their thoroughly workmanlike character from the journalistic point of
view, their avoidance of "viewiness," their strict adherence to the one
or two simple points which he is endeavouring at any particular
juncture in politics to enforce upon his readers, and the steadiness
with which he keeps his own and his readers' attention fixed on the
special political necessities of the hour. His articles, in short,
belong to that valuable class to which, while it gives pleasure to the
cultivated reader, the most commonplace and Philistine man of business
cannot refuse the to him supreme praise of being eminently "practical."
They hit the nail on the head in nearly every case, and they take the
plainest and most direct route to their point, dealing in rhetoric and
metaphor only so far as the strictly "business" ends of the argument
appear to require. Nothing, for instance, could have been better done,
better reasoned and written, more skilfully adapted throughout to the
English taste, than Coleridge's criticism (3lst Dec. 1799) on the new
constitution established by Bonaparte and Sieyes on the foundation of
the Consulate, with its eighty senators, the "creatures of a renegade
priest, himself the creature of a foreign mercenary, its hundred
tribunes who are to talk and do nothing, and its three hundred
legislators whom the constitution orders to be silent." What a
ludicrous Purgatory, adds he, "for three hundred Frenchmen!" Very
vigorous, moreover, is he on the ministerial rejection of the French
proposals of peace in 1800, arguing against the continuance of the war
on the very sound anti-Jacobin ground that if it were unsuccessful it
would inflame French ambition anew, and, if successful, repeat the
experience of the results of rendering France desperate, and simply
reanimate Jacobinism.

Effective enough too, for the controversial needs of the moment,
was the argument that if France were known, as Ministers pretended,