crowd upon us, that if we were to quote them all, they would occupy many pages of our journal.

"In our last number we could only allude to this volume, and the elaborate and philosophical nature of its contents prevent us from doing much more just now."-p. 21.

"There seems to us no sufficient grounds for calling him an unkind son."-p. 194.

"The present work surpasses his (Mr. Alcock's) former publications, and deserves to be placed amongst the best which has lately appeared on the nature and treatment of diseases."-p. 185.

"But the details of his history warrant the supposition that, neither his own interest, nor personal advancement were the motives of his courting the favour of the king by seconding his views."-p. 225.

To correct the syntax of the Gazette would be, indeed, an endless labour. What does the reader think of a critic, who thus pronounces an opinion upon a certain novel?

"Not an historical romance after Sir Walter Scott, only enacted in modern days; but rather chronicles scandaleuse' like those of Comines, and like those chronicles, with nothing of what is commonly called scandal in them."-p. 38.

Passing over the bad English and the worse French of this sentence, we ask whether the critic does not say in the same breath, that the book is scandalous and not scandalous? Captain Crowe's Memoirs, after furnishing six columns of extract, are dismissed with the following beautiful sentence :

"But all our readers now sabby as much of dis Captain Crowe as 'ebery dog in kingston' did, or at least as we can make them sabby; and so we must hold no more palaver. !!!"—p. 66.

Such is the language of a critical publication, calling itself a "Journal of the Belles Lettres"! The same critic, after pronouncing an eulogium on Becker's German Grammar, says :

"The difficulty of rendering the sense of German terminology into English is the chief obstacle, which had to be overcome, and we think it has been surmounted as far as possible."-p. 71.

In what English dictionary is the word terminology to be found? What does it mean? Does it mean the science of language, or of boundaries? If the former, what is meant by the " sense of German terminology"?

One should think that an author criticising his own work would be able, in his own Gazette, to explain himself in language at least unambiguous. We admit at once the modesty of his apology. "Our only resource is to state the truth candidly, and leave the truth to the judgment of our readers. We feel confident in their confidence, and in having deserved it; and therefore need only state that these criticisms emanate from the pen of a gentleman intrusted with the department of our Journal to which they belong; that the editor has such entire reliance upon his impartiality and

integrity, that he would deem it an affront to alter a syllable he had written." We shall say nothing of the impartiality displayed in the sentence which follows.

"Upon the whole, we are free to say, that this portrait gallery well earns its very extensive popularity; for it can boast of original and well executed portraits, at a price which nothing but an immense sale could render possible; and the memoirs have at least great pains taken to ensure their authenticity."-p. 155.

The memoirs, it seems, take pains to ensure their own authenticity!

"The hint of this very clever and very entertaining trifle seems to be taken from Pickard's five-act comedy; but the author has, with his wonted skill, condensed its spirit into an olympic nutshell, all kernel, though enlivened with the maggots of Mrs. Edwin."-p. 173.

We do not believe, that the English language contains a simile more unfortunate than this in every respect. It violates good taste, it is inapplicable to the subject, and highly offensive to the person to whom it is, evidently, the intention of the writer to pay a compliment !

"The author of the present life (of Cranmer) has done wisely in quoting his authorities for such positions as contravene former opinions; and in laying down his own, neither dogmatically nor unsupported, he has entitled himself to the claim of a fair and judicious biographer."-p. 225.

The sentence is inelegant, vague, and ungrammatical. We can guess at the critic's meaning, in saying that the author of the Life has entitled himself to the claim of a fair and judicious biographer;" but this language does not express the idea which he intended to convey: unsupported is a most unhappy expression; if used at all, it should have been as an adverb-unsupportedly.

"These adventures, (of a Playwright), we are sorry to say, are exceedingly commonplace: the mere usual routine of two young lovers, separated by cruel fate, and brought together by such accidents as falls from vicious horses, being nearly drowned, but not quite, meeting at every strange turn of life, saving from the clutches of what the Irish call an abductor, and other cases of rescue too tedious to mention, till in the end they are rivetted together fast as the law can make them.”—p. 212.

Here is a jumble indeed! Passing over the questionable propriety of the phrase "exceedingly commonplace," what are we to make of the remainder of the sentence? What verb does "the mere usual routine" govern? Supposing we admit that the sentence is rendered intelligible by this construction, "these adventures are the mere usual routine," &c., are we also to carry on the syntax in this way-"these adventures are the mere usual routine," " and other cases of rescue too tedious to mention"? Assuming that lovers may be "separated by cruel fate, and brought together by such accidents as falls from vicious horses, being nearly drowned, but not quite, meeting at every strange turn of life," accidents which it

must be allowed are very awkwardly described, what are we to understand by the next member of the sentence, "saving from the clutches of what the Irish call an abductor"? Who is saved? What is saved? How does this saving separate, or bring the lovers together?

"Our disappointment is the greater, as we looked for an abundance of whim, anecdote, and smart observation, not only on the stage, but on society at large. Having, however, but a sprinkling of these qualities, we shall do our endeavour to illustrate the volume in the most favourable light by their selection."-Idem.

The first of these two sentences leaves it in doubt whether the critic looked in the book for "an abundance of whim, anecdote, and smart observation," or on "the stage" and "society at large." From the second sentence we collect, that it is in himself these "qualities" (an anecdote being, according to this writer, a quality) reside, for he says, "Having, however, but a sprinkling of these qualities, we shall do our endeavour (a very graceful style truly!) to illustrate the volume in the most favourable light by their selection." To illustrate means of itself to brighten with light, so that the adoption of the word light in the sentence is an unpardonable tautology. Then the selection is to be their selection, that is to say, a selection made by the qualities of" whim, anecdote, and smart observation," which, as we have just seen, are not in the

volume but in the critic!

