judgment, after the other matters are fairly and fully considered. The secondly is a simple, bare assertion, unsustained by any thing, unless, perhaps, Mr. C.'s private opinion; and it would be idle to estimate its worth, as such. The first position, as to Sir Walter's admissions, requires a more formal answer: not because it is any nearer to truth than the others, but because the critic has strained every power of his intellect to prove this; and has thereby given a somewhat illustrious specimen of his argumentative power. Before taking this up, however, we will finish our long quotation.

Mr. C. takes the trouble to assure the reader that Scott is entitled to no other consideration than abstract justice; a trouble which we think he might as well have spared himself, inasmuch as the matter is quite undisputed; he also says he has a right to infer that Scott sometimes wrote in his diary when he was not in a fit condition to comment on others - a right which we deny; and a remark which we consider to be in the last degree gratuitous and insulting.

That we may take up Mr. C.'s points in the same order as he presents them, we shall consider one thing more, before we come to Scott's admissions about the Quarterly.

The reader will find on page 350-51 of the October number of this Magazine, a dissertation on letters of introduction: we cannot quote it, for we shall want the room it would occupy. The gist of the matter is this. Mr. Thomas Scott, being constantly applied to for letters to Sir Walter, often found himself in the predicament where thousands of less conspicuous men have been placed: viz., the necessity of giving a letter to some one in himself, perhaps, unexceptionable, but on whom, for reasons of their own, either he or his brother was disposed to confer limited attention. As it was not admissible to refuse the letter, and as a letter so worded as to call for limited civility only, would necessarily offend the applicant, it seemed to be indispensable that some private mark should be adopted, by means of which Thomas could avoid the offence, and Sir Walter, at the same time, could discriminate between his guests. The latter, therefore, requests the former to sign such letters, short, T. Scott, instead of Thomas Scott. We think that the propriety of this arrangement will be obvious to any one who reflects on Scott's situation, and the absolute necessity he was under of limiting his civilities somewhere, unless he were really to give up every other vocation, and devote himself solely to the entertainment of company. Mr. C., however, thinks differently. He thinks that' a little bootless civility' might easily be rendered to all: which opinion, if made applicable to his own guests, instead of other people's, would certainly evince a very hospitable disposition. But, letting that pass, he says: 'How easy would it have been for Mr. Thomas Scott to have given a letter generally and simply expressed, which should mean what it said, and which should not impose any great trouble on his brother; but this might have lost the parties a supporter!" We do not well understand what he means by a supporter; but we think it rather hard that the Messrs. Scotts cannot take the liberty of judging of their own affairs, without being subjected to such an impertinent fling as this. But this is not all, quoth Mr. Cooper. This private mark is not honest. It is deception. A man who will do this, would not hesitate to lie on other occasions. Nay, the mere reader who is not shocked at such moral turpitude the moment he hears of it, is wanting in the very elements of honesty. If,' continueth he, 'the marks do not contradict the words of the letter, they are clearly unnecessary; if they do contradict the words of the letter, they become a deliberate falsehood:' in other words, no cat has two tails; every cat has one tail more than no cat; ergo, every cat has three tails.

With a correspondent of the New-York Mirror, who in a recently published article has anticipated some of our remarks on this and other points, we consider 'the dishonesty of the private mark as mere twaddle. Nevertheless, if Mr. Cooper will have it a lie, and thereupon will consider Sir Walter a dishonest man, we will perhaps, by and by, for the sake of the argument, admit both his premises and his conclusion, and apply them, too, in a way that will not be altogether gratifying to him.

We come, now, to Scott's admissions about the Quarterly. Our critic thus introduces the subject:

'Were we to select any one letter of Scott's, among all those published by Mr. Lockhart, as completely illustrative of the man, we should take that to Mr. Gifford, on the subject of establishing the Quarterly Review. Its length prevents our extracting it entire; but it will be found on page 328, vol. 1., and we earnestly entreat the reader to turn to it himself, and to peruse it with care. This letter is Scott, from the commencement to the end; being full of talents, worldly prudence, management, false principles, insincerity, mystification, and moral fraud. The professed object in establishing the Review, was to set up another tribunal of taste, sound principles, and just criticism in literature. This was what the world had a perfect right to expect, and a perfect right to insist on. Any deliberate or premeditated departure from such a plan, was inherently a fraud; a wrong done to the laws of truth and justice, and consequently a violation of the standards of morality. Any advantage obtained to a collateral and unavowed object, was an advantage obtained under false pretences. Now we learn by this letter, the deep-laid scheme of deception that was practised on the public, the wily and unjustifiable manner in which the real ends were to be obtained, in gradually gaining the confidence of the world, by concealing the true object, until in possession of the public ear by a course of upright reviewing, the periodical might turn its batteries on those it was designed to injure.'

