University of Virginia Library

The Westminster Review: Change of Editorship, 1840
by
Rosemary T. VanArsdel

Details of the transfer of ownership of the London and Westminster Review in 1840 from John Stuart Mill to William Edward Hickson have never been clear nor have Mill's reasons for choosing a seemingly obscure and inexperienced editor as his successor. Although no precise statement of Mill's thinking on the matter exists, it is now possible to make some reasonable conjectures drawn from four basic bodies of evidence: Mill's letters to three correspondents, Hickson, Henry Cole and John Robertson; Henry Cole's unpublished diary from 1839 to 1841; a letter by John Robertson, Mill's assistant on the Westminster; and a large amount of newly discovered biographical material about Hickson, which indicates that he was a man of much wider public interests and experience than previously had been thought. The four separate viewpoints which these sources provide offer insights to the private maneuverings by three men with widely different motives, for control of one of the great quarterlies of the nineteenth century.

Mill assumed editorial control of the London and Westminster Review in 1837, later receiving it as a debt-ridden gift from its owner, William Molesworth. Molesworth had founded the London Review in April, 1835, merged it with the Westminster Review in 1836, always struggling to advance original Benthamite principles. Eventually he lost so much money that he no longer felt able to continue and handed it on to Mill with whom he was already collaborating. Mill was persuaded that there was no longer

a place for unadulterated Benthamism and intended to conduct the review on somewhat modified political principles. In a letter to Edward Bulwer Lytton on 23 November 1836, whom he was wooing as a possible contributor of the London and Westminster, he stated that he had allowed himself to become connected with the review "to soften the harder and sterner features of its radicalism and utilitarianism, both which in the form in which they originally appeared in the Westminster, were part of the inheritance of the 18th century."[1]

But three years later Mill was ready to withdraw as proprietor and devote his energies to India House and his own writing. His letters of 1838-1840 reflect the tensions, discouragements and vascillating viewpoints which he faced as he moved toward a decision about a successor. As Mill pondered the problem he found himself not only in the middle of a spirited three-way struggle for control of the Westminster but faced, as well, with the choice between trying to insure its continuance as a radical organ, or compromising with its Benthamite founders and allowing it to fall into the hands of purely commercial interests.

In December, 1838, Mill's physician ordered him to the continent for a prolonged stay to improve his health, thus leaving John Robertson, his assistant editor, in full charge of the April, 1839 number of the Westminster. Robertson, a Scot, trained for the ministry but come to London for a literary career, was a man much bitten by ambition and, as Cole's diary shows, not entirely scrupulous in his principles. Mill had known him first as a fellow contributor to the Morning Chronicle and the London and Westminster, and later met him from time to time as a fellow member of the Reform Club. "Professor Bain, who knew him well, was rather surprised at John Mill's enthusiastic estimate of his attainments, which he thought were of the slightest, while his industry was, to say the best of it, fitful. He was a lively young man, with an unfailing eye for a careless feminine ankle; . . ."[2] The association with Mill as assistant editor must surely have satisfied Robertson's ego, because the connection was clearly more valuable for Robertson than for Mill. However, as soon as Mill was safely away, Robertson's high-handedness asserted itself as he assumed autocratic charge of the review. By April, 1839, Mill was writing decidedly irritable letters from Italy protesting his assistant's policies:

Ill health, editorial worries and shortage of funds were not the only matters conspiring to persuade Mill to part with the review. He was also discouraged by failure of the Radical party to unite behind one leader and thus give the Westminster a base of power to support. In the latter part of the 1830's, many felt, including Mill, that Lord Durham was the man. (Packe, 224-235). Mill supported the Durham mission to Canada, applauded the soundness of his approach to Colonial government, and cherished high hopes that Durham would assume the Radical leadership. When Durham, upon his return from Canada, was viciously attacked by his enemies in Parliament as a tyrant and a bungler, Mill set forth in the pages of the Westminster the calm and measured defense which saved him. But Durham had returned to England mortally ill and broken by what he considered ministerial betrayal at home. He no longer had a taste for political organization. Mill realized that without him there were only warring factions and splinter groups, and from Rome, on 6 April 1839, he wrote dejectedly to Robertson:

