Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/345

 paper, who has travelled in that country, for confirmation of my statement) that the source from which he drew the 'information' so recklessly put forth again in England, is infinitely more obscene, disgusting, and brutal, than the very worst Sunday newspaper that has ever been printed in Great Britain."

The editor's troubles with contributors have not been confined to the comparatively harmless field of literary criticism. In an article for the Edinburgh, Brougham severely criticized the Melbourne ministry and referred to the "secretaries," and "underlings" whom the ministry had allowed to "think for it." Brougham was disaffected towards the Whigs, yet expected his strictures on the party to be printed in the Review, although, as Napier wrote him, "The Edinburgh Review, I need not tell you, ever has been attached to the Whig Party." Macaulay later protested to Napier that Brougham, "not having a single vote in either House of Parliament at his command except his own, is desirous to make the Review his organ" and "he has begun to use the word Whig as an epithet of reproach." When later Empson was consulted in regard to reviewing a recent book of Brougham's, he wrote with asperity: "His [Brougham's] position with the party, the Review, and you, is sufficiently notorious to make a review in the Edinburgh of any work of his one of the most delicate operations possible."

With change of names and dates, the troubles between editors and contributors suggested by the history of the Edinburgh Review are those found everywhere in the periodical press. The editor feels that he is limited by the temperament of his contributors and the contributor languishes under the heavy hand of the editor. The editor must not offend the public, and the contributor must not offend the editor. With exceptions almost equal in number to those that prove the rule, the student of history must find the editor of the periodical press essentially