It seems that our critic could not quote Scott's letter entire, because of its length: this is true enough. But his implication that it would have served his purpose to quote it entire, is not true enough, as we will presently show. We will first quote from the letter every line which, according to Mr. C.'s notions of criticism (and they are radical enough), can - together with many which cannot - be so tortured as to warrant his strictures :

the cause of administration. Such a derehction of independence would render us entirely useless for the purpose we mean to serve. On the other hand, nothing will render the work more interesting than the public learning, not from any vaunt of ours, but from their own observation, that we have access to early and accurate information in point of fact.'

'At the same time, as I before hinted, it will be necessary to maintain the respect of the public by impartial disquisition; and I would not have it said, as may usually be predicated of other Reviews, that the sentiments of the critic were less determined by the value of the work, than by the purpose it was written to serve. If a weak brother will unadvisedly put forth his hand to support even the ark of the constitution, I would expose his arguments, though I might approve of his intention and of his conclusions. I should think an open and express declaration of political tenets, or of opposition to works of a contrary tendency, ought for the same reason to be avoided. I think, from the little observation I have made, that the whigs suffer most deeply from cool, sarcastic reasoning and occasional ridicule. Having long had a sort of command of the press, from the neglect of all literary assistance on the part of those who thought their good cause should fight its own battle, they are apt to feel with great acuteness any assault in that quarter; and having been long accustomed to push, have in some degree lost the power to parry. It will not, therefore, be long before they make some violent retort, and I should not be surprised if it were to come through the Edinburgh Review. We might then come into close combat with a much better grace than if we had thrown down a formal defiance.'

Now, defying our critic to point out a line not here quoted from Scott's letter, which will justify a syllable of his insinuation, assertion, or argument, against that letter or its writer, we here subjoin his farther remarks upon it, in which he, too, quotes, and garnishes his extracts with sundry italics and small capitals:

'It was alleged that the Edinburgh had embarked in politics, abusing its professions also, and that it was necessary to counteract its influence by a similar publication. The fair and honest course would have been, to assail the political opinions of the Edinburgh directly, trusting to reason and facts for success; and so Scott tacitly admits himself, for he censures the fraud of the Edinburgh loudly, and certainly he could not have believed that any fault of Mr. Jeffrey's could justify a fault of Sir Walter Scott's. We repeat the invitation to the reader to turn to the letter itself; to peruse it with care; to reflect on what the governing motive of one concerned in establishing such a work ought to be; to see what that avowed by Scott actually was; and we leave the result to his own judgment. In order, however, to point out how deep-laid was the fraud, we make a few extracts, ourselves: 'It would not certainly be advisable that the work should assume, especially at the outset, a professed political character. On the contrary, the articles on science and miscellaneous literature ought to be of such a quality, as might fairly challenge competition with the best of our contemporaries. BUT AS THE REAL REASON OF INSTITUTING THE PUBLICATION, IS THE DISGUSTING AND DELETERIOUS DOCTRINES, WITH WHICH THE MOST POPULAR OF OUR REVIEWS DISGRACES ITS PAGES, IT IS ESSENTIAL TO CONSIDER HOW

THIS WARFARE SHALL BE MANAGED.' 'At the same time, as I before hinted, it will be necessary to maintain the respect of the public by impartial disquisition, and I would not have it said, as may usually be predicated of other reviews, that the sentiments of the critic were less determined by the value of the work, than by the purposes it was writen to serve.' 'I should think, an open and express declaration of political tenets, or of opposition to works of a contrary tendency, ought, for the same reason, to be avoided. Of the deep deception proposed in this letter, it is unnecessary to speak; but what are we to think of Mr. Gifford, as well as of Scott, when, the subject of establishing a Review being in discussion between them, the latter gravely reminds the former, that it will be necessary to maintain the respect of the public by impartial disquisition' - meaning, only, too, as we shall unanswerably show, presently, until the public confidence was obtained? It strikes us very much as if two well-dressed fellows should go out into the world, with an understanding that they would be on their good behaviour until they got into a set where gold snuffboxes might reward their light-fingered dexterity.

It will be seen, by comparing our critic's quotations with our own, that although he could not give, in his article, Scott's letter entire, he did, nevertheless, extract every line and word therefrom out of which he could

'find or forge a fault;'

yet, according to his way of telling the story, the reader is led to believe that the whole of this long letter is one mass, one concatenation, of such diabolical mares' nests as those here dressed up for him in italics and small capitals.

We have now nearly finished our quotations of Mr. C.'s proofs of Scott's admissions, etc., and we will hurry through the remainder, after a few indispensable comments on the preceding long extract.

'The fair and honest course would have been,' etc., what the critic suggests here would undoubtedly have been a fair and honest course : but that such was the only fair and honest course, is a matter resting on his simple assertion, and nothing else: but, he says, Scott tacitly admits that this was the only fair and honest course. Scott does no such thing. The reader may look at the extract, and judge between Scott's censuring the Edinburgh was nothing approaching to such an admission, unless he himself did that for which the Edinburgh was censured and there, to be sure, is the point at issue: but we shall not allow Mr. Cooper to beg the question after this fashion : he must prove it.

us.