Later in the same letter, as if to underline his resolve, he remarked:

Returning to the subject on 31 May 1839, almost two months later, Mill wrote to Robertson from Munich:

Later in the same letter, as Mill's mind began to cast about for successors, he commented: "And I see no prospect of Lord Durham or anybody else taking it off my hands, as matters stand at present." Two sentences later he asked Robertson, "Do you think Dilke[3] would now be willing to take it, and would you sound him on the subject?"

Sandwiched between these two sentences, however, is a single remark which contains the clue to most of the subsequent negotiating for the review, and to Mill's final decision to choose Hickson. He wrote:

Mill continued to think of either a merger or of enlisting the aid of an established, experienced editor. He approached John Mitchell Kemble, editor of the British and Foreign Review, 1836-1844, which was owned by Thomas Wentworth Beaumont. Kemble evidently replied with a list of objections, citing a number of public questions on which there would be philosophical differences between the two reviews. Mill countered on 14 October 1839, saying that radicals were "people who wish to carry their changes beyond those which would be consented to by Whigs or Tories" and by means of this broad definition should be able to group varying shades of opinion under the same banner. He concluded:

Mill continued to hope that this merger would be possible and even when he began to consider Henry Cole as a possible successor he qualified his words with the phrase "subject to the chance of Beaumont's accepting." (II. 410).

Attention now shifts to the triumvirate seeking control of the Westminster. First, there was John Robertson, who, because of Westminster business, was Mill's chief correspondent during this period and was surely aware of his superior's discouragement and uncertainty. With his aggressive cast of mind he undoubtedly began to calculate the chances for the prestigious Westminster to fall into his own hands with little, perhaps no financial investment on his part. Mill did not regard the review as a business commodity, and because it had come to him virtually as a gift from Molesworth he thought of passing it on in much the same way.

The second member of the triumvirate was young Henry Cole (later Sir Henry of Great Exhibition fame) who was busy building a career for himself in London public life. Cole, son of an Army captain, was born in 1808, educated at Christ's Hospital, and began his career in 1823, as clerk to Francis Palgrave (later Sir Francis), who was then a subcommissioner of the Record Commission.[4] Cole lived in a house owned by Thomas

Love Peacock, who became his firm friend and introduced him to many young men of similar circumstances, including Thackeray, who became a life-long intimate.

In the late 1820's, Peacock took Cole to the newly organized London Debating Society, which met fortnightly to seek the truth on public issues. It was here that Cole first met J. S. Mill, Charles Buller, George Grote and many other young liberals. He so ingratiated himself that by August, 1832, he accompanied Mill on a walking tour in the south of England.

Cole was a man of enormous energy and drive. In 1832, he was appointed sub-commissioner of a new records commission and by 1838, when the Record Office was constituted, Cole became one of the four assistant keepers. In that year he also took up the cause of postal reform, under Sir Rowland Hill's direction, serving as secretary to the reform committee and editing its "Post Circular," his first journalistic experience. In August, 1839, Parliament authorized the new postal scheme and Cole immediately entered the competition for the best stamp design. By 23 September, this entry appeared in Cole's diary: "Hill called and told me he was empowered to engage my assistance for as long as it was required at the rate of £250 per ann." And, 24 September, "Called on Lord Langdale to tell him of the Treasury offer which he agreed to my accepting if it did not interfere with the Records."[5] Cole now had two official positions in addition to his many extra-curricular activities, the latter involving book publishing, sketching, wood cuts and design, plus his occasional contributions to the Westminster. While the full account of Cole's career deserves a volume of its own, the preceding sketch shows a young man of energetic determination, amiable and good-humored enough to please his superiors.

