Passages of a Working Life during Half a Century
        Chapter XIII
        
        
          
        
        
          
        
       
      
      
      
      
     
    
    ![]() 
     CHAPTER XIII. 
    
    
    THE narrative of my publishing enterprises was, in Chapter
                        VIII., brought up to 1855; with the exception of the two most important works of my later
                        years, the “English
                        Cyclopædia” and the “Popular History of England.” In these undertakings I had a proprietary
                        interest, although, as I stated in the Preface to the present book, “I had to
                            become more a writer and an editor than a publisher.” I have reserved a brief
                        account of these works until I should arrive, in the natural sequence of these
                        ‘Passages,’ at the periods of their completion. The eight years that were
                        occupied by the superintendence of the Cyclopædia—during seven of
                        which I was also occupied in writing the History—bring me to the termination of the Half
                        Century of my Working Life. 
    
     One of the most interesting novels of Sir Edward
                            Bulwer Lytton is entitled “What
                            will he do with it?” When, in 1848, after the completion of the
                            “Penny Cyclopædia,” I had
                        parted with the stock and stereotype plates, the copyright remained in my hands. It had
                        cost a large sum of money; of its literary value no one doubted; but its commercial value
                        remained to be tested. “What will he do with it?” said the Trade. I
                        turned it to account in an ![]()
| Ch. XIII.] | THE THIRD EPOCH. | 271 | 
![]() abridgment entitled the “National Cyclopædia.” In this the original work was melted
                        down to one-fourth of its dimensions. It was a useful book, but it was far from satisfying
                        the requirements of those who sought in a Cyclopædia to supply the place of a small
                        library. From this “National Cyclopædia” of too
                        scanty dimensions, I turned my attention towards producing one of larger proportions even
                        than the original work. The “Imperial Cyclopædia,” of
                        which a Prospectus was largely circulated, was proposed to be divided into eight or ten
                        great compartments, each of which was to be prefaced by a treatise by some eminent writer.
                        It would have been a large undertaking, but I had assurances of support from persons of
                        influence, encouraging enough, but not sufficiently numerous to lead me onward to a great
                        risk. Some of the letters of these supporters are before me. One of them is so
                        characteristic of a nobleman who had an hereditary love of science, and a natural devotion
                        to literature, that I may be pardoned the egotism of its insertion. Lord Ellesmere writes to me on the 19th of June,
                            1850:—“I shall direct my bookseller to furnish the volumes as they come out,
                            as I look upon your professional labours as among the best exertions of the day for
                            fighting the devil and all his works.” Lord
                            Ellesmere’s cordial letter to me was his answer to my proposal to
                        publish by subscription. This plan, by which authors and publishers took hostages against
                        evil fortune, was in general use during the first half of the eighteenth century. Like most
                        other human things it was subject to abuse; but it was founded upon a true estimate of the
                        peculiar risks of publishing. It is manifest that, if a certain number of persons unite
 abridgment entitled the “National Cyclopædia.” In this the original work was melted
                        down to one-fourth of its dimensions. It was a useful book, but it was far from satisfying
                        the requirements of those who sought in a Cyclopædia to supply the place of a small
                        library. From this “National Cyclopædia” of too
                        scanty dimensions, I turned my attention towards producing one of larger proportions even
                        than the original work. The “Imperial Cyclopædia,” of
                        which a Prospectus was largely circulated, was proposed to be divided into eight or ten
                        great compartments, each of which was to be prefaced by a treatise by some eminent writer.
                        It would have been a large undertaking, but I had assurances of support from persons of
                        influence, encouraging enough, but not sufficiently numerous to lead me onward to a great
                        risk. Some of the letters of these supporters are before me. One of them is so
                        characteristic of a nobleman who had an hereditary love of science, and a natural devotion
                        to literature, that I may be pardoned the egotism of its insertion. Lord Ellesmere writes to me on the 19th of June,
                            1850:—“I shall direct my bookseller to furnish the volumes as they come out,
                            as I look upon your professional labours as among the best exertions of the day for
                            fighting the devil and all his works.” Lord
                            Ellesmere’s cordial letter to me was his answer to my proposal to
                        publish by subscription. This plan, by which authors and publishers took hostages against
                        evil fortune, was in general use during the first half of the eighteenth century. Like most
                        other human things it was subject to abuse; but it was founded upon a true estimate of the
                        peculiar risks of publishing. It is manifest that, if a certain number of persons unite ![]()
| 272 | PASSAGES OF A WORKING LIFE: | [Ch. XIII. | 
![]() in agreement to purchase a book which is about to be printed, the
                        author may be at ease with regard to the issue of the enterprise; and the subscribers ought
                        to receive what they want, at a lower cost than when risk enters into price. For more than
                        half a century nearly all the great books were published by subscription; and the highest
                        in literature felt no degradation in themselves canvassing with their subscription
                        receipts. The plan which, upon the face of it, was a just one for all parties—a fair
                        exchange between seller and buyer—came in process of time to be regarded with suspicion.
                        The practice of soliciting subscriptions which, in Pope, and Steele, and Johnson, and fifty other eminent authors, was legitimate
                        and honourable, was in the next century either treated with cold neglect, or regarded with
                        the same suspicion as the devices of the begging-letter writer. I quickly found out my
                        mistake, and united myself with a publishing house who had the means of largely circulating
                        a serial work throughout the kingdom.
 in agreement to purchase a book which is about to be printed, the
                        author may be at ease with regard to the issue of the enterprise; and the subscribers ought
                        to receive what they want, at a lower cost than when risk enters into price. For more than
                        half a century nearly all the great books were published by subscription; and the highest
                        in literature felt no degradation in themselves canvassing with their subscription
                        receipts. The plan which, upon the face of it, was a just one for all parties—a fair
                        exchange between seller and buyer—came in process of time to be regarded with suspicion.
                        The practice of soliciting subscriptions which, in Pope, and Steele, and Johnson, and fifty other eminent authors, was legitimate
                        and honourable, was in the next century either treated with cold neglect, or regarded with
                        the same suspicion as the devices of the begging-letter writer. I quickly found out my
                        mistake, and united myself with a publishing house who had the means of largely circulating
                        a serial work throughout the kingdom. 
    
