briefless barristers, unemployed doctors, embryo statesmen, and mute inglorious orators, with the aid of an ex-curate, were about to electrify the republic of letter and inaugurate a new era in criticism.

"It is impossible,' remarks Lord Cockburn, for those who did not live at the time and in the heart of the scene to feel, or almost to understand, the impression made by the new luminary, or the anxieties with which its motions were observed. It was an entire and instant change of everything that the public had been accustomed to in that sort of composition. The old periodical opiates were extinguished at once.'

It is also a fact worth noticing, that the first Number, although an apology was offered in the preface for the length of some of the articles, contained twentynine, of which seven were from the pen of Sydney Smith

-one of these occupying rather less than a page. It professes to be a review of the 'Anniversary Sermon of the Royal Humane Society,' by W. Langford, D.D., and runs thus:

'An accident, which happened to the gentleman engaged in reviewing this Sermon, proves, in the most striking manner, the importance of this Charity for restoring to life persons in whom the vital power is suspended. He was discovered with Dr. Langford's Discourse lying open before him, in a state of the most profound sleep; from which he could not, by any means, be awakened for a great length of time. By attending, however, to the rules prescribed by the Humane Society, flinging in the smoke of tobacco, applying hot flannels, and carefully removing the Discourse itself to a great distance, the critic was restored to his disconsolate brothers.

'The only account he could give of himself was, that he remembers reading on, regularly, till he came to the follow'ng pathetic description of a drowned tradesman; beyond which, he recollects nothing. [Here follows an extract.] This extract will suffice for the style of the Sermon. The Charity itself is beyond all praise.'

This is given, both as a specimen of Sydney Smith's early manner and as illustrating the contrast which such a style of criticism must have presented to what Lord Cockburn disrespectfully terms the old periodical opiates.

Of course the principal contributors were speedily recognised, and had a mark set against their names by the dispensers of public honours and emoluments. Their position has been thus vividly portrayed by their clerical associate:- From the beginning of the century to the death of Lord Liverpool was an awful period for those who had the misfortune to entertain liberal opinions, and who were too honest to sell them for the ermine of the judge or the lawn of the prelate; a long and hopeless career in your profession,-the chuckling grin of noodles,-the sarcastic leer of the genuine political rogue,-prebendaries, deans, and bishops made over your head,-reverend renegades advanced to the highest dignities of the Church for helping to rivet the fetters of Catholic and Protestant Dissenters, and no more chance of a Whig administration than of a thaw in Zembla, these were the penalties exacted for liberality of opinion at that period; and not only was there no pay, but there were many stripes. . . . To set on foot such a journal in such times,-to contribute to

wards it for many years,-to bear patiently the re proach and poverty which it caused,-and to look back and see that I have nothing to retract, and no intemperance or violence to reproach myself with, is a career of life which I must think to be extremely fortunate.'

Amongst the subjects which he discussed with a peculiar view to political or social amelioration, were— Catholic Emancipation; Popular, Professional, and Female Education; Public Schools; University Reform: Church Reform; Methodism; the Game Laws; Spring Guns; Botany Bay; Chimney Sweepers; Prisons and Prison Discipline; the Poor Laws; Counsel for Prisoners; Indian Missions; Irish Grievances, &c. &c. He not only kept his own contributions free from the revolutionary or democratic tone in politics, and from sceptical tendencies in theological speculation, but amidst all his exuberant jocularity he held close watch over his less guarded associates, and amongst the printed correspondence we find him more than once stating his firm resolve to withdraw from the work if a style of writing which he thought inimical to sound religion were continued.

On the other hand, he had more than once to defend his guerilla-like inroads into grave subjects, and his dashing onslaughts on respectable bores, against the censures of a whole conclave of serious readers, to whom Jeffrey was prone to listen in his desponding or uncongenial moods. How could Pope venture to lay down as an axiom that Gentle dulness ever loves a joke?' unless he meant merely that dull people always enjoy their own jokes, which are commonly no laughing

3

matter. Dulness loves nothing that it does not understand, or that startles it, or that ruffles its sense of selfimportance. What Pindar said of music, and Coleridge applied to genius, holds equally true of wit or fun: as many as are not delighted by it, are disturbed, perplexed, irritated.' We are consequently not the least astonished to find Sydney Smith driven to the following defence, even at so advanced a stage of his reputation and authority as 1819:

are very

My dear Jeffrey,-You must consider that Edinburgh is a very grave place, and that you live with philosophers who intolerant of nonsense. I write for the London, not for the Scotch market, and perhaps more people read my nonsense than your sense. The complaint was loud and universal of the extreme dulness and lengthiness of the "Edinburgh Review." Too much, I admit, would not do of my style; but the proportion in which it exists enlivens the Review, if you appeal to the whole public, and not to the eight or ten grave Scotchmen with whom you live. I am a very ignorant, frivolous, half-inch person; but, such as I am, I am sure I have done your Review good, and contributed to bring it into notice. Such as I am, I shall be, and cannot promise to alter.'

Sydney Smith ceased to reside in Edinburgh after 1803, and in 1804 we find him settled in Doughty Street, Russell Square, in the midst of a colony of lawyers, the most rising and accomplished of whom, by a natural affinity, were attracted to him. Sir Samuel Romilly, the first Lord Abinger, and Sir James Mackintosh were the most distinguished; and, amongst other friends, Lady Holland enumerates Dr. Marcet, Mr. Dumont, Mr. Wishaw, Lord Dudley (then Mr. Ward), Mr.

Sharpe, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Luttrell, and Mr. Tenant. There was also an old Abbé Dutens, bent on inventing a universal language, who, on Smith's suggesting a few grammatical difficulties, exclaimed,- Oh non, Monsieur, ce sont là des bagatelles! La seule difficulté que je trouve, c'est de faire agir tous les rois de l'Europe au même temps.' The most important of his early social successes was an introduction to Holland House, 'the most formidable ordeal,' says his daughter, that a young and obscure man could well go through. He was shy, too, then: yet I believe, in spite of the shyness, they soon discovered and acknowledged his merits, and deemed him no unmeet company for their world. And what a world it was !'

6

Sydney Smith shy at thirty-three! Theodore Hook also used to complain to his dying day that he had never completely overcome the uncomfortable sensation of entering a room; and an eminent law-lord (Lord Lyndhurst), the very model of senatorial and judicial eloquence of the composed and dignified order, has been seen to tremble when he rose to address the House of Lords, like a thorough-bred racer when first brought to the starting-post. One obvious solution of this phenomenon is that the delicacy of perception, the exquisite sensibility to impressions, and the impulsiveness, which are essential to humour or eloquence, are almost necessarily accompanied by a certain degree of nervous tremulousness, just as a finely strung harp vibrates at the slightest touch or whenever the faintest breeze passes over it. At all events, leaving the problem to the metaphysicians, we see not the smallest reason for ques