The Press. — London, England, 1856-02-09 00:00:00

138 far from justifying the use of personalities, but we believe the fact to be that, when one party in politics adopts their use systemati cally, it is absolutely necessary for the other side to employ the same weapon. Court scan dals, about the time of the French revolution, gave vast resources in this particular line to Liberal " publicists," and for forty years our English discussions were saturated with per sonality of every kind. But we must say that the first who introduced the spirit and practice of personality into critical literature (or what purposed to be such) were the " Liberals." The tone of the early numbers of the Edinburgh Review was ferociously truculent, and for years that periodical ruled as a terrorist, until the retaliation by Lord Byron, and the signal triumphs won in controversy over it by the late Bishop of Llandaff, taught its conductors more caution. We know all that can be urged about the personality of Bolingbroke, Swift, and of Can ning and the Anti-Jacobin in later days. But was Junius a Tory ? \Vas he not an aristocratic Whig in his politics; and what Tory ever produced so much envenomed personality ? Were not his " Liberal" contemporaries, Wilkes and Horne Tooke, adepts in scurrility, and active practitioners in abuse ? The writers of the Rolliad, also, were not Tories, but Whigs of the most aristocratic school. Lord John Townshend, General Fitzpatrick, and their associates, were also accustomed to produce bitter and galling comments on their foes. We recollect, in one instance, how they hailed the fact of the first Sir Robert Peel being made a baronet: — Mr. Peel, Mr. Peel, In return for your zeal, 1 am told they have dubbed you Sir Bob; By coarse Manchester stuff You have yet wealth enough, And for honours you'll now drive a job, Mr. Peel, For honours you'll now drive a job. " Low " enough, indeed ! Yet these lines came from Brookes's. Recollecting, also, what constant personality came from the pens of Thomas Moore, Hazlitt, and of the writers in the journal called " the Liberal," and from the whole school of politicians who vilified Lord Castlereagh in false and foul invectives, we are perfectly justified in meeting with a denial the assertion that Conservatives have been the most prolific of vituperation. We are reminded of these things, not merely by the recent strictures on Wilson which have appeared in some contemporary organs, but also by observing . in this volume the spirited and ingenious defence of Croker's " Boswell's Johnson" against the famous onslaught of Mr Macaulay. Even Mr. Macaulay himself must admire the gallantry with which North does battle for a friend in difficulties. The versatility of Wilson, and the facile power with which he could contract his large mind to some of the petty questions involved in the verbal:controversy, are strikingly displayed. If we were ever in literary trouble we should like to have as cool and skilful an ally as North showed himself, though judgment must be given against him in a court of criticism, as Mr. Croker made several mistakes beyond doubt, though they were comparatively venial in a work with such immense variety of references. But the reason why people were so much amused with Mr. Macaulay's scourging review of Croker's " Boswell's Johnson" was because a professed dealer in " slashing articles " was himself exhibited at the whipping post before all the world. The circumstance, also, that the points urged with such rancorous skill by Mr. Macaulay were both small and numerous added to the sport. Mr. Cooker himself had lacerated many authors on far less provocation, and an undue amount of gall had been infused into his ink if the culprit were of the softer sex. His style of criticism rarely rose above the tone of a pamphleteer of the last century, and his typographical artifices in using italics and CAPITALS were very tiresome. One of our m ist respected Conservative collaborateurs once in conversation happily described Mr. Croker's style of reviewing—" Show hink.the " horse that won the St. Leger, and he'd look " for a flea in his hide." THE PRESS. Sixteen pages of the present volume of the " Noctes " aro occupied by North's defence of Croker. It is really a most artful piece of writing. It begins thus : Tickler : Let us exchange such indefinite generalities for a few pointed particulars, if you please ; else, depend on't, Fancy will be falling asleep. What is your opinion, North, of Croker's edition of " Boswell's Johnson ?" North : The same—generally—as that of the Westminster reviewer. Tickler : Ay! And pray what is that? North : That it is the best variorum edition since the revival