Let us look, in the order we have mentioned, at some representatives of the press in its various forms.

Each of the principal reviews represents a political party, and at the same time, in most cases, a religious denomination; and they owe much of their interest to the controversial spirit thus engendered.

REVIEWS.—­First among these, in point of origin, is the Edinburgh Review, which was produced by the joint efforts of several young, and comparatively unknown, gentlemen, among whom were Francis (afterwards) Lord Jeffrey, Lord Murray, Mr. (since Lord) Brougham, and the Rev. Sydney Smith.  The latter gentleman was appointed first editor, and remained long enough in Edinburgh to edit the first number.  Thereafter Jeffrey conducted it.  The men were clever, witty, studious, fearless; and the Review was not only from the first a success, but its fiat was looked for by authors with fear and trembling.  It became a vehicle for the efforts of the best minds.  Macaulay wrote for it those brilliant miscellanies which at once established his fame, and gave it much of its popularity.  In it Jeffrey attacked the Lake poetry, and incurred the hatred of Byron.  Its establishment, in 1803, was an era in the world of English letters.  The papers were not merely reviews, but monographs on interesting subjects—­a new anatomy of history; it was in a general way an exponent, but quite an independent one, of the Whig party, or those who would liberally construe the Constitution,—­putting Churchmen and Dissenters on the same platform; although published in Edinburgh, it was neither Scotch nor Presbyterian.  It attacked ancient prescriptions and customs; agitated questions long considered settled both of present custom and former history; and thus imitated the champion knights who challenged all comers, and sustained no defeats.

Occupying opposite ground to this is the great English review called the London Quarterly:  it was established in 1809; is an uncompromising Tory,—­entirely conservative as to monarchy, aristocracy, and Established Church.  Its first editor was William Gifford; but it attained its best celebrity under the charge of John Gibson Lockhart, the son-in-law of Sir Walter Scott, a man of singular critical power.  Among its distinguished contributors were Southey, Scott, Canning, Croker, and Wordsworth.

The North British Review, which never attained the celebrity of either of these, and which has at length, in 1871, been discontinued, occupied strong Scottish and Presbyterian ground, and had its respectable supporters.

But besides the parties mentioned, there is a floating one, growing by slow but sure accretion, know as the Radical.  It includes men of many stamps, mainly utilitarian,—­radical in politics, innovators, radical in religion, destructive as to systems of science and arts, a learned and inquisitive class,—­rational, transcendental, and intensely dogmatic.  As a vent for this varied party, the Westminster Review was founded by Mr Bentham, in 1824.  Its articles are always well written, and sometimes dangerous, according to our orthodox notions.  It is supported by such writers as Mill, Bowring, and Buckle.