scene, his retirement in Canada
, is a loss to his friends, but a still greater loss to his country,
Hardly inferior in influence to Parliament itself is journalism.
I do not conceive of Mr. John Morley
as made for filling that position in Parliament which Mr. Goldwin Smith
would, I think, have filled.
If he controls, as Protesilaos in the poem advises, hysterical passion (the besetting danger of men of letters on the platform and in Parliament) and remembers to approve “the depth and not the tumult of the soul,” he will be powerful in Parliament; he will rise, he will come into office; but he will not do for us in Parliament, I think, what Mr. Goldwin Smith
would have done.
He is too much of a partisan.
In journalism, on the other hand, he was as unique a figure as Mr. Goldwin Smith
would, I imagine, have been in Parliament.
As a journalist, Mr. John Morley
showed a mind which seized and understood the signs of the times; he had all the ideas of a man of the best insight, and alone, perhaps, among men of his insight, he had the skill for making these ideas pass into journalism.
But Mr. John Morley
has now left journalism.
There is plenty of talent in Parliament, plenty of talent in journalism, but no one in either to expound “the signs of this time” as these two men might have expounded