« 이전계속 »
'his literary conscience ' to rebel. 'Editorial hacking and 'hewing' he would not stand. Surely Napier might trust him, for he strongly held 'that one can and should ever 'speak quietly; loud hysterical vehemence, foaming, hissing, 'least of all becomes him that is convinced, and not only 'supposes but knows.' One wonders whether Napier found this convincing as to the reposeful style of contributions which Carlyle hereafter might offer him!
During the first half-century of its existence Jeffrey and Macaulay were the two men whose character was most deeply impressed upon the whole political tendency of the Review. There is some truth in Bagehot's observation that Whiggism is not a creed but a character, and this character he sketches in not too flattering terms. 'Perhaps as long 'as there has been a political history in this country there 'have been certain men of a cool, moderate, resolute firm'ness, not gifted with high imagination, little prone to 'enthusiastic sentiment, heedless of large theories and 'speculations, careless of dreamy scepticism; with a clear 'view of the next step, and a wise intention to take it; a 'strong conviction that the elements of knowledge are true, 'and a steady belief that the present world can, and should, 'be quietly improved. These are the Whigs.'
Macaulay struck right and left with equal vigour. At one time (1829) he was pouring a heavy broadside into the Radical philosophers, headed by Bentham and James Mill, who were fiercely attacking, in the pages of the 'Westminster 'Review,' the moderation of Whig statesmen, and of the Whig organ. At another time, ten years later, he was turning his attention to the obscurantist views of the ultraTory party, in that famous article on Mr. Gladstone's book on Church and State, whose first paragraph the events of the following fifty years were to render for ever remarkable. In the April number of 1839 we wrote as follows:—
'The author of this volume is a young man of unblemished character and of distinguished parliamentary talents, the rising hope of those stern and unbending Tories who follow reluctantly and mutinously a leader whose experience and eloquence are indispensable to them, but whose cautious temper and moderate opinions they abhor. It would not be at all strange it' Mr. Gladstone were one of the most unpopular men in England. But we believe that we do him no more than justice when we say that his abilities and his demeanour have obtained for him the respect and goodwill of all parties.' Mr. Gladstone, the article goes on, 'appears to be in many respects exceedingly well qualified for philosophical investigation. His mind is of large grasp; nor is he deficient in dialectical skill. But he does not give his intellect fair play. There is no want of light, but a great want of what Bacon would have called dry light. Whatever Mr. Gladstone sees is refracted and distorted by a false medium of passion and prejudices. His style bears a remarkable analogy to his mode of thinking, and, indeed, exercises great influence on his mode of thinking. His rhetoric, though often good of its kind, darkens and perplexes the logic which it should illustrate.'
It must have given not a little satisfaction to Jeffrey and Macaulay, after their fierce war with the Utilitarians and the ' Westminster,' to find in 1841 John Stuart Mill and the best of his coadjutors in the latter journal offering their services to its great and successful rival. Mill felt that these heated differences between Liberals were doing harm to their common cause. He had failed, he says, after a long trial, to induce the Radicals to maintain an independent position, 'and there was no room for a fourth political party in this 'country—reckoning the Conservatives, the Whig Radicals, 'and the Chartists as the other three.' Why, he asks, should he keep his little rivulet distinct, instead of merging it in the great and steady stream of Liberal opinion? In the October 'Edinburgh' of that year Mill reviewed Tocqueville's 'De'mocracy in America.' Perhaps, were Jeffrey and Macaulay alive to-day, they might consider that the accession of strength their principles had won from amongst their Tory foes was no less remarkable than their triumph of earlier years over the successors of James Mill! If we consider causes and principles, rather than mere party names and badges, where to-day shall we find the representative either of extreme Radicalism or of old Toryism? Individuals, of course, there still are, and will always be, of extreme views, but political power is not with them; and for practical purposes the moderate reformers have won along the whole line.
After rendering eighteen years' splendid service to the Review, Macvey Napier died (1847); and Messrs. Longman appointed as his successor in the Editorship Mr. William Empson, professor of the ' Polity and Laws of England' in the East India College at Haileybury, who had married Lord Jeffrey's only daughter. Empson had been for many years a valued contributor on political, legal, and literary subjects. At school at Winchester he had made friends with Arnold, afterwards headmaster of Rugby. Their friendship continued through life, Empson sharing warmly Arnold's views on all matters of educational and ecclesiastical interest, matters which in those days were largely occupying men's thoughts,
and the discussion of which has bulked very largely in the Review. His Editorship only lasted five years, for in 1852 he died suddenly, and Sir George Cornewall Lewis, M.P. for Herefordshire, lately Financial Secretary to the Treasury under Lord John Russell, was appointed in his stead.
The Russell Government had fallen in February, 1852, and with its fall Cornewall Lewis, of course, lost his place. In July he lost his seat also, and a few months afterwards he accepted Messrs. Longman's offer of the vacant Editorship of the Review. A scholar of high repute, a deep political thinker, and a trained statesman, intimate in social life with the eminent literary men of his day, the publishers had chosen wisely. He describes his new employment as bringing upon him official correspondence akin to that with which he had been acquainted in a public department, with the drawback that he had no secretaries to help him, but with the countervailing advantage that he could do all the business of the Review in his own house. Cornewall Lewis soon found another seat in the House of Commons, but this ultimately led to his resigning the Editorship of the Review, for in 1855, on Mr. Gladstone leaving the ministry, Lord Palmerston offered to Sir George the Chancellorship of the Exchequer. On accepting it the latter, of course, resigned his connexion with the Review, and Messrs. Longman nominated the late Mr. Henry Reeve as his successor.
The late Editor of the Review continued to manage and direct it till his death, only seven years ago. As years proceed Editors and contributors change. In the world of politics new situations arise, new forces come into play, new measures are proposed and contested, questions never contemplated by our ancestors have to be answered. Reeve made it his endeavour to face the problems of the day as they arose in the firm, moderate, calm-judging spirit which Bagehot attributes to the Whig character. In his eyes the Review represented a great tradition. And a believer in political principle himself, he disliked the opportunism bred of the pressure of momentary conditions as much as he condemned the substitution of mere personal devotion to a great leader for a firm and ardent attachment to a great cause. His notion of true wisdom in statesmanship was that of the late Poet Laureate:—
'to maintain The day against the moment, and the year Against the day.'
As a very young man, owing to his exceptional familiarity