it was necessary to take two or three or more on different sides of politics in order to obtain even an accurate idea of the debates in the legislative halls. A Liberal or Conservative journal would consider it beneath its legitimate functions even as a newspaper to report with any fulness the speeches of its political adversaries. Of course this is not newspaper editing in the proper sense of the phrase. It is not the English method assuredly, since the London _Times_, the best example of a well-equipped and well-conducted newspaper, has always considered it necessary to give equal prominence to the speeches of Peel, Russell, Palmerston, Derby, Disraeli, Gladstone--of all the leaders irrespective of party. Even in these days of heated controversy on the Irish question one can always find in the columns of the London press fair and accurate reports of the speeches of Gladstone, Balfour, McCarthy, Chamberlain, Morley and Blake. This is the sound basis on which true and honest journalism must always rest if it is to find its legitimate reward, not in the fickle smiles of the mere party follower, but in the support of that great public which can best repay the enterprise and honesty of a true newspaper. Still, despite this violent partisanship to which bright intellects lowered themselves, and the absence of that responsibility to public opinion expected from its active teachers, the press of Canada, during the days of which I am speaking, kept pace in some essential respects with the material progress of the country, and represented too well the tone and spirit of the mass in the country where the rudiments of culture were still rough and raw.