     I have devoted two Chapters of my second volume to the history of the
                            “Penny Cyclopædia.” I have
                        there described the labours of the various Contributors, and have recorded some
                        characteristic traits of the eminent persons who were associated in this work. It was
                        completed in 1844. In the nine years that elapsed between that period and the commencement
                        of the “English Cyclopæia,”
                        knowledge of all kinds had been accumulating at a rate of marvellous rapidity. The
                        geographical descriptions, for example, of the “Penny
                            Cyclopædia,” had stopped short of the wonderful development of the
                        Australian colonies. The new Cyclopædia was arranged in four divisions, ![]()
| Ch. XIII.] | THE THIRD EPOCH. | 273 | 
![]() Geography, Natural History, Biography, Arts and Sciences. The two
                        first of these Divisions were proceeding at the same time, and were each completed in two
                        years and a half. What a store of new materials had been gathering together, for the use of
                        the Geographer and the Naturalist, that required to be set forth in the remodelled
                        Cyclopædia! These two Divisions were succeeded by that of Biography. If no other additions
                        had been required than the introduction of names of living persons, the new literary labour
                        would have been of no small amount—sufficient indeed to form a separate book, not so large
                        but essentially as complete as the ‘Biographie des
                            Contemporains.’ This Biographical Division, in six volumes, was completed
                        in 1858. The Division of Arts and Sciences included a great amount of miscellaneous
                        subjects, not capable of being introduced into the more precise arrangement of the three
                        previous departments. It was completed in eight volumes in 1861. In my Introduction to the
                        eighth volume, I said—“it has been produced the last in the series, that nothing
                            of new invention and discovery in Science—nothing of progressive improvement in the
                            Arts—might be omitted.”
 Geography, Natural History, Biography, Arts and Sciences. The two
                        first of these Divisions were proceeding at the same time, and were each completed in two
                        years and a half. What a store of new materials had been gathering together, for the use of
                        the Geographer and the Naturalist, that required to be set forth in the remodelled
                        Cyclopædia! These two Divisions were succeeded by that of Biography. If no other additions
                        had been required than the introduction of names of living persons, the new literary labour
                        would have been of no small amount—sufficient indeed to form a separate book, not so large
                        but essentially as complete as the ‘Biographie des
                            Contemporains.’ This Biographical Division, in six volumes, was completed
                        in 1858. The Division of Arts and Sciences included a great amount of miscellaneous
                        subjects, not capable of being introduced into the more precise arrangement of the three
                        previous departments. It was completed in eight volumes in 1861. In my Introduction to the
                        eighth volume, I said—“it has been produced the last in the series, that nothing
                            of new invention and discovery in Science—nothing of progressive improvement in the
                            Arts—might be omitted.” 
    
     In the conduct of this work I adopted two principles; first that not an
                        article, not a page, not a line, should be reprinted without revision; secondly, that every
                        new Contributor should be so reliable in his talents and his acquirements, that his
                        articles might be safely adopted without undergoing that superintendence which the Useful
                        Knowledge Society professed to undertake for the “Penny Cyclopædia,” and which was often very
                        judiciously exerted. Noticing the Contributors to the earlier work, when I ![]()
| 274 | PASSAGES OF A WORKING LIFE: | [Ch. XIII. | 
![]() was writing these “Passages” in 1863, I was looking back
                        twenty years. There was a sort of historical interest attached to many of these names, and
                        I could speak of them unreservedly and without any invidious distinction. It is not so with
                        the Contributors to a work which was only completed three years before the time when I am
                        now writing. My own duties in the conduct of the work involved little more than a general
                        superintendence. In the Preface to the Natural History Division I acknowledge my
                        obligations to Dr. Edwin Lankester, who had brought
                        the original articles into a more systematic shape; who had removed much that was obsolete;
                        and who, having access to the opinions, and securing the assistance, of the best living
                        authorities, had neglected no new materials that were at that time available. I had
                        further, at the close of the work, to thank my fellow-labourers during many years—Mr. A. Ramsay and Mr. J.
                            Thorne—for the active and intelligent share they had taken in its
                        management, by which the regularity of publication, and the correctness of the text, had
                        been mainly secured.
 was writing these “Passages” in 1863, I was looking back
                        twenty years. There was a sort of historical interest attached to many of these names, and
                        I could speak of them unreservedly and without any invidious distinction. It is not so with
                        the Contributors to a work which was only completed three years before the time when I am
                        now writing. My own duties in the conduct of the work involved little more than a general
                        superintendence. In the Preface to the Natural History Division I acknowledge my
                        obligations to Dr. Edwin Lankester, who had brought
                        the original articles into a more systematic shape; who had removed much that was obsolete;
                        and who, having access to the opinions, and securing the assistance, of the best living
                        authorities, had neglected no new materials that were at that time available. I had
                        further, at the close of the work, to thank my fellow-labourers during many years—Mr. A. Ramsay and Mr. J.
                            Thorne—for the active and intelligent share they had taken in its
                        management, by which the regularity of publication, and the correctness of the text, had
                        been mainly secured. 
    