To these precious specimens of the style of the Literary Gazette we might have added a great many others, if we had any desire, as we really have not, to wound the feelings of the Editor of that Journal. We have produced enough to assist the world of readers in appreciating the character of a publication, which affects to guide their taste upon matters of criticism. We leave it to them to discover the principle, upon which men can, to any useful or legitimate purpose, dissect and estimate the writings of others, who, in the very sentences in which they convey their observations, betray a degree of ignorance, or want of care, infinitely more deserving of censure, than the worst of the productions upon the demerits of which they have the courage to pronounce. It is time that this humbug should cease.

Indeed we have many reasons for believing that it will cease, and that speedily too. We have before us the prospectus of a new periodical, to be entitled "The Metropolitan," and to be edited by Mr. T. Campbell and Mr. Redding, the late editor and sub-editor of the New Monthly Magazine. The paper in which they announce the new Journal contains a disclosure, which coming from those gentlemen, experienced as they have been in the arts of the trade for the last ten years, is of singular literary importance. "The employment," say the ex-conductors of the New Monthly Magazine, "of every description of periodical work as a medium for diffusing false impressions of the character of new publications,

has, in the present day, been carried to such an extent, as to injure seriously the cause of literature. Authors and publishers have been alike the victims of this prevailing evil." Here is an astounding confession!—and that from two individuals who have been not a little behind the curtain, and not a little implicated in the maintenance of the very system which they now denounce!

We live indeed in a reforming age, and upon no other head of public grievance is the want of a thorough change much more to be desired, than upon that of the puff system, the rotten borough system of literature. Our readers will bear witness, that at a time when the streams of periodical literature were all corrupted at their sources, when no criticism was tolerated among the publishers, which was not tuned to uniform praise; when the "puff system" was in its most palmy state of prosperity; the voice of this journal was raised fearlessly, though alone, in vigorous and determined resistance against the numerous authors and booksellers, who combined their efforts, for the purpose of forcing upon the public a species of literature unworthy, in every respect, of the past and living intellect of England. The principles of taste and of justice by which we were sincerely guided, were misrepresented as mere malignity. Some persons asserted that we censured particular works, because we had not been bribed; and that we were outrageous against others, because we had been highly paid to bring them by abuse into notice! It was the custom of most of the booksellers to advertise their publications, in the sheet set apart for that purpose in this journal. Several withdrew their advertisements because we would not lend ourselves to the chorus of applause, by which their new speculations were successively ushered into the world. Among these, some thought that they might do with us, just as they pleased. It was amusing to watch the manner in which, for a while, they coquetted with us before they finally declared off. A book was really good, and we accordingly displayed its merits. Advertisements, from which, by the way, we derive a most contemptible profit, came in the next month with wonderful alacrity. Unfortunately, the next publication, perhaps, was some trashy compilation, which we exposed to well deserved punishment--that is, to no sale; we, in turn, were punished by no advertisements! In that respect our pages exhibited a melancholy blank, which the sages conceived would soon bring us to our critical senses. This, however, was not the case; we remained perfectly callous to the alteration, and praised and censured exactly as we thought just, in every case, and the advertisements followed or were withheld accordingly, until we committed a monstrous and unpardonable offence, by detecting some errors which appeared in the first volume of a particular series, since when we have been, we believe, altogether cut off from the splendid patronage of the persons to whom we allude!

We might reveal a similar piece of counting-house diplomacy

on the part of another firm, who complained of the multiplied contradictions which our pages gave to their paragraphs in the newspapers, and to the criticisms of their sub-editors and contributors, in certain magazines. If we would allow their puffs to deceive the public only for a while, until the impressions of their books were sold off, then we might say what we liked. But we were too quick with our attentions. We anticipated their magazine, and sometimes even their newspaper paragraphs :-hence no more advertisements!

But this is not all. A custom has long existed, according to which every work of any importance, which an author wished to have noticed in the more respectable periodical journals, has been presented to the editors. The custom may probably have had its origin in an idea, not altogether unfounded, that if the editors were obliged to purchase such works as they might think most worthy of their attention, a great mass of those which issue from the press would come forth still-born. This is undoubtedly true. We conceive ourselves to be so far under an obligation to those who transmit their productions to us, as to think it necessary to pay immediate attention to them, and by so doing, we fully return the compliment. But as, on the one hand, we have never allowed that a work should receive an iota of praise, beyond what its intrinsic merits entitled it to, merely because it had been presented to us, so on the other, we have scrupulously abstained from censuring any book, merely because it has been withheld from us by the author or publisher. We may have postponed our notice of such a book, and sometimes passed it by altogether; but if we should chance to buy or borrow it, we have uniformly treated it with the same measure of justice in all other respects, as we should have done, had it been placed gratuitously in our hands. It was very clear, however, that certain publishers, whom delicacy prevents us from naming, conceived that they created a more serious obligation than we ever admitted, or ever will admit, by the presentation of their works; for as soon as they found that we were not to be trained to join in the jargon of indiscriminate applause by which their adventures were uniformly introduced, they systematically withheld them from our journal. In pursuing this course they saved us from a great deal of trouble, as we thus had not the labour of wading through piles, which have since become the property of the trunk-makers, while it was silly in those persons to suppose, that we need ever allow any work of peculiar interest to escape the tribunal of the Monthly Review. We montien these things in order to shew the sordid spirit of trade, which has for some years insinuated itself into our literature, and at the same time to encourage other journalists who hope to succeed, as we have succeeded, in resisting the attempts which have been, and still are, incessantly made, in order to establish a monopoly in criticism. We say "as we have succeeded," for we believe that the integrity of this Review