Stuart Mill) both the _Edinburgh_ and the _Quarterly_. In 1836 Sir
William Molesworth's recently established _London Review_ was united
with the _Westminster_, and, after several changes of joint title,
continued since 1851 as the _Westminster Review_. Since 1887 it has been
published as a monthly of Liberal policy and "high-class philosophy."
The _Dublin Review_ (London, 1836) still continues quarterly as a Roman
Catholic organ; similarly the _London Quarterly Review_, a Wesleyan
organ, has been published since 1853. Of the quarterlies now defunct, it
will suffice to mention the dissenting _Eclectic Review_ (1805-68) owned
and edited for a time by Josiah Conder; the _British Review_ (1811-25);
the _Christian Remembrancer_ (1819-68), which was a monthly during its
early history; the _Retrospective Review_ (1820-26, 1853-54) conducted
by Henry Southern and afterwards Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas as a
critical review for old and curious books; the _English Review_
(1844-53); and the _North British Review_ (1844-71), published at
Edinburgh. The impulse toward the study of continental literature during
the third decade of the century gave rise to the _Foreign Quarterly
Review_ (1827-46); the _Foreign Review and Continental Miscellany_
(1828-30) and the _British and Foreign Review_ (1835-44), continued as
the _British Quarterly Review_ (1845-86).

A most determined effort to rival the older quarterlies resulted in the
_National Review_, founded in 1855 by Walter Bagehot and Richard Holt
Hutton. Its articles were exhaustive, well-written and thoroughly
characteristic of their class. In addition to the excellent work of both
editors, there were contributions by James Martineau, Matthew Arnold,
and Hutton's brother-in-law, William Caldwell Roscoe. Yet, in spite of
the high standards maintained until the end, the _National_ ceased
publication in 1864. The many failures in this class of periodicals seem
to indicate quite clearly that the spirit of the age no longer favors a
quarterly. For our energetic and progressive era such an interval is too
long. The confirmed admirer of the elaborate essays of the _Edinburgh_
and the _Quarterly_ will continue to welcome their bulky numbers; but
the average reader is strongly prejudiced in favor of the more frequent,
more attractive and more thoroughly entertaining monthlies.

It is one of the curiosities in the history of periodical literature
that no popular monthly developed during the fir