Cole's manuscript diary for the years 1839-1841 reinforces these preliminary impressions of his character. He was a man of very regular habits, who walked to and from London almost every day, who often "napped" in the evening, but as frequently worked at his desk or "practised music." He appears to have had a warm and affectionate relationship with Marian, his wife, and two baby daughters, the first of his family of five sons and three daughters.

Ever shrewd, Cole used those morning walks to town to keep himself in the confidence of those who were in a position to assist his advancement. During 1839, when agitation for postal reform became frenzied, the diary entries "called on R. Hill and walked to town with him" or "walked home with R. Hill" appear almost ad nauseam. And his persistence was rewarded by his official appointment to Hill's staff.

Another of Cole's regular walking companions was John Stuart Mill,

conveniently both a neighbor and a walker. After Mill's return from the continent in July, 1839, the refrain began anew, but with a different subject: "Called on John Mill and walked to town with him." Poor Hill was left to get to town as best he might! Presumably Mill talked with Cole about his Review troubles, for the entry for 16 August reads: "walked to town with J. Mill to talk with respecting the Review—he said that his connexion with it involved retenance [sic] of Robertson so I did not proceed to give him any hints." One wonders what those hints might have been, but the most likely supposition must be that Cole coveted Robertson's post.

The walking continued fitfully throughout August and September, and reached a climax in October when Cole either walked with Mill or encountered him in some other way seven days out of twelve. The entries for these days have one theme, illustrated by the note on 10 October: "Called at and saw the Mills—walked to town with John who intimated that he should offer the L. and W. to Beaumont, proprietor of the Br. and For [British and Foreign Review]." Again, on the 18th, "Walked to town with J. Mill— talking chiefly on the management of the L. and W. R." Twice during these months Cole called on Hickson, but no mention is made of what was discussed. And then, as if in some divine retribution for all this exertion, Cole developed a serious boil on his leg which required lancing and kept him housebound for ten days. He did not walk to town again for nearly three months. Significantly, from the time of Cole's illness, 7 November, until 14 January, all contact with Mill came to an end, suggesting, perhaps, that Cole was pushing too hard.

The diary entry for Thursday, 7 November, reads: "Robertson called to talk about the future management of the Review." Ten days later, on Sunday, 17 November, Cole notes in his diary: "Jackson, brass smith called—also William Hickson who promised to help in some new arrangements of the L. and W. R." Of the three men clearly intriguing for control of the London and Westminster Review Hickson was perhaps the most reluctant, as will be illustrated later, while the two younger men were plainly very eager indeed.

Social contacts between the Cole and Hickson families continued. On Sunday, 8 December, Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Hickson, Hickson's aunt and uncle, called. On the 17th Cole joined an evening party at the William Hicksons. One note, 7 January, reports, "Thackeray called and had a talk about the London and W. Review." Finally, 14 January, contact between Mill and Cole was re-established at a party given by the Mills.

Events now moved toward two crises destined for the spring of 1840. The first illustrates the serious ambivalence in Mill's mind regarding the disposition of the review. Cole's diary for Thursday, 6 February, notes, "Walked to town with J. Mill — who assented to yielding up the L. and W. to me in case of Beaumont's refusal to buy it." This event was followed by two letters from Mill, one either later in the day on the 6th, or perhaps on

the 7th, and a second on Saturday, 8 February. The first reads as follows:

The forepart of the letter refers to Cole's postage stamp article for the Westminster and the plates he was evidently considering commissioning for illustrations, but it is the concluding sentence which is most significant. This would seem to be a reinforcement of their earlier conversation, underscored by use of the expression "you mention."