     I might probably have been induced to say more of the plan and conduct of
                        this book—which, without arrogance, I may call a great book,—had I not been able to refer
                        for further details to one of the most learned and interesting articles that ever appeared
                        in a critical work—“The History of
                            Cyclopædias,” in the “Quarterly Review” for April, 1863. Of the commendation of this writer I have just cause to be proud, for it is founded
                        upon an acquaintance, little less than extraordinary, with the Cyclopædias of all countries
                        and languages, of far-removed or of recent times. I am satisfied that he speaks from an
                        honest ![]()
| Ch. XIII.] | THE THIRD EPOCH. | 275 | 
![]() conviction alone, when he says—“the ‘English Cyclopædia’ is a work
                            that as a whole has no superior and very few equals of its kind; that, taken by itself,
                            supplies the place of a small library; and, used in a large library, is found to
                            present many points of information that are sought in vain in any other cyclopædia in
                            the English language.” The “Quarterly
                        Review” is chiefly addressed to those who have leisure and abundant means; but
                        there is another class to whom the “English
                        Cyclopædia” is strongly recommended as a book for those who labour with their
                        hands, and have little time for systematic study. In the “Working Men’s College Magazine” for November,
                        1861, there is an article signed V. Lushington, for
                        which I have abstained from offering my thanks, for I feel that to express personal
                        gratitude to a critic is to imply that other considerations than those of truth and justice
                        may have suggested his praise. I cannot probably, however, better conclude my notice of a
                        work which has brought me abundant honour, than by giving an eloquent passage from this
                        notice. It will be seen that Mr. Lushington is not one of those who
                        think it necessary to write down to the comprehension of working men:—“Perhaps the
                            first sensation of the reader on opening these massive volumes will be one of
                            bewilderment, and unwillingness to traverse any such mountain of knowledge. But on
                            better consideration he will feel two things; first, that kind of reverence which the
                            spectacle of any great human labour cannot but call forth; and secondly, that this (or
                            indeed any) Cyclopædia is a witness to the inexhaustible interest of reality and simple
                            truth. He will see that it is in fact a record of a thousand thousand conquests over
 conviction alone, when he says—“the ‘English Cyclopædia’ is a work
                            that as a whole has no superior and very few equals of its kind; that, taken by itself,
                            supplies the place of a small library; and, used in a large library, is found to
                            present many points of information that are sought in vain in any other cyclopædia in
                            the English language.” The “Quarterly
                        Review” is chiefly addressed to those who have leisure and abundant means; but
                        there is another class to whom the “English
                        Cyclopædia” is strongly recommended as a book for those who labour with their
                        hands, and have little time for systematic study. In the “Working Men’s College Magazine” for November,
                        1861, there is an article signed V. Lushington, for
                        which I have abstained from offering my thanks, for I feel that to express personal
                        gratitude to a critic is to imply that other considerations than those of truth and justice
                        may have suggested his praise. I cannot probably, however, better conclude my notice of a
                        work which has brought me abundant honour, than by giving an eloquent passage from this
                        notice. It will be seen that Mr. Lushington is not one of those who
                        think it necessary to write down to the comprehension of working men:—“Perhaps the
                            first sensation of the reader on opening these massive volumes will be one of
                            bewilderment, and unwillingness to traverse any such mountain of knowledge. But on
                            better consideration he will feel two things; first, that kind of reverence which the
                            spectacle of any great human labour cannot but call forth; and secondly, that this (or
                            indeed any) Cyclopædia is a witness to the inexhaustible interest of reality and simple
                            truth. He will see that it is in fact a record of a thousand thousand conquests over
                                ![]()
| 276 | PASSAGES OF A WORKING LIFE: | [Ch. XIII. | 
![]() thick night, won in many generations by far-reaching
                            industry, and patient intelligence, in many cases even—say the discovery of America—by
                            downright unmistakeable valour: and so gazing on these columns, there may come flashing
                            through his mind something of the exultation with which a people greets a victorious
                            army returning homeward. At least he cannot but observe how the age in which we live is
                            assiduously minding and doing her business; everywhere extending and consolidating
                            positive knowledge; with honest sober eyes scrutinising the past of human history,
                            studying the starry heavens, the solid earth, and all living things, tracking
                            everywhere the dominion of stedfast laws, then recording what is found, for ourselves
                            and for those who come after. A Cyclopædia witnesses that all these things are being
                            done.”
 thick night, won in many generations by far-reaching
                            industry, and patient intelligence, in many cases even—say the discovery of America—by
                            downright unmistakeable valour: and so gazing on these columns, there may come flashing
                            through his mind something of the exultation with which a people greets a victorious
                            army returning homeward. At least he cannot but observe how the age in which we live is
                            assiduously minding and doing her business; everywhere extending and consolidating
                            positive knowledge; with honest sober eyes scrutinising the past of human history,
                            studying the starry heavens, the solid earth, and all living things, tracking
                            everywhere the dominion of stedfast laws, then recording what is found, for ourselves
                            and for those who come after. A Cyclopædia witnesses that all these things are being
                            done.” 
    
    
     In 1854 I was instigated by an article in “The Times” seriously to contemplate the task of writing a
                        general history of England. Lord John Russell had
                        delivered an address at Bristol on the study of history, and the leading journal took up
                        the subject of the noble speaker’s complaint “that we have no other history
                            of England than Hume’s”—that
                            “when a young man of eighteen asks for a history of England, there is no
                            resource but to give him Hume.” I had published “The Pictorial History of England” some years
                        before—in many respects a valuable history, but one whose limits had gone far beyond what,
                        as its projector, I had originally contemplated. I altogether rejected the idea of making
                        an abridgment of that history. Many materials for a History of the
                            People had been collected by me ![]()
| Ch. XIII.] | THE THIRD EPOCH. | 277 | 
![]() without any immediate
                        object of publication. The remarks of “The
                            Times” led me to depart from my original design of writing a Domestic
                        History of England apart from its Public History. Upon a more extended plan, I would
                        endeavour to trace through our long continued annals the essential connection between our
                        political history and our social. To accomplish this, I would not keep the People in the
                        background, as in many histories, and I would call my work “The Popular History of England.”
 without any immediate
                        object of publication. The remarks of “The
                            Times” led me to depart from my original design of writing a Domestic
                        History of England apart from its Public History. Upon a more extended plan, I would
                        endeavour to trace through our long continued annals the essential connection between our
                        political history and our social. To accomplish this, I would not keep the People in the
                        background, as in many histories, and I would call my work “The Popular History of England.” 
    
     For more than a year I was gradually preparing for my task, and was ready
                        to begin the printing at the end of 1855. It was to be published in monthly parts. My
                        publishers desiring that the first part should contain an introduction, setting forth the
                        objects of a new history of England, I was induced to explain my motives for undertaking
                        it, with a sincerity which perhaps may be deemed imprudent. It may be as imprudent for the
                        historian as for the statesman to make any general profession of principles at the onset of
                        his career. The succession of events in either case might modify his past convictions. But
                        I have no reason to depart in letter or spirit from what I wrote: “The People, if
                            I understand the term rightly, means the Commons of these realms, and not any distinct
                            class or section of the population. Ninety years ago, Goldsmith called the ‘middle order of mankind’ the
                            ‘People,’ and those below them the ‘Rabble.’ We have outlived
                            all this. A century of thought and action has widened and deepened the foundations of
                            the State. This People, then, want to find, in the history of their country, something
                            more than a series of annals, either of policy or war. In connection with a faithful
                                ![]()
| 278 | PASSAGES OF A WORKING LIFE: | [Ch. XIII. | 
![]() narrative of public affairs, they want to learn their own
                            history—how they have grown out of slavery, out of feudal wrong, out of regal
                            despotism,—into constitutional liberty, and the position of the greatest estate of the
                            realm.”
 narrative of public affairs, they want to learn their own
                            history—how they have grown out of slavery, out of feudal wrong, out of regal
                            despotism,—into constitutional liberty, and the position of the greatest estate of the
                            realm.” 
    
