(Westminster Review, January 1852)
According to the Wellesley Index, Vol. III, the Prospectus was written jointly by Eliot and John Chapman, though it is likely that Eliot was responsible for the bulk of it. The object was to seek support and potential contributors for the re-launched journal.
John Chapman had agreed to buy the Westminster from William Hickson on 1 May 1851, having previously been offered financial support from Edward Lombe, a philanthropic supporter of liberal causes. Realizing that he did not possess the requisite intellectual or editorial skills, Chapman turned to Eliot for assistance, visiting her in Coventry on 27 May. The following evening they cut short a visit to a concert in order to discuss plans for the new journal. He recorded in his diary on 29 May that he ‘wrote the greater part of the Prospectus today, and then gave it to M. [i.e., Marian Evans] to finish’ (Haight, George Eliot and John Chapman, 1969 edition, p. 30).
Eliot worked steadily on the revision, going without dinner in order to finish it. Charles Bray’s printer set it in type, and it was quickly sent out to a dozen likely supporters. The reaction was not favourable. James Martineau wrote to Hickson that Chapman ‘sent me a Prospectus in print, which I could not pretend to approve; for I thought it ill-written and poor in substance: and I fear I have offended by not praising it. If he assumes the Editor’s office, the Review is conclusively ruined. He is an enterprising publisher and a clever man: but it is his misfortune that he does not know his limits, and is ambitious of a literary function, for which he is not qualified’ (Wellesley Index, Vol. III, p. 546n). J. S. Mill was equally scathing, writing to Chapman that ‘The Prospectus says that the Review is to be “distinctly characterized by certain definite but broad principles”; but instead of laying down any such principles it contains little else than details of the measures which the Review will advocate on the principal political questions just now discussed in the newspapers’ (H. Elliott, ed., Letters of John Stuart Mill, Vol. I, 1910, pp. 162–4).
Eliot wrote to Chapman on 12 June 1851, ‘I heartily wish the Prospectus had been longer delayed and thought over before it was sent out.… everything has been too hurried’ (Letters, Vol. I, p. 351). The Prospectus was rewritten by her in August, and it is this second draft that was published in the first issue of the Westminster that she edited.
For a full account of the negotiations about her editorship (and their attendant emotional complications), see Haight’s George Eliot and John Chapman (1969 edition), pp. 28–40.
THE NEWLY-appointed Editors will endeavour to confirm and extend the influence of the Review as an instrument for the development and guidance of earnest thought on Politics, Social Philosophy, Religion, and General Literature; and to this end they will seek to render it the organ of the most able and independent minds of the day.
The fundamental principle of the work will be the recognition of the Law of Progress. In conformity with this principle, and with the consequent conviction that attempts at reform – though modified by the experience of the past and the conditions of the present – should be directed and animated by an advancing ideal, the Editors will maintain a steady comparison of the actual with the possible, as the most powerful stimulus to improvement. Nevertheless, in the deliberate advocacy of organic changes, it will not be forgotten, that the institutions of man, no less than the products of nature, are strong and durable in proportion as they are the results of a gradual development, and that the most salutary and permanent reforms are those, which, while embodying the wisdom of the time, yet sustain such a relation to the moral and intellectual condition of the people, as to ensure their support.
In contradistinction to the practical infidelity and essentially destructive policy which would ignore the existence of wide-spread doubts in relation to established creeds and systems, and would stifle all inquiry dangerous to prescriptive claims, the Review will exhibit that untemporizing expression of opinion, and that fearlessness of investigation and criticism which are the results of a consistent faith in the ultimate prevalence of truth. Convinced that the same fundamental truths are apprehended under a variety of forms, and that, therefore, opposing systems may in the end prove complements of each other, the Editors will endeavour to institute such a radical and comprehensive treatment of those controverted questions which are practically momentous, as may aid in the conciliation of divergent views. In furtherance of this object, they have determined to render available a limited portion of the work, under the head of ‘Independent Contributions’, – for the reception of articles ably setting forth opinions which, though not discrepant with the general spirit of the Review, may be at variance with the particular ideas or measures it will advocate. The primary object of this department is to facilitate the expression of opinion by men of high mental power and culture, who, while they are zealous friends of freedom and progress, yet differ widely on special points of great practical concern, both from the Editors and from each other.
The Review will give especial attention to that wide range of topics which may be included under the term ‘Social Philosophy’. It will endeavour to form a dispassionate estimate of the diverse theories on these subjects, to give a definite and intelligible form to the chaotic mass of thought now prevalent concerning them, and to ascertain both in what degree the popular efforts after a more perfect social state are countenanced by the teachings of politico-economical science, and how far they may be sustained and promoted by the actual character and culture of the people.
In the department of Politics careful consideration will be given to all the most vital questions, without regard to the distinctions of party; the only standard of consistency to which the Editors will adhere being the real, and not the accidental relations of measures – their bearing, not on a ministry or a class, but on the public good. The work being designed as an exponent of growing thought, the Editors cannot fully indicate the course they will pursue, but their political tendencies may be inferred from their intention that the Review shall support the following Reforms:
A progressive Extension of the Suffrage, in proportion as the people become fitted for using it, with a view to its ultimate universality, as the only equitable system of representation.
Such an adjustment of the Central Government and the local liberties of the people as, while allowing full scope for the popular energies, will secure the effective execution of measures dictated by the highest intelligence of the nation.
The extension to all our Colonies of a Local Constitutional Government, adapted to their specific wants and capabilities, with the establishment of such relations between them and the mother country as shall best insure their permanent connection, and accord to them that influence in the Imperial Legislature to which they have a rightful claim, and which would tend to the consolidation and stability of the empire.
Free Trade in every department of Commerce.
A radical Reform in the Administration of Justice, especially in the Court of Chancery, including the simplification and expediting of all legal processes.
A thorough revisal of the Ecclesiastical Revenues, with a view to their national and equitable use in promoting the intellectual and spiritual advancement of the people.
National Education, under the combined management of locally-appointed officers and of Commissioners deriving their authority from Parliament; together with such a modification and extension of our University and Public School systems as may render them available irrespective of the distinctions of sect.
In the treatment of Religious Questions the Review will unite a spirit of reverential sympathy for the cherished associations of pure and elevated minds with an uncompromising pursuit of truth. The elements of ecclesiastical authority and of dogma will be fearlessly examined, and the results of the most advanced biblical criticism will be discussed without reservation, under the conviction that religion has its foundation in man’s nature, and will only discard an old form to assume and vitalize one more expressive of its essence. While, however, the Editors will not shrink from the expression of what they believe to be sound negative views, they will bear in mind the pre-eminent importance of a constructive religious philosophy, as connected with the development and activity of the moral nature, and of those poetic and emotional elements, out of which proceed our noblest aspirations and the essential beauty of life.
In the department of General Literature the criticism will be animated by desire to elevate the standard of the public taste, in relation both to artistic perfection and moral purity; larger space will be afforded for articles intrinsically valuable by the omission of those minor and miscellaneous notices which are necessarily forestalled by newspapers and magazines, and equivalent information will be given in a series of Historical and Critical Sketches of Contemporary Literature, comprehending a notice of the most remarkable books, both English and foreign, that may appear during each successive quarter.
The Review will in future be published by JOHN CHAPMAN, 142 Strand, to whose care all communications for the Editors must be addressed.