The second letter, 8 February, represents a direct turnabout:

The reason for dating this letter the 8th lies in the diary entry by Cole for 9 February which states: "With Charles [his brother] called on J. Mill in reference to his letter wishing to recall his offer of the L. and W. Review."[6]

The next day was a holiday, for the Queen's wedding, and the consecutive day the subject is not mentioned in the diary. Then for three mornings Cole called for John Mill and repeatedly found him gone, strongly suggesting that Mill was avoiding him. Finally, on the fourth morning, 15 February, they walked to town together again. During this period he was also seeing Hickson every day or so.

Nothing seems to have been settled. The calls on Mill and Hickson continued. The diary is distractingly and painfully silent on what passed at these calls. On 20 February, the diary notes that Robertson appeared. Then for seven days the Review is not mentioned. On 28 February, Robertson re-appeared, he and Cole dined, and Mill, Fletcher,[7] Robertson and Cole walked to Kensington together, presumably conferring en route.

Shifting to Robertson once more, the diary entry for Saturday, 29 February, reveals Robertson's character with devastating clarity and gives a sharp picture of the struggle which was taking place: Robertson, to preserve his job and perhaps better his position; Cole, to gain control of an influential quarterly; and Hickson, to see his duty and to do it.

The diary entry for 3 March records: "Walked to town with J. Mill who spoke out strongly about Robertson's conceit." Robertson's character is further revealed by his lack of truthfulness about the offer to write for the Edinburgh Review. In an unpublished letter owned by the British Museum, J. S. Mill wrote to Macvey Napier to ask about the possibility of his (Mill's) contributing to the Edinburgh now that he was no longer proprietor of the Westminster. He also suggested Robertson as another prospective contributor. This letter is dated 22 April 1840, almost a month after Robertson made his claim. There is also another letter, in the possession of the National Library of Scotland, in which Robertson wrote to Napier urging his own qualifications as a contributor. This letter is dated 18 May 1840.

Between the 19 February and 12 March entries, proposals flew in all directions. Cole walked to town with Mill almost every morning. They called on Hickson together, and Cole called alone, repeatedly. After one interview with Hickson on 7 March the diary notes: "Hickson asked if I should like him to have a greater share of the R. than myself," obviously an effort to accommodate the younger man, for they would bear the financial responsibility directly in proportion to their shares of ownership.

Another entry for 5 March recorded: "Robertson called—and proposed that I should be sole proprietor and he editor of the Review—which I said must depend on Mill." This entry suggests that the following letter should be dated 6 March.

The same day, 6 March, Cole's diary notes: "Wrote to John Mill abt. Robertson's editorship. . . . In the evening writing to Robertson to decline his proposition." Mill wrote again to Cole, probably in early March, still hoping for a last minute solution which he could consider more suitable.

Events of 5 and 6 March seem to mark the point of decision. At last matters could be delayed no longer, for the June issue had to be prepared. Cole's diary for 10 March notes: "Walked to town with John Mill and

with him called on Hickson." One feels that the verbal agreement must have been completed at this meeting. Later in the same day he says: "Hicksons, discussing future proceedings with the Review." Finally, on 12 March 1840, Mill wrote to Cole:

The Westminster at long last was in the possession of new owners, Hickson to supervise the editorial matters and the business management to be shared by both. Cole called at Hickson's almost every day for a week until 20 March, he states: "Drank tea at Hicksons settling terms of our partnership in the Review."

The settlement was not without its disagreeable side, however, for Robertson was bitter at his loss of position and disappointed in his hopes to use the review to further his political ambitions.[10] In any case, there can be no question of Robertson's political leanings, expressed in his own words in the following excerpt from a letter to Macvey Napier, 18 May 1840. "Now, I do not think I shall say anything (let me publish the article wherever I may) likely to clash with the views of the oldest supporters of the Edinburgh Review. Though I was for three years, sole editor of the London and Westminster Review I have never been either a Benthamite, a Utilitarian or an Ultra-Radical. Molesworth left the London and Westminster Review on the appearance of the first number edited by me. The Roebuck set have always denounced me as a Whig, and accused me of making Mr. John Mill one. In fact like almost every young Scotchman of my standing I have a great deal more of the Edinburgh Review in me than of the Westminster."[11]

Robertson lashed out at Mill for allowing control to pass to Cole and Hickson and for loss of his own editorial position, although evidence indicates that Hickson was the one who insisted Robertson should go, for reasons of economy.[12] Mill replied in conciliatory tones:

Robertson presumably replied ill-temperedly and the weary Mill wrote once again, answering five specific points of misunderstanding, and temporarily the long struggle was at an end.

