Autobiography HTML version

of Bentham and of the eighteenth century, may have carried me, though in appearance
rather than in reality, too far on the contrary side. But as far as relates to the article on
Coleridge, my defence is, that I was writing for Radicals and Liberals, and it was my
business to dwell most on that, in writers of a different school, from the knowledge of
which they might derive most improvement.
The number of the Review which contained the paper on Coleridge, was the last which
was published during my proprietorship. In the spring of 1840 I made over the Review to
Mr. Hickson, who had been a frequent and very useful unpaid contributor under my
management: only stipulating that the change should be marked by a resumption of the
old name, that of Westminster Review. Under that name Mr. Hickson conducted it for ten
years, on the plan of dividing among contributors only the net proceeds of the Review
giving his own labour as writer and editor gratuitously. Under the difficulty in obtaining
writers, which arose from this low scale of payment, it is highly creditable to him that he
was able to maintain, in some tolerable degree, the character of the Review as an organ of
radicalism and progress. I did not cease altogether to write for the Review, but continued
to send it occasional contributions, not, however, exclusively; for the greater circulation
of the Edinburgh Review induced me from this time to offer articles to it also when I had
anything to say for which it appeared to be a suitable vehicle. And the concluding
volumes of Democracy in America, having just then come out, I inaugurated myself as a
contributor to the Edinburgh, by the article on that work, which heads the second volume
of the Dissertations.