Church."[1] It must be recognized, however, that Carlyle's approval at that time of the function of the press collectively, may have been colored by his strong admiration of Edward Sterling, then editor of The Times, of whose editorials he enthusiastically writes, "Let the most gifted intellect, capable of writing epics, try to write such a Leader for the Morning Newspapers! No intellect but Edward Sterling's can do it."[2]
It was of Lord Acton as editor that his biographer writes: "Few readers of these Letters but will rid themselves of prevalent opinions as to the ease with which a serious magazine may be conducted, or as to the levity with which grave articles are put into print. Probably no Minister of State ever performed his duties more conscientiously than Acton his as essayist or reviewer; none in any department of affairs could give to the details of office a more anxious attention, a more exhaustive care."[3]
It is also not always understood that the work of the editor extends far beyond the range of his own paper. As is so well illustrated in the editorial work of E. P. Clark,[4] the skilful conscientious editor is ever on the alert to detect signs of unusual ability in newspaper work in every section of the country, to discover "who is trying to find out the truth and tell it, in the face of absolute persecution from all the other papers in his State," and to encourage him by friendly personal letters, and by editorial commendation .
The social evolution of the editor has probably had no small effect on the influence of the editorial. The early writer for the press not only lived on Grub Street, but the nature of his work was not understood and was long held in ill-concealed contempt. The biographer of Alaric Watts, writing of journalism about 1822, says that it was not "held in high esteem as an occupation, and was indeed, save in few and exceptional instances in which the political influence of the particular daily newspaper had secured a corresponding influential recognition of the writer for it,
