페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

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 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 Exchequer— and 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 Stanley. Henry Eogers, in the same pages, from a somewhat Puritanical standpoint, frequently discussed matters of theological or ecclesiastical interest, whilst Sir James Stephen, Permanent Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office (whom his colleague Henry Taylor used to nickname 'Over 'Secretary' and' King Stephen'), out of a very large number of articles, contributed over a long series of years, had in many papers lent his weight to the same side. The names of the articles contributed by the late Dean of Westminster recall the fierce controversies of the latter half of last century. 'Essays and Reviews,' 1861; 'Ritualism,' 1867; 'The Pope and the Council,' 1871; 'The Bennett Judge'ment,' 1872; 'Religious Movements in Germany,' 1881, are a few of these. With Dean Stanley's wide spirit of toleration, and his dislike to ecclesiastical pretensions, Reeve was entirely in accord. The latter's article of July, 1868, on 'The National Church,' is a noble plea for

'enlarging the boundaries of the Church of England, so far as is consistent with the maintenance of the essential truths of Christianity; for endeavouring to make her more and more the Church of the people; for surrendering those trifling grounds of difference which, however inconsiderable in themselves, and in no degree essential to our own faith, are stumbling blocks to the faith of others, where they are unconditionally enforced; and thus rendering the Church more comprehensive, more tolerant, and therefore more national.'

Mr. Gladstone in 1867, leading, like Lord John Russell in 1846, the Liberal Opposition on the eve of its return to power, like him contributed a noteworthy article to the Review. In 'The Session and its Sequel' * Mr. Gladstone reviews the remarkable events of the session just concluded. Mr. Disraeli had induced the Tory party, which two years before had triumphantly thrown out the moderate Reform Bill of Lord Russell's Government as being far too democratic, itself to pass a measure far more extreme than any statesman had advocated—conduct which, though it bought a few months' success in the House of Commons, destroyed for a time the credit of his party with the country. Authority, urged Mr. Gladstone, can never long be severed from public esteem and confidence, and of these the session of 1867 had, he asserted, robbed the Tory party. The day of retribution was near, and ' the moral of the session lay in fresh proofs 'that parties, like individuals, can only enjoy a solid 'prosperity by building on the rock of honour, truth, and 'the confidence which they alone engender.'

* Edinburgh Review, October, 1867. VOL. OXCVI. NO. OOOO1I. T

Two months later the country had pronounced against Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Gladstone's ministry was in power. The great Government of 1868 opened its first session with a majority of 120 at its back in the House of Commons. It used well the power it had won, and it has left a record of work done which certainly no later ministry has surpassed. The disestablishment of the Church of Ireland, the Irish Land Act, the Abolition of Purchase, and Army Reform, the Education Act, the Judicature Act, and the Ballot Act were measures of the very first importance. Many other minor but useful measures became law, before the sudden dissolution of 1874 brought about the fall of the Liberal ministry. The Review, which had rejoiced at the wide composition of the ministry of 1868 and at the introduction of Mr. Bright and other' new men' into the Cabinet, and had heartily supported all its great measures, in an article in April, 1874, sounded a first note of warning. The wide experience and cautious spirit of the Editor had taken alarm. In the past the Whig party, said the Review, had been in alliance at one time with Irish Roman Catholics to put down Protestant bigotry and religious intolerance in Ireland, at another time with Protestant nonconformity in fighting the battle of the Test Act. But the Whig party did not on that account become either Roman Catholic or nonconformist, and in each case the alliance was formed in order to bring about an event which Whig statesmanship held dear—the triumph of civil and religious liberty. For certain great purposes Whig statesmanship and the ' Manchester School' had worked together, but for all that Whig statesmen and Whig principles had never been identified with the Manchester School, any more than Whigs had become Repealers after having been for a time allied with Daniel O'Connell. 'We hold, and have ever held,' wrote the Review, 'that in 'the Whig party lies the centre of gravity of Liberal politics * in England.' To alter materially the centre of gravity would upset the ship. The spirit of English politics was moderation, and the recent elections had shown that, let candidates label themselves as they would, what the country wanted was government on lines of steady progress, not Radical changes on the one side, or Tory opposition to all advance on the other. In Mr. Gladstone's conduct there was reason to fear that the direction of the Liberal party was about for the first time to fall into the hands of

[graphic][merged small]
« 이전계속 »