     In the summer of 1858 I had completed four volumes of my history, reaching
                        the period of the Revolution of 1688. In the postscript to the fourth volume I endeavoured
                        to illustrate the principle, so well defined by my friend Mr.
                            Samuel Lucas in a Lecture on Social Progress, that the history of every
                        nation “has been in the main sequential”—that each of its phases has
                        been “the consequence of some prior phase, and the natural prelude of that which
                            succeeded it.” I pointed out that the early history of the Anglican Church
                        was to be traced in all the subsequent elements of our ecclesiastical condition; that upon
                        the Roman and Saxon civilization were founded many of the principles of government which
                        still preserved their vitality; that the Norman despotism was absorbed by the Anglo-Saxon
                        freedom; and that the recognition of the equal rights of all men before the Law was the
                        only mode by which feudality could maintain itself. “From the deposition of
                                Richard the Second to the abdication of
                                James the Second, every act of national
                            resistance was accomplished by the union of classes, and was founded upon some
                            principle of legal right for which there was legal precedent. Out of the traditional
                            and almost instinctive assertion of the popular privileges, have come new developments
                            of particular reforms, each adapted to its own age, but all springing out of that
                            historical experience which we recognise as Constitutional.” 
    
    ![]() 
    
      
        | Ch. XIII.] | THE THIRD EPOCH. | 279 | 
    
    ![]() 
    
     In November, 1862, I completed the book upon which I had been employed
                        unremittingly for a seventh part of my working life. I then stated in a postscript that,
                        with the exception of three chapters on the Fine Arts, “The Popular History” had been wholly written by
                        myself. Being the production of one mind, I trusted that the due proportions of the
                        narrative, from the first chapter to the last, had been maintained. I again set forth the
                        principles which had enabled me to carry it through with a consistent purpose.
                            “Feeling my responsibilities to be increased by the fact that my duty was to
                            impart knowledge and not to battle for opinions, my desire has been to cherish that
                            love of liberty which is best founded upon a sufficient acquaintance with its gradual
                            development and final establishment amongst us; to look with a tolerant judgment even
                            upon those who have sought to govern securely by governing absolutely; to trace with
                            calmness the efforts of those who have imperilled our national independence by foreign
                            assault or domestic treason, but never to forget that a just love of country is
                            consistent with historical truth; to carry forward, as far as within the power of one
                            who has watched joyfully and hopefully the great changes of a generation, that spirit
                            of improvement, which has been more extensively and permanently called forth in the
                            times of which this concluding volume treats than in the whole previous period from the
                            Revolution of 1688.” 
    
     This exposition of the views with which I commenced and concluded
                            “The Popular History”
                        may appear to be set forth with undue formality. I think my reasons for so doing will be
                        attributed to something better than the egotism of authorship. If the ![]()
| 280 | PASSAGES OF A WORKING LIFE: | [Ch. XIII. | 
![]() course of my narrative through four thousand pages had been inconsistent with these
                        declarations—if it had been conducted in a spirit opposed to the best authorities on our
                        constitutional history—I should have deserved to be judged out of my own mouth. In a review
                        of a reviewer who appears to consider my history as the embodiment of all the dangerous
                        principles of democracy, I find this passage in “The Times” of November 1, 1864:—“Mr.
                                Kebbel does really allege with much justice that the fundamental error
                            of Mr. Knight’s history, is the theory
                            according to which the people of this country are represented as having been from the
                            beginning divided into two hostile armies, the one seeking to defend or to augment, the
                            other to diminish or destroy, a mass of oppressive and tyrannous privileges and
                            customs. The proofs that Mr. Knight maintains this heresy, and
                            that it is a heresy, we do not enter into.” That I have not maintained this
                        heresy without very important modifications, I fearlessly assert. That I have been one of
                        those who have told the people “of the grandeur of resistance,” without
                        telling them “something of the grandeur of obedience,” I utterly deny.
                        But I cannot admit that it is a “fundamental error” to represent the people as
                        long divided into the maintainers and the opposers of “oppressive and tyrannous
                            privileges and customs.” If in this particular I am a heretic, let me, in
                        some measure, defend myself by the example of other heretics.
 course of my narrative through four thousand pages had been inconsistent with these
                        declarations—if it had been conducted in a spirit opposed to the best authorities on our
                        constitutional history—I should have deserved to be judged out of my own mouth. In a review
                        of a reviewer who appears to consider my history as the embodiment of all the dangerous
                        principles of democracy, I find this passage in “The Times” of November 1, 1864:—“Mr.
                                Kebbel does really allege with much justice that the fundamental error
                            of Mr. Knight’s history, is the theory
                            according to which the people of this country are represented as having been from the
                            beginning divided into two hostile armies, the one seeking to defend or to augment, the
                            other to diminish or destroy, a mass of oppressive and tyrannous privileges and
                            customs. The proofs that Mr. Knight maintains this heresy, and
                            that it is a heresy, we do not enter into.” That I have not maintained this
                        heresy without very important modifications, I fearlessly assert. That I have been one of
                        those who have told the people “of the grandeur of resistance,” without
                        telling them “something of the grandeur of obedience,” I utterly deny.
                        But I cannot admit that it is a “fundamental error” to represent the people as
                        long divided into the maintainers and the opposers of “oppressive and tyrannous
                            privileges and customs.” If in this particular I am a heretic, let me, in
                        some measure, defend myself by the example of other heretics. 
    
