place, it prevents the editor from standing on a proper footing towards
his contributors. Many a man who is not so engrossed with business but
that he can _afford_ to write for nothing, would nevertheless find an
occasional payment of forty or fifty dollars a very timely addition to
his income, and would prefer that way of making money to many others.
But, in comparison with the editor, he appears positively a rich man,
and as such is ashamed to ask for any pecuniary recompense. He feels,
therefore, as if he were doing a charitable and patronising, or at
least a very friendly act, in contributing, and will be apt to take
less and less trouble with his contributions, and write chiefly for his
own amusement; while the editor, on his part, does not like to run the
chance of offending a man who can write him good articles occasionally,
and feels a delicacy about declining to insert whatever the other
writes.
Next, it often stands in the way of honest criticism. Men can be paid
in flattery as well as in dollars, and the former commodity is more
easily procurable than the latter. If the editor eulogises the author
of "---- and other Poems," as at least equal to Tennyson, there is a
chance that some of the "other poems," may come his way occasionally.
Of course, if he were able and willing to pay for good articles, he
could always command the services of good contributors, and need not
stoop to so unworthy a practice.
Thirdly, it destroys all homogenousness and unity of tone in the
periodical, by preventing it from having any permanent corps of
writers. The editors must furnish good articles now and then, to carry
off their ordinary vapid matter; and, accordingly, they are sometimes
under the disagreeable necessity of paying for them;[51] but not
sufficiently often to make it worth the while of a writer to whom the
pecuniary consideration is an object, to attach himself permanently
to any of their concerns. Hence, those men who expect to derive any
appreciable part of their income from writing in periodicals, are
continually changing their colours, and essentially migratory. And
as the principal attraction of the unpaid writers is their variety,
which is best provided for by frequently changing the supply of them,
while one great inducement to themselves is the gratification of their
vanity, which is best promoted by their appearing in the greatest
number of periodicals, they also become migratory and without permanent
connexion. Accordingly it is not uncommon for a periodical to change
its opinions on men and things three or four times a-year. Frequently,
too, these changes are accompanied by disputes about unsettled accounts
and other private matters, which have an awkward tendency to influence
the subsequent critical and editorial opinions of both parties.
Now and then they lead to libel suits,--sometimes to still greater
extremities. Mr Colton, editor of the _American Review_, had occasion
to dispense with the services of a young Kentuckian with whom he was
at first connected. (It is but justice to the former gentleman to say,
that there were no short-comings on his part; his only error seems to
have been entangling himself with an unworthy assistant in the first
place.) The discharged assistant forthwith issued a pamphlet against
Mr Colton, of which that gentleman had the good sense to take not
the slightest notice, and his example was pretty generally followed.
Furious at this contempt, the Southerner attacked his late principal
in the street with a life-preserver. Fortunately Mr Colton possessed
a fair share of what never comes amiss with an editor, especially an
American editor,--personal prowess. In the scuffle which ensued, he
upset his assailant, and carried off the _spolia opima_ in the shape of
the bludgeon aforesaid.
But the worst consequence of all is, the suspicion cast upon all offers
from periodicals to really eminent writers, by the failure of editors,
(through bad faith, or inability, or both,) to fulfil promises made
to their contributors. Some of these cases are positively startling.
In one instance a distinguished author was promised, _or given to
understand, that he would have_ as much as one thousand dollars a-year.
He wrote for two years steadily, and never received two cents. Another
case occurred very recently. A comic or would-be-comic, periodical
was started in imitation of _Punch_, and the proprietors offered ten
dollars a page for all accepted articles. This they paid for a few
weeks, and then, having secured on credit a supply for some time
longer, deliberately broke their word, and would at this very time, if
solvent, owe to a number of small litterateurs in New York, small sums
of five and ten dollars. In this case, retribution was speedy, for the
whole affair broke down in less than a year.
We see, then, one great radical cause of inferiority in American
periodical literature, affecting it in all its departments. But there
are other influences which especially conspire to pervert and impede
_criticism_. Some of these will be obvious, on referring back to
our hints at the requisites for a critic. We said that he should be
in the highest sense of the term a liberally educated man. Now this
is what very few of the American periodical writers, professed or
occasional, are. The popular object of education in the new world is
to make men speak fluently and write readily about any thing and
every thing--speaking and writing which, from their very fluency and
readiness, tend to platitude and commonplace. Those studies which
depend on and form a taste for verbal criticism, are pursued in a very
slovenly and unsatisfactory manner; the penchant being for mathematics,
from their supposed practical tendencies.[52] Men read much, but they
do not "mark, learn, and inwardly digest." Their reading is chiefly
of new books, a most uncritical style of reading, to which the words
_reference_, _comparison_, _illustration_, are altogether foreign.
