Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/340

 pacific by some other hand. This is of small importance, but it is indicative of the difference which exists in the Cabinet on the subject, and the explanation of the inconsistency of the 'Times' is to be found in the double influence which acts on the paper."

While these editorial variations have often given rise to pungent criticism, very real difficulties are frequently presented to an editor, as has been recently suggested. An editor starts out to support a Mr. Jones whose intentions seem the best. His methods turn out to be a trifle shady: He makes enemies. Shall the editor continue to support him, pointing out his good qualities for the sake of the end in view, or shall he denounce Mr. Jones?—Every editor has to meet this situation.

Other complications may arise as when editorials are written by persons at a distance who are not known to be connected with the papers for which they write. Kinglake says that Delane had once told him that while at Oxford he had supported himself "by writing leading articles for country newspapers." Jerdan considered that editing provincial papers in London was "just as effective as if the writer resided in the place of publication," —an opinion that would not receive unanimous support.

The puzzling alternative in regard to policies to be followed is not the only one that confronts an editor. Is it one of his prerogatives to change a manuscript that has been accepted for publication? Editors have frequently assumed that it is,—much to the discomfiture of their contributors.

Leslie Stephen, writing of the period from 1856 to 1861, says: "I believe that the 'Edinburgh Review' still acted upon the precedent set by Jeffrey, according to which a contributor, especially, of course, a young contributor, was regarded as supplying raw material which might be rather arbitrarily altered by the editor." How this was regarded by contributors is indicated in a