     The early years of the Conquest provide ample evidence of Norman
                        oppression and Saxon resistance. Whether the oppressions were those of the king or of his
                        military chieftains, their consequence was insurrection. William went on from mildness to ![]()
| Ch. XIII.] | THE THIRD EPOCH. | 281 | 
![]() ferocity, from a
                        show of justice to the most lawless exercise of power. “It is a fearful and
                            disgusting history. It would be humiliating to feel that the people from whom we are
                            sprung did not turn and rend ‘this very stark man and very savage’—this man
                            ‘stark beyond all bounds to those who withsaid his will,’—did we not know
                            that no oppression could ultimately subdue this long-suffering race, and that the
                            instruments of their partial subjection were, in little more than a century, united
                            with them in building up a system of government which should, at every new storm of
                            tyranny, become stronger and more defiant.”* One of the greatest of English
                        orators has described the barons of the reign of John.
                            Lord Chatham, in his speech of 1770, in the case of
                            John Wilkes, said:—“It is to your
                            ancestors, my Lords, it is to the English Barons that we are indebted for the Laws and
                            Constitution we possess. Their virtues were rude and uncultivated, but they were great
                            and sincere. Their understandings were as little polished as their manners, but they
                            had hearts to distinguish right from wrong; they had heads to distinguish truth from
                            falsehood; they understood the rights of humanity, and they had spirit to maintain
                            them.” The historian of our
                        Constitutional history says:—“From this era a new soul was infused into the people
                            of England.” During the six hundred and fifty years which have elapsed since
                        the day of Runnemede, they have carried on the battle for liberty in the same practical and
                        temperate spirit which animated the mailed knights who won the Great Charter. In “the
                        grandeur
 ferocity, from a
                        show of justice to the most lawless exercise of power. “It is a fearful and
                            disgusting history. It would be humiliating to feel that the people from whom we are
                            sprung did not turn and rend ‘this very stark man and very savage’—this man
                            ‘stark beyond all bounds to those who withsaid his will,’—did we not know
                            that no oppression could ultimately subdue this long-suffering race, and that the
                            instruments of their partial subjection were, in little more than a century, united
                            with them in building up a system of government which should, at every new storm of
                            tyranny, become stronger and more defiant.”* One of the greatest of English
                        orators has described the barons of the reign of John.
                            Lord Chatham, in his speech of 1770, in the case of
                            John Wilkes, said:—“It is to your
                            ancestors, my Lords, it is to the English Barons that we are indebted for the Laws and
                            Constitution we possess. Their virtues were rude and uncultivated, but they were great
                            and sincere. Their understandings were as little polished as their manners, but they
                            had hearts to distinguish right from wrong; they had heads to distinguish truth from
                            falsehood; they understood the rights of humanity, and they had spirit to maintain
                            them.” The historian of our
                        Constitutional history says:—“From this era a new soul was infused into the people
                            of England.” During the six hundred and fifty years which have elapsed since
                        the day of Runnemede, they have carried on the battle for liberty in the same practical and
                        temperate spirit which animated the mailed knights who won the Great Charter. In “the
                        grandeur ![]() 
                        ![]()
| 282 | PASSAGES OF A WORKING LIFE: | [Ch. XIII. | 
![]() of resistance” they have not lost sight of “the
                            grandeur of obedience.” Over and over again they have been “divided
                            into two hostile armies.” But reconcilement has gradually come out of
                        disunion; and for why? Resistance has almost invariably proceeded from the necessity of the
                        case. There may be essential differences of opinion as to the force of that necessity,
                        whether the two leading examples of resistance—the Great Rebellion and the Revolution—be
                        considered. But I apprehend—now that the doctrine of passive obedience has ceased to be
                        advocated, even by those who consider a Popular History dangerous—that it will be generally
                        acknowledged that “the peculiarity of the British Constitution is this—that its
                            only professed object is the general good, and its only foundation the general will.
                            Hence the people have a right, acknowledged from time immemorial, fortified by a pile
                            of statutes, and authenticated by a revolution that speaks louder than them all, to see
                            whether abuses have been committed, and whether their properties and their liberties
                            have been attended to as they ought to be.”* This is the resistance of modern
                        times. Of the elder spirit Burke says:—“It
                            has a pedigree and illustrating ancestors. It has its bearings and its ensigns
                            armorial. It has its gallery of portraits, its monumental inscriptions, its records,
                            evidences, and titles.” When we enter upon the eighteenth and nineteenth
                        centuries, the pedigree may be somewhat blurred and mildewed; the ancestors may look as
                        impossible to be imitated in their actions as in their costumes; the gallery of portraits
                        may be little
 of resistance” they have not lost sight of “the
                            grandeur of obedience.” Over and over again they have been “divided
                            into two hostile armies.” But reconcilement has gradually come out of
                        disunion; and for why? Resistance has almost invariably proceeded from the necessity of the
                        case. There may be essential differences of opinion as to the force of that necessity,
                        whether the two leading examples of resistance—the Great Rebellion and the Revolution—be
                        considered. But I apprehend—now that the doctrine of passive obedience has ceased to be
                        advocated, even by those who consider a Popular History dangerous—that it will be generally
                        acknowledged that “the peculiarity of the British Constitution is this—that its
                            only professed object is the general good, and its only foundation the general will.
                            Hence the people have a right, acknowledged from time immemorial, fortified by a pile
                            of statutes, and authenticated by a revolution that speaks louder than them all, to see
                            whether abuses have been committed, and whether their properties and their liberties
                            have been attended to as they ought to be.”* This is the resistance of modern
                        times. Of the elder spirit Burke says:—“It
                            has a pedigree and illustrating ancestors. It has its bearings and its ensigns
                            armorial. It has its gallery of portraits, its monumental inscriptions, its records,
                            evidences, and titles.” When we enter upon the eighteenth and nineteenth
                        centuries, the pedigree may be somewhat blurred and mildewed; the ancestors may look as
                        impossible to be imitated in their actions as in their costumes; the gallery of portraits
                        may be little ![]() 
                        ![]()
| Ch. XIII.] | THE THIRD EPOCH. | 283 | 
![]() better than imaginary. Their successors come nearer to our common
                        life. The hostile armies are differently constituted. The serf no longer exists; the
                        burgher fights by the side of the noble; the artisan is coming forward to assert his equal
                        rights before the Law. The battle against oppression is no longer to be fought in tented
                        fields. It is the battle of public opinion, which, in the cause of justice and right, will
                        ever be victorious. I should become tedious if I were to linger over the earlier times when
                        Public Opinion was, as yet, the Hercules in the cradle.
                        If I have committed a “fundamental error” in my alleged representations of
                        society as divided into two hostile armies, I have at least endeavoured in treating of the
                        past, to keep steadily in view its certain influence upon the future. “I have
                            tried to evolve the conviction that through many long and painful struggles, we have
                            been constantly tending towards a complete union of monarchical institutions with the
                            largest amount of freedom, whether of associated action, of public discussion, or of
                            private conduct. In describing the religious contests of four centuries, I have striven
                            to show how, amidst all their evils, the spirit of Protestantism has been invariably
                            allied with the progress of liberal institutions and national independence; but, at the
                            same time, I have not forgotten that the principle of toleration is the one great good
                            that has been slowly working its way, as the passions and prejudices of Churches and
                            sects have yielded to the universal right of liberty of conscience.”* The
                        steady influence of that Public Opinion, which has prevented resistance becoming anarchy,
                        and obedience conducting to slavery, has
 better than imaginary. Their successors come nearer to our common
                        life. The hostile armies are differently constituted. The serf no longer exists; the
                        burgher fights by the side of the noble; the artisan is coming forward to assert his equal
                        rights before the Law. The battle against oppression is no longer to be fought in tented
                        fields. It is the battle of public opinion, which, in the cause of justice and right, will
                        ever be victorious. I should become tedious if I were to linger over the earlier times when
                        Public Opinion was, as yet, the Hercules in the cradle.
                        If I have committed a “fundamental error” in my alleged representations of
                        society as divided into two hostile armies, I have at least endeavoured in treating of the
                        past, to keep steadily in view its certain influence upon the future. “I have
                            tried to evolve the conviction that through many long and painful struggles, we have
                            been constantly tending towards a complete union of monarchical institutions with the
                            largest amount of freedom, whether of associated action, of public discussion, or of
                            private conduct. In describing the religious contests of four centuries, I have striven
                            to show how, amidst all their evils, the spirit of Protestantism has been invariably
                            allied with the progress of liberal institutions and national independence; but, at the
                            same time, I have not forgotten that the principle of toleration is the one great good
                            that has been slowly working its way, as the passions and prejudices of Churches and
                            sects have yielded to the universal right of liberty of conscience.”* The
                        steady influence of that Public Opinion, which has prevented resistance becoming anarchy,
                        and obedience conducting to slavery, has ![]() 
                        ![]()
| 284 | PASSAGES OF A WORKING LIFE: | [Ch. XIII. | 
![]() grown from age to age with the material as well as the moral
                        development of our country. In forming the plan of my history, I set out upon the principle
                        that there was an inseparable connection between our political and our social history.
                            “When there is prosperous industry and fireside comfort, then, it may be
                            assumed, there is good government. When labour is oppressed and homes are wretched,
                            then, however powerful may be authority, and arms however triumphant, there is
                            ‘something rotten in the State.’”*
 grown from age to age with the material as well as the moral
                        development of our country. In forming the plan of my history, I set out upon the principle
                        that there was an inseparable connection between our political and our social history.
                            “When there is prosperous industry and fireside comfort, then, it may be
                            assumed, there is good government. When labour is oppressed and homes are wretched,
                            then, however powerful may be authority, and arms however triumphant, there is
                            ‘something rotten in the State.’”* 
    