Again, we said that our critic must not only be able to form, but
ready to express his own opinion--in short, that he must be bold and
independent. Now this is no easy or common thing in America, not so
much from want of spirit and fear of the majority as from want of
_habit_; the democratic influence moulding all minds to think alike. At
the same time, it must be admitted that a spurious public opinion does
often exercise a directly repressing influence. Cooper says, in his
last novel, that the government of the United States ought to be called
the _Gossipian_, and certainly Mrs Grundy is a very important estate in
the republic. Then there are many powerful interests all ready to take
offence and cry out. The strongest editor is afraid of some of these.
Thus the _Courier_ and _Enquirer_, which, all things considered, must
be said to stand at the head of the New York daily press, is completely
under the dictation of John Hughes and the Papist faction in that city.
By _under the dictation_, we mean that it never inserts any thing in
favour of Protestantism, nor omits any opportunity of saying something
in favour of Romanism.[53] And if these influences have such power over
a newspaper which has mercantile intelligence, advertisements, and
other great sources of support, much more must they affect a magazine
or review. One great aim of an American magazine, therefore, is to
tread on nobody's moral toes, or, as their circulars phrase it, "to
contain nothing which shall offend the most fastidious"--be the same
Irish renegade, repudiator, or Fourierite. Accordingly, nearly all
the magazines and reviews profess and practise political neutrality;
and the two or three exceptions depend almost entirely on their
political articles and partisan circulation. It was once mentioned to
us by the editor of a Whig (Conservative) Review, that he had _one_
Democratic subscriber. And we know another editor who is continually
apologising to his subscribers, and one half of his correspondents,
for what the other half write. This has not always been the case.
The _Southern Literary Messenger_ was established to write up "the
peculiar institution," and therefore only suited to and intended for
the southern market; but there was a time when, under the management
of Mr E. A. Poe, an erratic and unequal, but occasionally very
brilliant writer, it had considerable circulation in the north. And the
"Democratic Review," while it contained and paid for good articles, was
subscribed to and even written for by many Whigs.
Another enemy of true criticism in America is _provincialism_. There
is no literary metropolis which can give decisive opinions, and the
country is parcelled out among small cliques, who settle things their
own way in their own particular districts. Thus, there are shining
lights in Boston, who are "small potatoes" in New York; and "most
remarkable men" in the West, whom no one has remarked in the East.
Sometimes, indeed, these cliques continue to ramify and extend their
influence into other places. This is effected by a regular system
of flattery,--"tickle me and I'll tickle you;" nor is there even an
endeavour to conceal this. For instance, when the classical lion of a
certain clique had been favourably reviewed by a gentleman in another
city, whose opinion was supposed to be worth something, the periodical
organ of the clique publicly expressed its thanks for the favour,
and in return, dug up a buried novel of the critic's, and did its
best to resuscitate it by a vigorous puff. Here was a fair business
transaction with prompt payment. We have observed that the tendency
of American reviewing is to indiscriminate praise. The exceptions to
this, (setting aside some rare extravagances which resemble the efforts
of a bashful man to appear at ease, attempts to annihilate Cooper, or
Warren, or Tennyson, for instance) usually spring from some of the
private misunderstandings we have alluded to; _e.g._ two _litterateurs_
quarrel, one of them is kicked out of doors, and then they begin to
_criticise_ each other's writings. And the consequence is, that it is
next to impossible to pass an unfavourable opinion upon any thing,
without having personal motives attributed to you, and getting into a
personal squabble about it. When an author, or an artist,[54] or an
institution is condemned, the first step is to find out, if possible,
the writer of the review, and the next to assail him on private
grounds. Indeed, the author's friends do not always stop at pen and
paper. Some years ago, an English magazinist charged a fair versifier
of the West with having "realised" some of his inspirations,--a very
absurd claim by the way, as there was nothing in the disputed stanzas
which would have done any man much credit. Soon after, the Kentucky
papers announced that a friend of the lady had gone out express by the
last steamer, for the purpose of "regulating" the Englishman. What the
result was we have never heard.
