deas among the middle classes, but it was not yet committed to
radicalism, and did not win its way into cottages until its price was
greatly reduced in 1816. After Cobbett's death in 1835, it ceased to
appear. Still the ice was broken, and, as the educated public recovered
from the panic caused by the French revolution, the newspaper press
became a potent and independent rival of parliament and the platform.

[Pageheading: _EDINBURGH AND QUARTERLY REVIEWS._]

But the influence of the _Edinburgh_ and _Quarterly Reviews_ was perhaps
even greater among readers of the highest intelligence. The first of
these was founded in 1802 by Jeffrey, Brougham, Horner, and Sydney
Smith, but was supported at first by Scott and other able contributors.
So remarkable a body of writers must have commanded attention in any
age, but at a time when the only periodicals were annuals and
miscellanies, the literary vigour and range of knowledge displayed by
the new review carried all before it. For several years it had an unique
success, but, as it identified itself more and more with the whig party,
Canning, with the aid of Scott, determined to challenge its supremacy by
establishing a new review to be called the _Quarterly_. Scott was
finally estranged from the _Edinburgh_ by an article against the war of
independence in Spain, and the first number of the _Quarterly_ appeared
in February, 1809, with three articles by him. It was published by John
Murray, and edited by Gifford, on much the same lines as the
_Edinburgh_, but with a strong tory bias, and with somewhat less of
literary brilliancy. _Blackwood's Magazine_ followed a few years later,
and the almost classical dualism of the _Quarterly_ and _Edinburgh_ has
long since been invaded by a multitude of younger serials.

After the loss of its early monopoly of talent, the _Edinburgh Review_
still retained Jeffrey and Sydney Smith, and it was abundantly
compensated for the loss of Scott by the acquisition in 1825 of the
fluent pen of Macaulay. Born in 1800, the son of Zachary Macaulay, who
like many other philanthropists was on the tory side, he was early
converted to the whig party. He was well fitted to be a popular writer.
His thought, never deep, is always clear and vivid. None knew better how
to seize a dramatic incident or a picturesque simile, or to strike the
weak points in his adversary's armour. It has been said of him that he
always chose to storm a position by a cavalry charge, c