A movement which appeals not to the emotions, but to the intellect—­whose advocates aim at enlightening-the public mind and convincing it of the truth of some new or disregarded principle, and the necessity of enforcing it—­needs above all things open and active opposition, both as a stimulant to its supporters and as a means of arousing general attention.  It has been very unfortunate for our Civil-Service Reformers that they have never been able to provoke discussion.  They have had the field of argument all to themselves.  Their repeated challenges have been received only with silent respect, scornful indifference, or expressions of encouragement still more depressing.  Those whose hostility they were prepared to encounter have been the readiest to acknowledge the truth of their propositions—­ considered as pure abstractions—­and have even invited them to apply their system—­in conjunction with that which it seeks to supplant.  Meanwhile, the popular interest has been kept busily absorbed by issues of a different nature; and the Reformers, snubbed in quarters where they had confidently counted on aid, and hustled from the arena in which they had fondly imagined they were to play a prominent part and exert a decisive influence, are now, it is announced, about to devote their energies to the quiet propagation of their views by means of tracts and other publications, abstaining from any appearance in the domain of actual politics either as a distinct party or as an organized body of independent voters appealing to the hopes and fears of existing parties, and ready to co-operate with one or the other according to the inducements offered for their support.

We heartily wish them success in this new enterprise, and it is as a contribution to their efforts that we publish in this number of the Magazine an article which, so far as our observation extends, is the first direct argumentative attack upon their doctrines and open defence of the system they have assailed.  We shall not undertake to anticipate their reply, but I shall content ourselves with pointing out, on the principle of fas est ab hoste doceri, what they may learn from this attack, and especially what hints may be derived from it in regard to the proper objective point of their proposed operations.  Hitherto, if we mistake not, they have been led to suppose that the only obstacles in their way are the interested antagonism of the “politicians” and the ignorant apathy of the great mass of the people, and it is because they have found themselves powerless to make head against the tactics of the former class that they intend to confine themselves henceforth to the work of awaking and enlightening the latter.  There is always danger, however, when we are expounding our pet theories to a group of silent listeners, of ignoring their state of mind in regard to the subject-matter and mistaking the impression produced by our eloquence.  George Borrow tells us that when preaching in Rommany