Such are some of the causes which militate against the attainment of
a high standard in American periodical literature. For some years it
went on very swimmingly _on credit_; but it is exceedingly doubtful,
to say the least, if the experiment could be successfully repeated. We
have seen that many of these obstacles are directly referable to the
fact that the editorship of Monthlies and Quarterlies does not tempt
men of capital into it; and it is not difficult to perceive that such
of the others as are surmountable, can be most readily overcome by
remunerating those engaged in the business. If good critics are well
paid, it will be worth men's while to study to become good critics; and
if a periodical is supported with real ability, it will make its way in
spite of sectional or party prejudices, as we have seen was the case in
some instances. And since it is plain that the republication of English
magazines must interfere with the home article, the conclusion seems
inevitable that the passing of an International Copyright Law would be
the greatest benefit that could be conferred on American periodical
literature.
IRELAND AND THE MINISTERIAL MEASURES.
IT is unnecessary to remind our readers, that on more than one occasion
we pointed out to the late so-called Conservative administration the
dangers to which they were exposing the country, and the misfortunes
which were sure to arise from the fatal policy which they had adopted
for the government of Ireland. We told them on those occasions, that
the lax manner in which the laws were administered, and the indecisive
conduct of the Executive, would lead to the state of things which we
then foresaw, and which all parties now deplore. We warned them, that
tampering with the incipient evil, instead of boldly striking at its
root, would advance its growth instead of diminishing its power; and
that the welfare of all classes imperatively demanded at their hands
the repression not only of crime itself, but of those causes to which
the origin of crime was clearly traceable. Unhappily our advice was
unheeded. The Peel government persevered in the same course which its
Whig predecessors had pursued, augmented the obstacles which impeded
the due administration of the laws, and retarded the pacification of
the country by the culpable lenity which marked their proceedings
against those who perpetrated crime, as well as towards those, still
more criminal, who countenanced and abetted its commission.
The law which empowered the Crown to challenge improper jurors,
rendered a dead letter by the Whigs in order to conciliate Mr
O'Connell, was allowed so to remain by the Tories; and thus accomplices
of the criminals in the dock became arbiters of their associates' fate
in the jury-box; and it is unnecessary to say how much the impunity
procured by this means tended to increase the audacity of the violators
of the law, and to deter the mass of the people from having recourse to
the tribunals of the country for justice and protection.
An association openly aiming at the dismemberment of the empire was
not only allowed to pursue its seditious course in peace, but its
leader was flattered and courted in the senate, until, imboldened by
the subserviency of his opponents, and pressed on by the impatience
of his followers, he assumed such a menacing position, as compelled
the interference of the constituted authorities. He was condemned,
imprisoned, released, and permitted again to talk his treason and boast
his triumph to an ignorant and excitable people, who witnessed his
success without being able to appreciate the causes to which it was
attributable. While the feelings of the people were being acted upon by
the orators of Conciliation Hall, the English press accomplished the
triumph of agrarian outrage by the course which, with few exceptions,
was adopted by the leading organs of public opinion. The unfounded
statements of the demagogues, both lay and clerical, were adopted with
avidity, and commented on with surpassing ability. In every instance
the falsehood of those premeditated lies was subsequently established,
but that did not prevent the adoption of every future tale, even
though emanating from the same polluted source. The strictures based
on those untruths were assiduously copied into the Irish papers; and,
palliating as they did the crimes of the peasantry, by the ridicule,
contempt, and detestation which they excited against the owners of
the land, they tended not only to provoke and encourage the peasantry
to resistance of the law, but the effect produced by their simulated
horrors on the public mind tied up the hands of the Executive, and
rendered the acquiescence of Parliament, in such measures as might be
necessary for the preservation of the public peace, a thing scarcely
to be expected or hoped for, even had the administration the good
sense or the manliness to determine on demanding them. The writers in
the English press denounced the landlords, under all circumstances,
and for all manner of causes. If one of them dispossessed some of
his tenantry who held portions of the soil too small to afford them
support, even though given for nothing, in order that the holdings of
the others should be enlarged to such a size as would enable them to
live in comfort, he was denounced as an exterminator, even though he
largely remunerated, and then at his own expense sent the dispossessed
to countries where land was abundant and labour remunerative, and
to which the most affluent of their neighbours were every day
voluntarily emigrating. If, deterred by the abuse of the press and
the denunciations of the priest, he allowed them to continue in the
same state of misery and destitution in which he found them, he was
represented as heedless and unfeeling, and the poverty of his tenantry
(which, though willing, he dared not remedy) was made an article of
dittay against him. If he endeavoured to enforce his rents, he was
a tyrant. If he allowed them (as did Mr Ormsby Gore,) from mistaken
compassion, to run _ten and twelve years in arrear_, he was pronounced
to be "culpably negligent." In fact, no matter what he did, he was
wrong; and in their desire to convict the Irish proprietors, the press
acted on the principle of the Cork juror--"If he did not murder the
man, my Lord, he stole my gray mare."
