the acute and generalizing powers of the leading critic, if freed from the adhesive slime of party, might render to a country which at no former time so greatly needed the light of a vi ure in favour of those authors with whom they may stand connected by arty alliance, and by the sodalitium f clubs and societies. This partia ty, although it falls under the imrecatory censure of their fulmina-gorous and intelligent mind. Amid the sacrifices which have been made to party-spirit, (if indeed we are. to regard it as consummated,) a more powerful understanding and more varied talent have never been immolated than by the individual to whom we allude with a mixture of respect and sorrow. ing motto, may be pardoned to the reakness of humanity. There are ven other temptations under which he critic who yields to them may laim our commiseration, if not our ardon. A severe attack upon a poular demagogue, or an incendiary tribbler, may draw down his veneance, not perhaps on the person re- But, omitting and pardoning the ponsible for the review, (for the ma- departure of the journal from its duager himself may consider the at- ty, whether for fear or favour, and empted retribution only as matter of cancelling at once its sins of omission, ontempt,) but upon friends engaged the Edinburgh critics must still be political life, and bestirring them-arraigned for the strange and unjus lves in that stormy ocean, where a ale from any quarter is hazardous. Here, therefore, the call of friendship likely to predominate; the provoked Cerberus must be propitiated, and, stead of dragging him to day with he arm of Hercules, the reviewer, in oeful inactivity, sits down, like Theus beside Pirithous, and sacrifices his wn honour and duty to the security f his friend. We are much mistaken such feelings did not somewhat aralyze the attack upon Cobbett, hich, whatever the Edinburgh reiewer may suppose, gained him more redit with the moderate part of the ublic than ought to have been sacrited to the fear of exposing any of le critical fraternity to the illiberal rulence of the Political Register. We write these things rather in sorw than in anger, and own our lves more disappointed upon recent ccasions, that we had formerly seen e lion pawing to deliver himself om the sordid soil with which he as encumbered, and have had more lan one glimpse of the service which tifiable despotism of visiting, upon the literary productions which have no concern with politics, the supposed political attachments of the authors. It is inconceivable to what trivial motives may be traced the shade of censure which pervades a whole article. A dedication to an obnoxious character, the praise bestowed upon one public man, or the omitting to praise another, the censure inflicted, or the compliment withheld in a passing paragraph, are quite sufficient to colour the whole character of a work in the Edinburgh Review. This has even been carried still farther; for there are instances in which the author has not left a single opening through which his political opinions could be glanced at; and yet he has been arraigned upon his general character, and his productions, literary, philosophical, or historical, turned the seamy side without, solely because his party-faith did not square with that of his reviewer. In such cases the Edinburgh critics seem to adopt the opinion of Sir Lucius O'Trigger, who held it tic keeps one eye upon the authe merits, and industriously watches wi the other his political acts and mons; and where an individual marked as falling under the ban the party, a direct attack upon his terary reputation is perhaps the le he has to dread, since there are, in t course of such an extensive work thousand modes of obliquely assaili him, by illustration, comparison.or lusion. And these insidious anim versions are the more dangerous, cause in such a passing observati the critic is at liberty to assume! premises on which they are fou ed, which, in a direct attack, he is der the necessity of supporting proof. Now, considering how wi sound reason to call a man to account for a sentiment he had never uttered, and was so subtle a disputant as to differ from one who was not at the moment giving any opinion at all. So sweeping a charge of gross and glaring partiality, of which the purpose is to write up the characters of men of their own party, and to write down that of all others, it may be said, ought not to be hazarded without some proof. Now for this our limits are unfortunately too narrow; but if any reader will have the curiosity to divide the authors reviewed for these last five years into two classes, we pawn our credit, that out of those whom the Edinburgh critics are visibly inclined to favour, and those upon whom they exhaust the rigours ofly party differences extend throug criticism, he will be able to form free country like Britain, and a black and a white list, in which much the good, the learned, the wi Pittites and Foxites shall be as regu- and the accomplished have diffe larly arranged in opposite columns as upon political points, we cannot in a division in the House of Com- regret that the Shibboleth of pa mons. This partiality does not, it is should be fixed upon as a pass-w true, altogether weigh down the scale to the favour of a court of literatu of favour, or lighten that of censure, What we now think of Winstar but we distinctly aver, that it gives a who declared that Milton's fame i strong cast to the beam. It is the become extinguished and stu! leaden bias, which, however conceal- because he reviled our sovereign ed from sight, and small in proportion king Charles," will be the opinion to the circumference of the