of letters. . _ Tickler: Croker is certainly one of the cleverest and mutest of living men. Shepherd : No unlike yourself • sir, I jalouse. North : He is—and much more. He is a man of great abilities, and an admirable scholar. But he is much more than that—he is a political writer of the highest order, as many of his essays in the Quarterly Review prove—which are full of the philosophy of history. The " philosophy of history " was not Mr. Croker's forte. He was always an acute, but never a deep, thinker; and his mind wanted originality. But of his powerful speeches against the Reform Bill we shall always re thin a grateful recollection. Ho carried the palm of superior eloquence in the Lower House on that occasion. He showed with uncommon clearness the thoroughly " party " character of " the Bill," but he was erro neous in his estimate of its final effect upon England. In the " philosophy of history" applicable to those times he was strikingly deficient. He did not know that the popular abuses were to be conquered by popular remedies, and that a recurrence to mere class prejudices was " too late." Sir Archibald Alison has truly stated in his history of those days that the Wellington Ministry and its system tended to class-power, which is always invidious in a country like England. That truth was then perceived by a youthful statesman, •,vho strongly encouraged the Tory party to counteract the sham " Liberal " mea sures of the Whig oligarchy by bringing forward real popular measures. Mr. Croker ought not to have been in such despair of the country as to have quitted the Senate. On his legs he was a most formidable debater ; and his appeal to the mace, and allusions to Crom well, have often since been ably imitated by Sir James graham, with at least great his trionic effect. Of the skill with which North panics Mr. Macaulay's gleaming blade we shall give some specimens : North : The reviewer says :—" In one place we are told that Allan Ramsay the painter was born in 1709 and died in 1781; in another that he died in 1784, in the seventy first year of his age. if the latter statement be correct he must have been born in or about 1713." Shepherd : Hoo's that, sir? That maun be a blunter o' Croker's. North : No, James ; it is but a dishonest trick of his re viewer. The age is stated differently in the two notes; but one note is Mr. Croker's and one is Mr. Boswells. Mr. Boswell states colloquially that " Allan Ramsay died in 17M4, in his seventy-tirst year;" Mr. Croker states, with more precision, that " he Wag born in 1709, and died in 1754," and Mr. Croker is right —see, if you choose, " Biographical Dictionary," core Ramsay—and thus, be- cause Mr. Croker corrects an error, the reviewer accuses him of making one. And again, this is dexterous : North : Tickler, lend me your ears. The reviewer says, " Mr. Croker says, that at the commencement of the inti macy between 1)r. Johnson and Mrs. Thrale, in 1765, the lady was twenty-five years old." Shepherd : \Vha the deevil cares hoo auld she was ? Tickler : Well, North, what then? North: Why, Mr. Croker says no such thing. He says, " Mrs. Thrale was twentv-five years of age when the ac quaintance commenced," but he does not say when it com menced, nor when it became intimacy. It is Mr. Boswell who states that in 1705 Mr. Johnson was introduced into the family of Mrs. Thrale, but in the very next page we find Mrs. Thrale herself stating that the acquaintance began in 1704, and the more strict intimacy might be dated from 1706. So that the discrepancy of two or three years which, by a double falsification of Mr. Croker's words, the reviewer attributes to him, belongs really to Mr. Boswell and Mrs. Thrale themselves! The Shepherd's exclamation about the sable personage, whose name we shall not pro nounce, is adroitly interjected, in order to con vey an idea to the reader of the littleness of the points at issue. But, unfortunately, much of Mr. Croker's own fierce articles turned on such Lilliputian flaws. Coming to the loose and inaccurate writing of Mr. Croker about Byng's execution, it is interesting to observe the gladiatorial vigour with which North endeavours to defend him. SATURDAY, In the original edition the statement was made thus:— " Nothing," says Mr. Croker, " can be more unfounded than the assertion that Byng fell a martyr to political party. By a strange coincidence of circumstances, it happened that there was a total change of administration between his condemnation and death, so that one party presided at his trial and another at his execution. There can be no stronger proof that he was not a political martyr." Upon that statement Mr. Ma2aulay struck hard, distorting what North