     In passing onward to the second great division of our country’s
                        history, I thus concluded the first half of my narrative. “In 1689, the
                            Constitution was established through the principle of Resistance, not upon any new
                            theories, but upon fundamental laws, many of which were of an older date than that of
                            the oldest oak which stood upon English ground. For this reason, it has never again
                            been necessary to call in the principle of Resistance. A time would come, when the
                            government of England, being so essentially a Parliamentary government, the struggles
                            of Parties would have more regard to the possession of power than to the interests of
                            the nation. But it was the essential consequence of these very strifes of Party, that,
                            whatever the influence of oligarchs or demagogues, a controlling public opinion was
                            constantly growing and strengthening.Ӡ 
    
     “The Popular History
                            of England” to the period of the Revolution embraced a class of subjects
                        that was once considered extraneous to history—the progress of manufactures and
                        commerce—the developments of literature and the arts—the aspects of 
![]() 
                        ![]()
| Ch. XIII.] | THE THIRD EPOCH. | 285 | 
![]() manners and of common life. The same principle was constantly kept
                        in view in the succeeding four volumes, which brought up the history to 1849—an epoch
                        marked by the final extinction of the Corn Laws. This large class of subjects, so
                        essentially connected with our civil, military, and religious annals, was treated by me,
                            “not in set dissertations under distinct heads, separated from the course of
                            events by long intervals, but in frequent notices, either in special chapters at
                            periods marked by characteristics of progress, or occurring as incidental illustrations
                            of the political narrative.” The experience of the present generation may be
                        sufficient to trace the connection between the progress of good government, following the
                        gradual discomfiture of corrupt or ignorant government, and the progress of industry, art,
                        and letters, maintaining and carrying forward the power and influence of political
                        improvement.
 manners and of common life. The same principle was constantly kept
                        in view in the succeeding four volumes, which brought up the history to 1849—an epoch
                        marked by the final extinction of the Corn Laws. This large class of subjects, so
                        essentially connected with our civil, military, and religious annals, was treated by me,
                            “not in set dissertations under distinct heads, separated from the course of
                            events by long intervals, but in frequent notices, either in special chapters at
                            periods marked by characteristics of progress, or occurring as incidental illustrations
                            of the political narrative.” The experience of the present generation may be
                        sufficient to trace the connection between the progress of good government, following the
                        gradual discomfiture of corrupt or ignorant government, and the progress of industry, art,
                        and letters, maintaining and carrying forward the power and influence of political
                        improvement. 
    