'We repeat the invitation to the reader,' etc. So do we. We wish he would reflect on what the governing motive of one concerned in establishing such a work ought to be; to see what that avowed by Scott actually was; and, with entire confidence as to what his decision will be, 'we leave the result to his own judgment.'

As to the italics and capitals - we have read them over three or four times; and have come to the conclusion that there is not much argument in them, because the printer can dress up any thing else in the same way. The sentences themselves do not strike us with any more force, either for or against Scott, than they did and do in ordinary type: and, indeed, we candidly confess that, to our apprehension, the mischief in them is so effectually disguised, that we cannot see it even with the aid of Mr. C.'s typographical illumination.

'Of the deep deception proposed in this letter, it is unnecessary to speak;' here, again, we exactly coincide with our critic: but we can't easily reconcile his paradox of being compelled, by a sense of duty, to speak so very much on a subject of which,' he avers, 'it is unnecessary to speak' at all.

'But what are we to think of Mr. Gifford, as well as of Scott, when the latter gravely reminds the former, that it will be necessary to maintain the respect of the public by impartial disquisitions?'' We can tell Mr. Cooper one thing: he can think what he pleases about Mr. Gifford; but if that matchless critic were alive, his better part of valor would be to say as little as possible; especially, unless he could bring an accusation which, unlike the foregoing, implied something to his dis-credit. True, he goes on to speak of the meaning of that italicised line; but somehow or other, his meanings and his constructions seem all the while to be directly in the teeth of obvious, common-sense, honest interpretations: of which perversions, however, (to quote his own words in another place,) 'we should think the better, (i.e. the less unfavorably,) if we could find a single instance in which they have not been practised for his own purposes.'

We proceed with his proofs. After a graceful digression, to show the hypocrisy of Scott's political creed, and to show, also, how he had sold himself to the royal family, he says:

'But to return to the history of this review, as it is connected with Scott. Bad as were the motives avowed, and unjustifiable as was the proposed mode of proceedings, it seems there was a wheel within a wheel, and that Scott deceived Gifford, as he wished Gifford to deceive the public. It is altogether a curious and melancholy specimen of profound deception, which Mr. Lockhart naïvely qualifies by the word frankness!' In a letter to his brother Thomas, page 332, vol. 1., Scott draws aside the veil, and we find the real reason of his agency in establishing the Quarterly, which appears to have been entirely, or, in a great measure, at least, personal. In urging his brother to contribute, he says: 'He (Gifford) made it a stipulation, however, that I should give all the assistance in my power, especially at the commencement, to which I am, for many reasons, nothing loth.' 'Constable, or rather that bear his partner, (who published the Edinburgh,) has behaved to me of late not very civilly, and I owe Jeffrey a flap with a fox-tail, on account of his review of Marmion; and thus doth the whirligig of time bring about my revenges.'

Scott, he says, deceived Gifford: how? Why 'he draws aside the veil, (!) and we find the real reason of his agency in establishing the Quarterly, which appears to have been entirely, or in a great measure, at least, (i. e., sort o' and sort o' not,) personal.' 'This is much,' quoth Christopher Sly; but this is not the worst. 'Scott, for many reasons, was nothing loth' to assist Gifford, as he had promised: i. e., he was willing to do what he had promised to do: and - vox faucibus hæsit!having a grudge against Constable's partner and also against Jeffrey, (who were connected with the Edinburgh,) he thus gets his revenge! We must acknowledge, this time, that we do not wonder at our critic's indignation.

Once again, Mr. C. quotes from another letter Scott's admission that, in criticising the Curse of Kehama, he reviewed it favorably: i. e., he ' slurred over the absurdities and enlarged upon the beauties of the work.' Now Mr. C., of all the men on the face of the whole earth, should be the very last to complain of the criticism which 'slurs over absurdities and enlarges upon beauties;' but waiving the ad hominem, let us see what he says about Scott's admission:

'All this was worthy of a Grub-street hack. In the first place, we see the utter want of principle, which palms off on the public dishonest reviewing; and then follows the miserable salvo for his own talents, by declaring what he would have done, had not the unjustifiable course he actually took, been part of the system.'

It seems, then, that if a critic, anonymously reviewing the poem of a friend, ventures to say what he thinks of the beauties, and omits saying what he thinks of the faults, he evinces 'an utter want of principle.' It is by precisely such argument as this, that, from the beginning to the end of Mr. Cooper's review, Scott's moral character is denounced.

But, 'he then declares what he would have done, had not the unjustifiable course he took been part of the system. Our critic's manner of stating this, leads the reader to suppose that what we have here italicised, is a part of Scott's own words: and therefore that Scott tacitly avowed that his course was unjustifiable, and also admitted that he took that course in conformity to a system, by which he was