ABSTRACT
in the first number of the National Review its editor, Alfred Austin, described a conversation he had had with Disraeli in April 1881, scarcely a fortnight before the Conservative chieftain’s death. Picking up a copy of “a celebrated and able Review” [undoubtedly the Nineteenth Century with its famous symposia] “‘Curious, is it not?’ he said. ‘Reading an article in this publication, I find it demonstrated that there is no God. Going a little further, and perusing another paper in the same number, I discover that the Pope is God’s vicegerent. Well, this is a little perplexing.’” That observation and what followed led Austin to remark on the singular fact that “the Conservative Party had no monthly Review, dedicated, like the one to which [Disraeli] had referred, to the discussion of subjects, not only political, but philosophical, literary, and social,” and addressed to “the more intellectual portion of the public.” Such a Review “might present to the nation the various aspects of Conservative sentiment and opinion … which fair and reasonable minds would find to be substantially consentaneous, and practically one.” Thus, the National Review had its origin—though not necessarily on this day—in the need for a new force at a time when the quarterlies were losing influence and the leading monthlies were the liberal Fortnightly and the many-opinioned, “perplexing” Nineteenth Century.