     The proportions of those chapters of my Popular History of England which have reference to the
                        national Industry and the progress of the Arts, as compared with the chapters on our Civil,
                        Military, and Religious History, scarcely warrant me in accepting the title which has been
                        conferred upon me,—that of “The Boswell of
                            Birmingham.” It is a very pretty piece of alliteration, and has the true ring
                        of that small wit which goes a good way towards the making of a periodical critic of the
                        insolent order. In the four first volumes, which bring the history down to the Revolution,
                        one-tenth only of the whole matter is occupied with the subjects of Commerce and
                        Manufactures, of Science and Art, of Literature, of the Condition of the People. In the
                        second half of the work about one-fifth of the whole text is ![]()
| 286 | PASSAGES OF A WORKING LIFE: | [Ch. XIII. | 
![]() devoted
                        to these subjects. Of the eight volumes, comprising four thousand pages, an amount equal to
                        one volume is devoted to these various manifestations of the progress of a people. Such
                        details were once considered extraneous to history proper; and even now, some who think, or
                        affect to think, that history should confine itself to the concerns of Courts and Cabinets,
                        regard them as vulgar. Such, especially, is their opinion about Commerce and Manufactures.
                        Modern statesmanship has a different creed. It has been compelled to guide its course of
                        political action by a broad view of the social condition of the entire population, rather
                        than by the interests or prejudices of a party or a class. Never in our own country, and to
                        a certain extent in other countries, had the claims of industry—not upon patronage, not
                        upon protection, not upon bounties, but simply to be left free to work out its own
                        good—been more regarded in the highest places, as the one great foundation of national
                        prosperity. The slightest glance at the early history of England will show that with the
                        prosperity of industry, and that security of property, which was necessary for its more
                        general distribution, gradually came internal tranquillity, in spite of disputed
                        successions and constant attempts to put the neck of one class under the heel of another.
                        The “hostile armies” were, in every succeeding generation, becoming reduced in
                        numbers, and more and more open to the reconciliation of their conflicting pretensions. As
                        the mediaeval castles gradually became mansions; as the privileges of a caste were put
                        away, like “unscoured armour hung by the wall;” as there grew, out of feudal
                        exclusiveness, an aristocracy not alien to the commonalty; the yeoman, the merchant,
 devoted
                        to these subjects. Of the eight volumes, comprising four thousand pages, an amount equal to
                        one volume is devoted to these various manifestations of the progress of a people. Such
                        details were once considered extraneous to history proper; and even now, some who think, or
                        affect to think, that history should confine itself to the concerns of Courts and Cabinets,
                        regard them as vulgar. Such, especially, is their opinion about Commerce and Manufactures.
                        Modern statesmanship has a different creed. It has been compelled to guide its course of
                        political action by a broad view of the social condition of the entire population, rather
                        than by the interests or prejudices of a party or a class. Never in our own country, and to
                        a certain extent in other countries, had the claims of industry—not upon patronage, not
                        upon protection, not upon bounties, but simply to be left free to work out its own
                        good—been more regarded in the highest places, as the one great foundation of national
                        prosperity. The slightest glance at the early history of England will show that with the
                        prosperity of industry, and that security of property, which was necessary for its more
                        general distribution, gradually came internal tranquillity, in spite of disputed
                        successions and constant attempts to put the neck of one class under the heel of another.
                        The “hostile armies” were, in every succeeding generation, becoming reduced in
                        numbers, and more and more open to the reconciliation of their conflicting pretensions. As
                        the mediaeval castles gradually became mansions; as the privileges of a caste were put
                        away, like “unscoured armour hung by the wall;” as there grew, out of feudal
                        exclusiveness, an aristocracy not alien to the commonalty; the yeoman, the merchant, ![]()
| Ch. XIII.] | THE THIRD EPOCH. | 287 | 
![]() the artisan, and last of all the peasant, came to be regarded as
                        integral portions of the state. Then, and not till then, was society secure in the
                        established reign of law and order. Then, and not till then, could those who did not labour
                        with their hands sit secure in their homes, even should an occasional demagogue attempt to
                        re-kindle the lights and fires of the fourteenth century to the tune of—
 the artisan, and last of all the peasant, came to be regarded as
                        integral portions of the state. Then, and not till then, was society secure in the
                        established reign of law and order. Then, and not till then, could those who did not labour
                        with their hands sit secure in their homes, even should an occasional demagogue attempt to
                        re-kindle the lights and fires of the fourteenth century to the tune of— |  “When Adam delved and
                                        Eve span,   Who was then the gentleman?”  | 
![]() 
                    
    
     I might run over every era of our modern history to show how, with the
                        development of Industry and the accumulation of Wealth, those who have been seeking
                            “to diminish or destroy oppressive and tyrannous privileges and
                        customs” have been constrained to employ other weapons than physical force. There
                        was a time when “resistance was an ordinary remedy for political distempers—a
                            remedy which was always at hand, and which, though doubtless sharp at the moment,
                            produced no deep or lasting ill effects.” The historian marks the difference
                        of our own times; when “resistance must be regarded as a cure more desperate than
                            almost any malady that can afflict the state.” But there is something better
                        than the sword, if occasion should arise for uttering again the ancient demand for
                            “redress of grievances;” and Macaulay shows us the alternative: “As we cannot, without the risk
                            of evils from which the imagination recoils, employ physical force as a check on
                            misgovernment, it is evidently our wisdom to keep all the constitutional checks on
                            misgovernment in the highest state of efficiency; to watch ![]()
| 288 | PASSAGES OF A WORKING LIFE: | [Ch. XIII. | 
![]() with
                            jealousy the first beginnings of encroachment, and never to suffer irregularities, even
                            when harmless in themselves, to pass unchallenged.”* The old army of
                        resistance has become a Constabulary Force, equipped only with the staff that is the symbol
                        of Law and Order.
 with
                            jealousy the first beginnings of encroachment, and never to suffer irregularities, even
                            when harmless in themselves, to pass unchallenged.”* The old army of
                        resistance has become a Constabulary Force, equipped only with the staff that is the symbol
                        of Law and Order. 
    
    
     Here, strictly speaking, terminates the narrative of my labour and my
                        observation during half a century. This Chapter records the principal employment of my
                        time, to the end of 1862. I regard the chief part of that occupation, during seven years,
                        as having been to me a source of happiness. Removed, in a great degree, from commercial
                        labours and anxieties, that continuous direction of my mind to a subject so interesting and
                        engrossing as a General History of England, had a tranquillizing influence; and prepared me
                        to look back upon my past career with something like a philosophical estimate of its good
                        and evil fortune. 
    
     Until the Septuagenarian shall hear “kind Nature’s signal
                            to retreat.” Rest and Retrospection properly succeed the excitements of
                        “a Working Life.” The task of writing these “Passages” has been at
                        once Rest and Retrospection. It has involved no laborious research; it has compelled no
                        violent suppression of natural egotism to forbear speaking of personal matters that could
                        have no interest for others; it has demanded little more than an accurate memory of former
                        events, and a candid and charitable estimate of my contemporaries. Taken altogether, this
                        also has been a pleasurable task; 
![]() 
                        ![]()
| Ch. XIII.] | THE THIRD EPOCH. | 289 | 
![]() and, to compare small things with great, the “sober
                            melancholy” which Gibbon felt when he
                        wrote “the last lines of the last page” of his immortal History, comes
                        over me, as I contemplate taking a final leave “of an old and agreeable
                            companion.” Let me postpone this parting, for a little while, by adopting the
                        device of some of our earlier poets, to enable them to linger in the home of
                            “pleasant thought” before they quitted it for ever.
 and, to compare small things with great, the “sober
                            melancholy” which Gibbon felt when he
                        wrote “the last lines of the last page” of his immortal History, comes
                        over me, as I contemplate taking a final leave “of an old and agreeable
                            companion.” Let me postpone this parting, for a little while, by adopting the
                        device of some of our earlier poets, to enable them to linger in the home of
                            “pleasant thought” before they quitted it for ever. 
    