A second ownership crisis took place only a short time later, also recorded faithfully in Cole's diary. Immediately after formal transfer of ownership work began on the next issue. Cole applied himself with his customary tireless energy to recruiting contributors, visiting printers and booksellers, conferring with Hickson and supervising the innumerable details of editing a great review. He called on Hickson as indefatigably as he previously had on Hill and Mill. Evening after evening the diary notes, "writing at review correspondence." The Cole and Hickson families entertained back and forth, and many of Cole's days began with breakfast at the Hicksons. By mid-April he was busy reading proofs and dispatching advertising circulars; the record of calls paid and received day after day on review business is staggering and incessant. The end of May found him, "reading Ms. for next no. of Review," and at length, 26 May, "Review published or rather out today."

Immediately thereafter one senses a let-down; Cole's enthusiasm waned with surprising speed for a man who had recently struggled so ardously to own the quarterly. For 1 June he noted, "Review moving though but slowly." On 22 June he observed, "The Review very torpid," and on 23 June, "Walked with John Mill to town and told him I thought of giving

up the Review to Hickson." On 29 June the diary noted, "review very languid in its sale." On 1 July, in what sounds very much like a council of war, the three men met and the diary stated, "Breakfasted at the Hicksons—J. Mill called there." Finally, on 3 July, at the end of a busy, frantic day in the city, Cole noted, "to Hickson's to tell him abt giving up Review— but he did not seem inclined to take it."

By Wednesday, 8 July, Hickson had evidently resigned himself to the inevitable departure. Cole breakfasted with him and the only thing to be decided was whether they would share the expenses of the last number (September), but by the 13th, the diary recorded: "Called on Hickson in my way home—he agreed to take all the risk of the last number of the Review." Hickson may have felt a clean break was better.

Cole, not seeming to realize that he might have saddled Hickson with an intolerable burden, continued to call and breakfast at Hickson's in most amiable fashion, until 29 July, when the diary observed: "Bkfasted at the Hicksons—I thought Mrs. Hickson seemed rather cool—I dare say because her husband has the Review." On 4 August Cole mentioned "writing short notices for W. Review" and on 10 August "writing a notice of Goethe's theory of Colours which I sent to Hickson," so he did continue to help with the September issue. Indeed, there is evidence in the diary that Cole may have written as many as six or seven of the Critical and Miscellaneous Notices for that number.

Cole worked in a flurry and gave up abruptly but other reasons for the break are not hard to find. Cole had pressed and cultivated shamelessly, but in the last analysis he was perhaps not temperamentally suited to the steady duties of editorship. He also had two other full time occupations with "Records" and "Postage" and his time was short. The suspicion lingers that Cole hoped the Westminster could be made profitable, whereas the reverse was true, and he was not in a position to assume prolonged underwriting. Finally, he was possibly more than a trifle impatient, a young man in a hurry, and the Westminster soon came to seem to him more of a roadblock than a vehicle for progress.