bowl, future times concerning all criti however liable tobe more or less coun- whether Whig or Tory, Pittite teracted by the manner in which the Foxite, who shall make their liter player delivers it from his hand, has decisions truckle to party politics still a subtle and controuling influence upon the course which his cast pursues. In a word, as every mess dressed by a Spanish cook relishes somewhat of garlic, this unfortunate spirit of party gives more or less a tone and colour to the most ingenious criticisms in the Edinburgh Review. In some cases, it cools the praise which it dares not altogether suppress; in others, it mitigates and qualifies the censure which it cannot entirely withhold. The cri Having said thus much upon predominance which a party spirit gained in the general conduct of 1 able journal, it becomes less necessi to notice those articles in which, general admission, as well as by very charter of their office, the viewers are called upon to deliver | litical opinions. In this departm the Edinburgh Review once asser an independence of public men a party leaders, as absolute as their juration of bookselling management. The controversy with a certain noble peer upon the Sources of National Wealth, the angry retort of his lordship, and suppressed rejoinder of the critic, are not yet forgotten, and may be contrasted with the fond indul gence extended to a later and still poorer production of the same noble lord upon Indian affairs. But the progressive course of human affairs will not always permit a systematic assertion of the lofty independence with which the generosity of youth commences its career. Every step which a political adventurer makes in his advances into public life, convinces him how little unassisted and isolated talent is able to raise its possessor to the distinction of which he is laudably ambitious. At every turn a friend is to be acquired, or an enemy to be soothed and conciliated; the jealousy of party favours no man's views who does not place himself with entire devotion in its phalanx, and the voice of the boldest and most independent patriot is lost and drowned, unless the crowd upon one side or other of the House shout in chorus to it. And if it should be observed by a reasoner, attentive to the circumstances of parties, that the situation and habits of the manager of the Edinburgh Review have removed him from this gradual entanglement in the toils of a party, it will only remain to inquire, whether this has been the case with his principal and most powerful as sistants; and whether friendship for these persons, and gratitude for the support they have uniformly afforded him, may not be as potent a bribe to a generous mind as the direct and sordid temptation of ambition or selfinterest. So, however, it has happened, that the Edinburgh Review has become the distinct and pronoun VOL. II. PART II. ced eulogist and defender of a party in the House of Commons, whose cause they advocate with as much keenness and address as eloquence and talent. We are not entitled to censure them for adopting opinions which may not coincide with our own ; but upon some occasions of great and predominating interest, we have longed to have seen them throw off their harness and their trammels, and give, with the independence that always claims hearing, and the native talent and acquired information that uniformly command attention when audience is gained, their unbiassed judgement upon affairs, before the momentou importance of which every thing like the selfish. interest of a party ought to become invisible. But of late we have been able to trace no symptom of a "self-denying ordinance," nor do we see any chance of purchasing the countenance or councils of the Edinburgh Review at a cheaper price than a total change in the ministry of the country. This cold and pettifogging esprit de corps never disgusted us more than when the Spanish war has been the subject of discussion. We willingly wave descending to particulars; but it is impossible to read these articles without suspecting a lurking desire on the part of the writer to see his original predictions of evil success verified by the event; nor are we much assured of the contrary by the reviewer's late assurances, that he detests Buonaparte almost as much as his Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the other ministers who have so obstinately withheld from the friends of the journal the seats to which they were so clearly entitled, upon the brocard, dentur dignioribus. With these reflections we dismiss this celebrated journal, regretting that 20 we should have had occasion to mingle so much censure where there is ample room for praise and admiration. The length at which we have treated the nature and conduct of a work which has so strongly influenced the modern taste in criticism, will enable us to dispatch rapidly what we have to offer upon periodical publications of the same nature. But lo! to fierce encounter in mid air The determined party-spirit exhibited in the Edinburgh Journal has already excited a formidable antagonist in the Quarterly Review, conducted upon nearly the same plan, and avowedly supporting opposite opinions in politics. The rapid and extensive circulation of this journal, when opposed to a redoubted opponent already in possession of the field, with no less than ten or twelve thousand subscribers, seems to justify the censure we have ventured to attach to the narrow, partial, and exclusive principles upon which the Edinburgh Review has been conducted. For, although the Quarterly Review has exhibited many articles of great beauty and talent, it will hardly be said that it could, in