MR. JEFFREY. THE Quarterly Review arose out of the Edinburgh, not as a corollary, but in contradiction to it. An article had appeared in the latter on Don Pedro Cevallos, which stung the To ies to the quick by the free way in which it spoke of men and things, and something must be done to check these escapades of the Edinburgh. It was not to be endured that the truth should out in this manner, even occasionally and half in jest. A startling shock was thus given to established prejudices, the mask was taken off from grave hypocrisy, and the most serious consequences were to be apprehended. The persons who wrote in this Review seemed "to have their hands full of truths," and now and then, in a fit of spleen or gayety, let some of them fly; and while this practice continued, it was impossible to say that the Monarchy or the Hierarchy was safe. Some of the arrows glanced, others might stick, and in the end prove fatal. It was not the principles of the Edinburgh Review, but the spirit that was looked at with jealousy and alarm. The principles were by no means decidedly hostile to existing institutions: but the spirit was that of fair and free discussion; a field was open to argument and wit; every question was tried upon its own ostensible merits, and there was no foul play. The tone was that of a studied impartiality (which many called trimming) or of a sceptical indifference. This tone of impartiality and indifference, however, did not at all suit those who profited or existed by abuses, who breathed the very air of corruption. They know well enough that "those who are not for them are against them." They wanted a publication impervious alike to truth and candour; that, hood-winked itself, should lead public opinion blindfold; that should stick at nothing to serve the turn of a party; that should be the exclusive organ of prejudice, the power; that should go the whole length of want of pe palliating every dishonest measure, of want of decency, a la la ing every honest man; that should prejudge every qu duce every opponent; that should give no quarter to or liberal sentiment; that should be "ugly all over wih 2.5and present one foul blotch of servility, intolerance, I... £ and ill manners. The Quarterly Review was accuei "Sithence no fairy lights, no quick nang may, Nor stir of pulse, nor object to entice This event was accordingly hailed (and the omen has bee filled!) as a great relief to all those of his Majesty s gu: are firmly convinced that the only way to have th:229 exactly as they are is to put a stop to all inquiries wiede are right or wrong, and that if you cannot answer a man ments, you may at least try to take away his character We do not implicitly bow to the political opina-CA DE U critical decisions of the Edinburgh Review; but we tice to the talent with which they are supported, and of manly explicitness in which they are delivered' eminently characteristic of the Spirit of the Age, as express object of the Quarterly Review to discouSTFRISKY extinguish that spirit, both in theory and practice. The La burgh Review stands upon the ground of opinion; a supremacy of intellect: the preeminence it claims acknowledged superiority of talent and information and attainment, and it does not build one tittle of its influence an rance, or prejudice, or authority, or personal majeure takes up a question, and argues it pro and com with great ledge and boldness and skill; it points out an absurdity, and ra The style of philosophical criticism, which has been the boast of the burgh Review, was first introduced into the Monthly Review about the 1796, in a series of articles by Mr. William Taylor, of Norwich. down, fairly, and according to the evidence adduced. In the rmer case, its conclusions may be wrong, there may be a bias in e mind of the writer, but he states the arguments and circumances on both sides, from which a judgment is to be formed-it not his cue, he has neither the effrontery nor the meanness to Asify facts or to suppress objections. In the latter case, or where vein of sarcasm or irony is resorted to, the ridicule is not barbed y some allusion (false or true) to private history; the object of it as brought the infliction on himself by some literary folly or olitical delinquency which is referred to as the understood and ustifiable provocation, instead of being held up to scorn as a knave or not being a tool, or as a blockhead for thinking for himself. In the Edinburgh Review the talents of those on the opposite side tre always extolled pleno ore-in the Quarterly Review they are lenied altogether, and the justice that is in this way withheld from hem is compensated by a proportionable supply of personal abuse. A man of genius who is a lord, and who publishes with Mr. Murray, may now and then stand as good a chance as a lord who is not a man of genius and who publishes with Messrs. Longman: but that is the utmost extent of the impartiality of the Quarterly. From its account you would take Lord Byron and Mr. Stuart Rose for two very pretty poets; but Mr. Moore's Magdalen Muse is sent to Bridewell without mercy, to beat hemp in silk-stockings. In the Quarterly nothing is regarded but the political creed or external circumstances of a writer; in the Edinburgh nothing is ever adverted to but his literary merits. Or if there is a bias of any kind, it arises from an affectation of magnanimity and candour in giving heaped measure to those on the aristocratic side in politics, and in being critically severe on others. Thus Sir Walter Scott is lauded to the skies for his romantic powers, without any allusion to his political demerits (as if this would be compromising the dignity of genius and of criticism by the introduction of party-spirit) while Lord Byron is called to a grave moral reckoning. There is, however, little of the cant of morality in the Edinburgh Review and it is quite free from that of religion. It keeps to its province, which is that of criticism-or to the discussion of debateable topics, and acquits itself in both with force and spirit. This is the natural consequence of the composition of the two |