Although Cole was an agreeable man some temporary coolness developed between him and Hickson as a result of this venture. Later entries in the diary refer to Hickson as "stiff," or speak disparagingly of him as a social companion. The diary records that Cole and Robertson gossiped about Hickson at the Reform Club occasionally for a time. At one point, 26 September, Cole records, "met Robertson there who said Hickson had not a spark of a notion of what gentlemanly feeling was." But eventually Cole and Robertson quarreled seriously, to the point of not speaking, and Robertson dropped from sight. Cole was basically an honorable man, caught up in this instance in a kind of youthful overconfidence, while Robertson was a man of little principle and integrity. Cole and Hickson repaired their relationship to the point that Cole contributed articles to the Westminster

in 1841, 1842, 1843 and 1849,[14] and Hickson, when he drew up his will in 1862, left Cole "as a souvenir of the testator" all the French and German books in his library on industrial design.

So the Westminster Review came to rest in the steady, if unimaginative control of Hickson, and only two questions remain to be asked: why, ultimately, did Mill choose Hickson, and what kind of man was he?

When Mill finally faced the fact, early in 1840, that no merger was in sight, and that the review would have to pass either into private hands or into extinction, there were three men who appeared likely as successors. The choice was a difficult one, for to Mill this was not merely a business transaction; it also represented an emotional wrench with the past, and consideration of this caused his views to waver. The basic key to his decision was the relationship of the various men to early Utilitarianism, later simply to liberal thinking, and their willingness to maintain the Westminster as an organ of advanced thought in the future.

Robertson, at 28, was the youngest and most unpredictable. His judgment was suspect. He had no money, but was dependent upon his pen for a living. Perhaps most damaging, he intended to use the review opportunistically to support the Whigs and possibly secure his own political advancement. Cole, 32, was only slightly older. He also had no money and was often forced to practice severe economies to provide for his growing family. He had, however, stronger ties to liberal thought through the Debating Society, and he had proved his ability with his work on Public Records and Penny Postage. Hickson, though perhaps less colorful, had the great advantage of independent wealth, a long record of service to liberal causes, plus a steady determination once he was committed to a project. Mill considered the Cole-Hickson team strong, but in Hickson alone he found a man of competence and dedication to radical causes. If he was somewhat short on editorial experience, this was the one thing he could acquire as he went.

Born in 1803, Hickson was the son of a wealthy boot and shoe manufacturer. He was financially independent and able to devote himself with zeal to educational reform. His father, "Old William," had helped found several Lancastrian schools, and established a utopian community for his workers in Kent, emphasizing education for all, young and old. Young Hickson had a natural foundation for his interest. He early became involved in the innovative program, originated by John Turner, for teaching music and sight-reading to the poor, both as a means of civilizing them and to improve their moral character.[15]

In 1835, he assisted his friend Edwin Chadwick in an inquiry into

conditions of paupers "to secure information on the most improved methods of industrial training adopted for the children of paupers belonging to the industrial unions."[16] In 1839, he went abroad to study Dutch and German schools and published a lengthy report. By 1840, when the editorial negotiations were taking place, Hickson was serving on a commission to study and report on the appalling conditions endured by the unemployed Hand-loom Weavers, concluding that proper education afforded the solution to their problems.

In addition to his established record of public service, Hickson had also been a steady and serviceable contributor without pay to the London and Westminster during Mill's editorship. He submitted five or six articles on municipal reform, taxes on newspapers and fallacies in the poor laws. Mill never forgot this generosity and when Hickson later was in trouble with the Review was always quick to contribute what he could. Writing to Sarah Austin in 1842, he observed about an article:

Hickson was thus well suited by experience and inclination to continue the Westminster as an organ for advanced thought. Mill had noted some years earlier:

This was the course Hickson attempted to chart. Throughout the years of his editorship the Westminster Review championed formally, often combatively, such causes as reform of the law, abolition of taxes on knowledge, reform of the penal system and the poor laws, reform of sanitary and medical laws, and reform of metropolitan government. But first and foremost the review urged reform of education—proper education for pauper and factory children and improved education for the whole of England.

When Hickson decided, in 1851, to part with the review, he could do so in the clear knowledge that he had observed the covenant. Mill wrote to him, 10 March 1851:

Hickson had kept the faith.

Notes