Let us now look at the first of these paragraphs. The opening sentence is inaccurate at all points. The word “government” does not give the author’s idea with sufficient definitiveness; for the term is _more_ frequently applied to the _system_ by which the affairs of a nation are regulated than to the act of regulating. “The government,” we say, for example, “does so and so”—meaning those who govern. But Macaulay intends simply the act or acts called “governing,” and this word should have been used, as a matter of course. The “Mr.” prefixed to “Southey,” is superfluous; for no sneer is designed; and, in _mistering_ a well-known author, we hint that he is not entitled to that exemption which we accord to Homer, Dante, or Shakspeare. “_To_ Mr. Southey” would have been right, had the succeeding words been “government _seems_ one of the fine arts:”—but, as the sentence stands, “_With_ Mr. Southey” is demanded. “Southey,” too, being the principal subject of the paragraph, should precede “government,” which is mentioned only in its relation to Southey. “One of the fine arts” is pleonastic, since the phrase conveys nothing more than “a fine art” would convey. The second sentence is quite as faulty. Here Southey loses his precedence as the subject; and thus the “He” should follow “a theory,” “a public measure,” etc. By “religion” is meant a “_creed_:”—this latter word should therefore be used. The conclusion of the sentence is very awkward. Southey is said to judge of a peace or war, etc., as men judge of a picture or a statue, and the words which succeed are intended to explain _how_ men judge of a picture or a statue:—these words should, therefore, run thus:—“by the effect produced on _their_ imaginations.” “Produced” moreover, is neither so exact nor so “English” as “wrought.” In saying that Southey judges of a political party, etc., as _men_ judge of a picture, etc., Southey is quite excluded from the category of “men.” “_Other_ men,” was no doubt originally written, but “other” erased, on account of the “other men” occurring in the sentence below. Coming to this last, we find that “a chain of association_s_” is not properly paralleled by “a chain of reason_ing_.” We must say either “a chain of association,” to meet the “reason_ing_” a “chain of rea_sons_” to meet the “associations.” The repetition of “what” is awkward and unpleasant. The entire paragraph should be thus remodeled. With Southey, governing is a fine art. Of a theory or a public measure—of a creed, a political party, a peace or a war—he judges by the imaginative effect; as only such things as pictures or statues are judged of by other men. What to them a chain of reasoning is, to him is a chain of association; and, as to his opinions, they are nothing but his tastes.