|
[Letter of Francis William Newman to Dr. Chapman] 7 PVE. NW, Dear Sir, It is not any one particular objection to my proposed article which you make that is to me formidable, so much as the assumptions pervading all that you write, implying a totally different idea of the political functions of a Review (especially such a Review as the Westminster) from every thing that I can admit or sympathize with. You say, that I seem disposed "in one fell swoop" to carry this & that through Parliament, and, as I understand, you want something "practical", that is, something which can be carried immediately. Now I do often read in Quarterlies elaborate articles written as if the writer fancied he was giving instructions to the minister of the day. This offends me as gross pedantry, as well as being totally useless. No cabinet will come down to learn from us what to do. To say that an article contains nothing but what is immediately practicable, is in my judgment to say that it is very uninstructive. My article intended to open with this very declaration, that it is the prevalent fault of English practical politics that it has no ideal, but follows only routine & blind precedent. To be without an ideal is in a man to be atheistical & brutal, in a State is to be fatalist & to be carried by unmoral forces. This is the disease of America & England, in the midst of their freedom. The Times is its incarnation. To have an Ideal above ourselves and not yet attainable is the condition of all moral action and all steady improvement. I desire to show in what direction we should strive, not, how much we can gain easily & at once. Of course, no good thing for men or states is ever got at one effort: but if we can see the true goal, we may resolve to resist all that would lead us away from it, & either to stand still or move towards it, however slowly. At present, in my fixed judgment, our Radicals are equally immoral with our Whigs & Tories. When you suggest that I may make 3 articles of my matter, I reply: I could make 50. I could preach a new sermon every day of the week, if people would hear me. But the more I enlarge in detail, the less possible would it be to avoid rude collision with previous articles in the Westminster, to which I feel a moral repugnance very intense. I am quite aware that my programme, as written, wants unity. I told you that I was embarrassed by the heap of matter. It would be my duty to work out the unity in writing. My title perhaps might be: "Imperial Unity, what is it?" Superfluous matter would fall off, like shavings from the plane. Sincerely yours,
|