calls ",what may " be a verbal inaccuracy," and making it appear much worse. Professor Ferrier then supplies a note : In the subsequent reprints this sentence stands as follows:—" By a strange coincidence of circumstances, it happened that there was a total change of Ministry between the accusation and the sentence, so that one party pre- pared the trial and the other directed the execution." If Mr. Croker had originally stated the case in this way there would have been no ground for Mr. Macaulay's objection, and no necessity for Mr. North's vindication. Elsewhere, also, Professor Ferrier gives Nlr. Macaulay the advantage by printing a long note from his reprinted essays touching Mr. Croker's undoubted blunder about Gibbon. Mr. Macaulay wrote, in the original review : But we must proceed. These volumes contain mis takes more gross, if possible, than any that we have yet mentioned. Boswell has recorded some observations made by Johnson on the changes which took place in Gibbon's religious opinions. " It is said," cried the doctor, laughing, " that he has been a Mahommedan." " This sarcasm," says the editor, " probably alludes to the tenderness with which Gibbon's malevolence to Christianity induced him to treat Mahommedanism in his history." Now the sarcasm was uttered in 1776 ; and that part of the " History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire " which relates to Mahommedanism was not published till 1788, twelve years after the date of this conversation, and nearly four years after the death of Johnson. There he had his foe on the hip, and hit him with merciless severity. What could North do in such a case ? He had to fall back on his invention, and he V% rote the following astonish ing passage : Tickler : What, does the reviewer doubt that Mr. Croker is right, and that Gibbon was the person intended ? North: Certainly not. He adopts, without acknow lodgment, Mr. Croker's interpretation, but then turns round and says, " You have given a bad reason for a just conclusion." Then why does the reviewer not give a better, and state why he adopts Mr. Croker's op nion, if he is not satisfied with Mr. Croker's reason? The fact is, the poor creature is at his skeleton work again. He found that the origin of Mahomutedanisni, which sprung up about the year 600, could not be chronologically included in the first volume of Gibbon, which ends about the year 300. And he kindly informs Mr Croker that Gibbon's account of Mahotnmedanism was not published till after Johnson's death ; but he chooses to forget that in every page of his first volume, as of his last, Gibbon takes or makes oppor- tunities of sneering at and depreciating Christianity, while, on the other hand, he shows everywhere remarkable " tenderness " for Paganism and Mahomruedanistn. But Mr. Macaulay, when reprinting the essay, took care to sound his lash again, and alluded specially to North : A defence of this blunder [Croker's about Gibbon] was attempted [in likekwood'a Magazine]. That the celebrated chapters in which Gibbon has traced the progress of Ma hommedanism were not written in 1776 could not be denied ; but it was confidently asserted that his partiality to Mahommedanism appeared in his first volume. This assertion is untrue. No passage which can by any art be construed into the faintest indication of the faintest par• tiality for Mahommedanism has ever been quoted, or ever will be quoted, from the first volume of the " History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." And Professor Ferrier then quotes Mr. Croker's own confession, which is made with singular coolness : I now incline to believe, as was suggested by Mr. Macaulay, that it LJohnson's sarcasm about Gibbon's Mahonimedanism] may have referred to some Oxford rumours of earlier infidelity. - But, in fairness, we must ask, why did not Professor Ferrier give all the notes in the last edition (one volume) of Croker's " Boswell's Johnson"? Mr. Croker there replied at last to Mr. Macaulay's attacks; and in the index to that volume may be seen, " Macaulay, Thomas B„ blunders of ditto, ignorance of," &c., &C. But we must close these citations, which we have made to show the rare agility of Wilson, who had certainly extraordinary versatility of talent. Recollecting what Mr. Macaulay is now, we may smile at the parting allusion to him : Tickler: Can this be the same pseudo• Samson who supposes he slew Southey and Sadler—and that he has now smitten Croker under the fifth rib? North: The same, and I lament to see a young man of his endowments a prey to such pitiful impulses of malice, which, impotent as are the fumblings they excite, cannot tail to weaken the intellect they degrade down to such