« 이전계속 »
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, 6 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 thein; 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 Hailey bury, 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, calin-judging spirit which Bagebot 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
thinkinl developement it would be ineffrey..
with French and German, and the confidence which men felt in his character and judgement, he had become intimate in a very unusual degree with the statesmen of the Continent. For many years practically directing, under the superintendence of the Editor of the Times, the foreign -policy of that great journal, he had obtained a close insight into the relations between our own and other nations, between our statesmen and theirs. With the late Editor of the Review-the new Chancellor of the Exchequerand Lord Clarendon he was on terms of close friendship. His post at the Privy Council brought him into constant intercourse with all the great lawyers of the day, and his tastes led him to see much of the diplomatic world of London. A man of wide reading and general culture, he was deeply interested in English and foreign literature; but as he lived an active life amongst men of action, it was clear that in his time, as before it, the Review would escape the danger of getting into the hands of the small literary coteries and cliques so obnoxious to the soul of Jeffrey.
If space permitted, it would be interesting to trace the gradual developement of ideas and of feeling amongst the thinking part of the community in reference to that .State
and Church controversy on which Macaulay and Gladstone had taken different sides. In Roman Catholic times ecclesiastical pretensions conflicted often enough with the temporal power of the State, and our ancestors knew how to vindicate their civil liberties. Since the Reformation in England and Scotland Anglican and Presbyterian 'highfliers' have at times asserted claims which, whatever their abstract merits, are entirely incompatible with the maintenance of a State Church. Three years before Macaulay had reviewed Gladstone, Arnold of Rugby had denounced in the Review in the severest language the aims and motives of that extravagant High-Churchmanship of Oxford, which was to lead so many Anglicans into the Papal fold. The ‘Oxford Malignants' seemed probably to the Editor a happy title to bestow on Arnold's paper; but it was one which not unnaturally gave additional offence to those who fell under its scourge. The trustees of Rugby School invited Dr. Arnold to acknowledge the article, and the dismissal of the most distinguished schoolmaster of the nineteenth century was actually in contemplation. Arnold, however, maintained his ground; and in later years in the Review the fight against sacerdotal ascendency was maintained in a wider spirit of charity, but with no less force and courage, by his great disciple Dean
Reviens maintaim was to distinowledge