To the many internal causes which tended to aggravate the evils of
Ireland, another, and one arising from circumstances of an extraneous
nature, was added. The British minister determined to abolish the corn
laws--to shelter himself against the attacks of his betrayed followers,
and to enlist public sympathy in his support. He _fabricated_ an
Irish famine a year before that scourge actually visited the land;
and, to prove the sincerity of his convictions and the truth of his
statements, he had recourse to the establishment of food depots at the
public expense, and to the system of public works, which effectually
demoralised the bulk of the population; and the pernicious consequences
of these measures, although now fully admitted, are yet far from having
arrived at that portentous magnitude which they are daily threatening
to assume.
While those continued and unremitting attacks of the English press
led the peasantry to look with distrust and hatred on the class above
them, the system of gratuitous relief and remuneration without labour,
which Sir Robert Peel was forced to adopt, in order to evince his own
conviction as to the truth of his statements in the House of Commons,
told with fearful effect on the morals of the people; for if it was
no crime to destroy a tyrant, so it was considered no disgrace to beg
instead of to earn; and men who a few months before would have blushed
at the thoughts of receiving public relief, were seen daily seeking
for their rations, although they had cows, horses, and sheep, and in
many instances profitable employment, which they abandoned to obtain
gratuitous support. With a feeble and apathetic government, and with a
powerful and talented press advocating their cause, influencing public
opinion in their favour, and attributing with success to the misconduct
of others the misery and destitution fairly assignable to their own
indolence and dishonesty, it is not much to be wondered at, that the
Irish peasantry should have become still more reckless and inattentive
than they were before. When the principal protection which the law
provided for the due administration of justice was withdrawn, it is
not surprising that they should have become still more turbulent and
criminal; and with the fierce denunciations of the lay and clerical
demagogues ringing in the ears of an excitable and ignorant people,
we cannot marvel at the scenes of horror and the deeds of death
now enacting in their degraded country. And yet even the appalling
catalogue laid before Parliament, gives but a faint idea of the
fearful state of society in Ireland. It is but a list of the "_faits
accomplis_;" and cannot depict the condition of those unhappy men who
"live in death," who know their doom has been sealed, whose execution
is openly spoken of as a thing certain to occur, who have no protection
but God's mercy to rely on, and who are so circumstanced, in many
instances, as not to have the means of fleeing from a country which
has become the charnel-house of their class. And who can paint the
feelings of the wives and families of those unfortunates? We ourselves
know instances of their sufferings which would harrow the soul of any
person possessed of the smallest portion of humanity.
But the other day, the wife of a clergyman, as amiable and charitable
a man as lives, drove into a neighbouring town, and in the shop of
a tradesman heard an expression of regret that certain gentlemen in
the neighbourhood were so soon to be murdered, and amongst others,
her own husband, whose charities and attention to the poor she vainly
hoped would have secured his safety. Hurrying home, she found he had
gone to attend one of his congregation, to whose sick bed he had been
summoned. Distracted by her apprehensions, she went to an adjacent
police station, and sent two of the men in the direction her husband
had taken. He returned alive--her precaution had saved him,--but when
she learned from his lips that the call was but a snare to bring
him within reach of his assassins, the shock overpowered a weak
constitution; she fell in a fit, and died entreating with her last
breath mercy for the father of her children from the assassins, by whom
in her delirium she fancied him to be surrounded. She left a large and
helpless family, whose only protection is a broken-hearted and a doomed
man; and yet there are to be found in the Senate those who protect the
system to which this amiable woman has fallen a victim, by refusing to
support even the paltry measure introduced by the government for its
suppression.
We had hoped, when parliament was summoned at an unusual season to
deliberate upon the state of Ireland, and when the condition of that
country was so strongly alluded to in the speech from the throne, that
effectual measures would have been resorted to for the suppression
of crime, and for the protection of the lives and properties of the
well-disposed portion of the Irish people. We did hope that the
clear-sightedness and decision of Lord Clarendon had prevailed; that
at last a man was found capable of threading his way through the maze
of Irish difficulties, and of enforcing his views on the apathetic
feelings of her Majesty's advisers. But we have been disappointed,
and either the present lord lieutenant is not so competent for the
performance of the arduous duties attached to his office as we had
supposed, or his exertions are paralysed and his counsels are rejected
by the imbecile administration to whose control he is subject.