    
    James Boswell  (1740-1795)  
                  Scottish man of letters, author of 
The Life of Samuel Johnson
                        (1791).
               
 
    Edmund Burke  (1729-1797)  
                  Irish politician and opposition leader in Parliament, author of 
On the
                            Sublime and Beautiful (1757) and 
Reflections on the Revolution
                            in France (1790).
               
 
    John Philpot Curran  (1750-1817)  
                  Irish statesman and orator; as a Whig MP (from 1783) he defended the United Irishmen in
                        Parliament (1798).
               
 
    Francis Egerton, first earl of Ellesmere  (1800-1857)  
                  Poet, statesman, and Tory MP; a younger son the second marquess of Stafford, he was
                        educated at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, was chief secretary for Ireland (1828-30), and
                        translated Goethe and Schiller and contributed articles to the 
Quarterly
                            Review.
                    
                  
                
    Edward Gibbon  (1737-1794)  
                  Author of 
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
                        (1776-1788).
               
 
    Oliver Goldsmith  (1728 c.-1774)  
                  Irish miscellaneous writer; his works include 
The Vicar of
                            Wakefield (1766), 
The Deserted Village (1770), and 
She Stoops to Conquer (1773).
               
 
    Henry Hallam  (1777-1859)  
                  English historian and contributor to the 
Edinburgh Review, author
                        of 
Introduction to the Literature of Europe, 4 vols (1837-39) and
                        other works. He was the father of Tennyson's Arthur Hallam.
               
 
    David Hume  (1711-1776)  
                  Scottish philosopher and historian; author of 
Essays Moral and
                            Political (1741-42), 
Enquiry concerning Human Understanding
                        (1748) and 
History of Great Britain (1754-62).
               
 
    King James VII and II  (1633-1701)  
                  Son of Charles I; he was king of England and Scotland 1685-88, forced from office during
                        the Glorious Revolution.
               
 
    
    Samuel Johnson  (1709-1784)  
                  English man of letters, among many other works he edited 
A Dictionary
                            of the English Language (1755) and Shakespeare (1765), and wrote 
Lives of the Poets (1779-81).
               
 
    Thomas Edward Kebbel  (1826-1917)  
                  Educated at Merchant Taylors' School and Lincoln College, Oxford, he was a Conservative
                        journalist, biographer, and historian who wrote for 
Blackwood's and
                        the 
Quarterly Review.
               
 
    Charles Knight  (1791-1873)  
                  London publisher, originally of Windsor where he produced 
The
                            Etonian; Dallas's 
Recollections of Lord Byron was one of
                        his first ventures. He wrote 
Passages of a Working Life during half a
                            Century, 3 vols (1864-65).
               
 
    Edwin Lankester  (1814-1874)  
                  Educated at University of London, he was a physician, natural scientist, health reformer,
                        and friend of Charles Dickens and Douglas Jerrold.
               
 
    Samuel Lucas  (1818-1868)  
                  Educated at Queen's College, Oxford, and the Inner Temple, he practiced law before
                        becoming a Tory journalist, reviewer for 
The Times, author, and
                        editor of Thomas Hood (1867).
               
 
    Vernon Lushington  (1832-1912)  
                  The son of Stephen Lushington (1782-1873); educated at Cheam School, Trinity College,
                        Cambridge, and the Inner Temple, he was a barrister and writer for periodicals who taught
                        at the Working Men's College.
               
 
    
    
    
    Alexander Pope  (1688-1744)  
                  English poet and satirist; author of 
The Rape of the Lock (1714)
                        and 
The Dunciad (1728).
               
 
    Alexander Ramsay  (1794-1869)  
                  Born in humble circumstances, he worked in a print shop and as a journalist before being
                        employed by Charles Knight as an editor. He published 
Shakspere in
                            Germany (1866).
               
 
    
    Archibald Hamilton Rowan  (1751-1834)  
                  Originally Hamilton; educated at Queen's College, Cambridge, he was a United Irishman who
                        after imprisonment and pardon spent his later years as a landowner and supporter of
                        Catholic Emancipation.
               
 
    John Russell, first earl Russell  (1792-1878)  
                  English statesman, son of John Russell sixth duke of Bedford (1766-1839); he was author
                        of 
Essay on the English Constitution (1821) and 
Memoirs of the Affairs of Europe (1824) and was Prime Minister (1865-66).
               
 
    Sir Richard Steele  (1672-1729)  
                  English playwright and essayist, who conducted 
The Tatler, and
                        (with Joseph Addison) 
The Spectator and 
The
                            Guardian.
               
 
    James Thorne  (1815-1881)  
                  Originally an artist, he was an antiquary and topographer who wrote for 
The Mirror and 
Penny Magazine and contributed to 
The Land we Live in, 4 vols (1847-50).
               
 
    Thomas Watts  (1811-1869)  
                  He was superintendent of the reading room at the British Museum (1857) and keeper of
                        printed books (1866); he contributed to the 
Gentleman's Magazine and
                        the 
Athenaeum.
               
 
    John Wilkes  (1725-1797)  
                  English political reformer and foe of George III who was twice elected to Parliament
                        while imprisoned; he was the author of attacks on the Scots and the libertine 
Essay on Woman.
                    
                  
                
    
    
                  The Quarterly Review.    (1809-1967). Published by John Murray, the 
Quarterly was instigated by Walter
                        Scott as a Tory rival to the 
Edinburgh Review. It was edited by
                        William Gifford to 1824, and by John Gibson Lockhart from 1826 to 1853.
 
    
                  The Times.    (1785-). Founded by John Walter, The Times was edited by Thomas Barnes from 1817 to 1841. In the
                        romantic era it published much less literary material than its rival dailies, the 
 Morning Chronicle and the 
Morning
                        Post.