ubtless a consequence of this fluency. He has not
taken time to make them short. They often resemble the summing-up of a
judge, who goes through the evidence on both sides in the order in which
it has been presented to him, and then states the 'observations which
arise' and the 'general result' (to use his favourite phrases). A more
effective mode of presenting the case might be reached by at once giving
the vital point and arranging the facts in a new order of subordination.

The articles, however, had another merit which I take to be exceedingly
rare. I have often wondered over the problem, What constitutes the
identity of a newspaper? I do not mean to ask, though it might be asked,
In what sense is the 'Pall Mall Gazette' of to-day the same newspaper
as the 'Pall Mall Gazette' of 1865? but What is meant by the editorial
'We'? The inexperienced person is inclined to explain it as a mere
grammatical phrase which covers in turn a whole series of contributors.
But any writer in a paper, however free a course may be conceded to him,
finds as a fact that the 'we' means something very real and potent. As
soon as he puts on the mantle, he finds that an indefinable change has
come over his whole method of thinking and expressing himself. He is no
longer an individual but the mouthpiece of an oracle. He catches some
infection of style, and feels that although he may believe what he says,
it is not the independent outcome of his own private idiosyncrasy. Now
Fitzjames's articles are specially remarkable for their immunity from
this characteristic. When I read them at the time, and I have had the
same experience in looking over them again, I recognised his words just
as plainly as if I had heard his voice. A signature would to me and to
all in the secret have been a superfluity. And, although the general
public had not the same means of knowledge, it was equally able to
perceive that a large part of the 'Pall Mall Gazette' represented the
individual convictions of a definite human being, who had, moreover,
very strong convictions, and who wrote with the single aim of expressing
them as clearly and vigorously as he could. Fitzjames, as I have shown
sufficiently, was not of the malleable variety; he did not fit easily
into moulds provided by others; but now that his masterful intellect had
full play and was allowed to pour out his genuine thought, it gave the
impress of individual character to the paper in a degree altogether
unusu