its very nonage, have made a stand against the Edinburgh work, had the latter added to its extensive reputation for 'eloquence, acuteness, wit, and talent, the yet higher praise of moderation and impartiality. The opening, how ever, has been afforded, and the enemy has availed himself of it. The general sense and feeling of a great proportion of the country has at once enabled a rival publication, under the numerous disadvantages with which such must always struggle during its infancy, to place itself in opposition to these giants of criticism with a sup port originally respectable and constantly increasing. As politicians, we see this with pleasure, since, without being sworn to either party, our feelings incline most strongly to the cause espoused by the Quarterly critics, even if we were not seduced by the superior eloquence which, upon party subjects, they have almost uniformly displayed. As moderate men, we re joice in an opportunity of hearing both sides of a political question ably sta ted and supported, by persons whose powers and opportunities of informa tion are so far beyond those by whom such points are usually disputed in periodical publications. Butas friends to the general cause of literature, we cannot but deprecate the tendency on both sides to involve its interest in the tumultuous and partial discussions to which politics uniformly give oc casion. It gives us no pleasure to see either party prepare his whitewash to be used whenever the other shall have applied his blacking-ball. These obvious partialities, by which the author's political creed is made the gage of his literary proficiency, we censure alike in both cases; or, if we impute more blame to the Edinburgh Journal, it is because it led the way to the introduction of so unjust and mischievous a criterion of judgement. As to other particulars, the plan and conduct of the Quarterly Review has been closely formed upon that of the Edinburgh; so that, in taking a view of the principles of modern periodical criticism, what has been said of the one will be found to apply pretty nearly to the other. They are both conducted by persons of high literary distinction, and supe rior to all bookselling influence; and the very party-spirit, of which we complain so heavily, is undoubtedly the means in both cases of procuring voluntary contributions from persons high in situation as in talent, who, in these bustling times, could scarcely have been enlisted out of mere regard to literature. The Quarterly Review has on some occasions appeared to lose sight of politics while treat ing of abstract points of literature; but on others it has been as violent and acrimonious as the critics of the North. We will leave them, therefore, to arrange their pretensions to public favour, being pretty certain that it will be finally determined by the shew of hands in favour of their respective politics. The establishment of these two works, as the Gog and Magog of critieism, had greatly thrown into the shade the ancient and established reviews of Great Britain. Even the Monthly and Critical Journals, long at the head of this class, are considerably shorn of their beams. They partook of the evils which we have already seen attached to the old regime, and although different attempts have been made to new-model them upon the fashionable plan of discipline, they have not been as yet able to regain much weight with the public. The most obvious feature in their rivals' criticism is its stern, caustic, and uncompromising tone. It seemed also more easy to imitate the northern Aristarchs in this point than in the extent of their information, or the lively and forcible arrangement of their argument. But severity and rudeness have now lost their novelty, and the public, who were at first disposed to believe that such language could never have been employ ed without some cause existing to merit it, now regard violence of expression as the vox signata of critiism, used in every case as a matter of course, and having no more actual meaning in her court than the legal fiction in a writ of latitat. On another principle an attempt was made, and very creditably supported, to extend the period of the publication adopted by the Edinburgh reviewers from a quarterly to an annual period. But the advantages which attended the departure from the monthly plan were not found equally to accompany a further prolongation of the term, and, after some time allowed for the experiment, the Annual Review returned to the old system, and, if we mistake not, is now published monthly. It was a moderate and sensible work, under the conduct of a most respectable publisher; but, from the taste which the public had acquired for what is pungent and picquant in this species of writing, it fell short of the success which it merited. Various other attempts to establish new reviews, upon the principles so successfully adopted in Edinburgh, have also failed. But one of these was on a plan so new as to demand separate notice. We allude to the London Review, a work instituted by the late Richard Cumberland, with the professed purpose that each piece of criticism should bear in front the name of the party by whom it was composed. There was something generous and spirited in the conception of this plan. "The man," said the venerable author," who, in this genuine spirit of criticism, impartially distributes praise or blame to the works he reviews, has no more need to hide his name than the tradesman has who records himself over his shop-door,-for whom has he to fear, or of what to be ashamed? Learning has no truer friend, genius no better counsellor, no safer guide. Every one must confess |