Now, can the Quarterly Reviewer give a fair and complete rejoinder? One obscure man, with an odd name, has attempted it; and Mr. CAMPBELL has publicly, in his capacity as editor of a public journal, pretended to advocate arguments and a mode of reasoning, that I believe he in his heart disdains. If these are the best arguments, I have the worse opinion of his cause, and not the better of his own understanding and manliness of character. I have exposed some of the arguments, because Mr. CAMPBELL, not myself, has thought them worth notice.

But I would fain see what a more powerful, and I hope, among acknowledged scholars and gentlemen, a more candid opponent could do. I would fain see whether Mr. CAMPBELL's own ship could be defended; and who could so well defend it as he who has been called forth to stretch on the bed of critical torture my disinterested advocate !

CAMPBELL is “ angry” without reason; Lord Byron is lofty ; D'ISRAELI is unequal; and GilCHRIST beneath notice.

I should not fear to meet this new and not unknown opponent, well knowing his power, but not unconscious of the goodness of my cause.

What could I do, if the person appointed to defend Mr. Campbell's ship in the Quarterly Review happened to be a Secretary of his Majesty's Admiralty? When I saw him bearing down with full

?

sail upon me, I might, perhaps, exclaim, in the

I
words of Milton,
“ But who is this, what thing of land or sea,

* That so bedeck'd, ornate, and gay,
“ Comes this way sailing',
“ Like a stately SHIP
“ Of Tarsus, bound for the isles

“ Of Java, or Garadi,
“With all her bravery on, and tackle trim,
“ Sails fill'd, and streamers waving,
“ Courted by all the winds that hold them play?"

,

66

What could I do against such a ship of war, commanded by such a personage? Perhaps he was willing to shew the world, that as some “SECRE,

TARIES" of late have been described as having nothing to do, except mending a pen, and looking out of window into the Park, he could not only, in these piping times of peace, mend a pen, but most effectually employ it! to preserve the meta, phor, defend CAMPBELL's ship, and sink and destroy mine! Though his arguments might appear mountains, they would, I have little doubt, at the first approach of truth and fair investigation, vanish, not like Lord Byron's shewy rhetoric, that, on dis, cussion, vanished like Aladdin's palace; but like certain impregnable mountains that were sailed over by Captain Parry, when the Croker Mountains in a moment became what they are likely to remain, as long as ships and seas endure,– the Barrow Straits.

Whether it be so or not, I hope what is now said will be taken in good part, as a proof I have as

little "enmity!' with any writer in the Quarterly, as he can have with me; and hoping, moreover, that we may drop the weapons of contention, as he most

, ardently wishes, whose object has been, (though, vexatus toties, he has replied,)

“Along the cool sequester'd path of life,
“ To keep the noiseless tenor of his way,"

Bremhill, 1822.

LETTER I.

MY LORD,

*

HORNE Tooke, if I remember right, began his well-known letter to JUNIUS in these words : “ Tragedy, Comedy, and Farce,-JUNIUS, “ Wilkes, and Foote,-against one poor parson, “ are fearful odds.” So I might say, Lord Byron,

BYRON and my two late assailants,-APOLLO, MIDAS, * and Punch,—are indeed fearful odds against a country clerk and provincial editor.

But to be more courtly :-in approaching your Lordship as a controversialist upon any point, I am well aware of the great talents opposed to me. I have read, very attentively, your Remarks on my Life of Pope, on the first part

of
my

Vindication in the Pamphleteer, and on my PRINCIPLES of

• A writer in the Quarterly Review, who has reversed every principle of acknowledged criticism. If he be right, Horace is wrong!

“ Who shall decide when Doctors disagree ?"

B

Poetical Criticism, which I had called (foolishly, in your Lordship's opinion) INVARIABLE.

I thank you, my Lord, for this opportunity of stating the grounds of my sentiments more explicitly, (which I know you would not intentionally pervert); and more particularly for the honourable and open manner in which you have met the questions on which we are at issue.

The late contest in which I have been involved, with those of a character so opposite, has tended to make this contrast of urbanity and honourable opposition more gratifying; but from you, my Lord, I was certain I should not meet coarse and insulting abuse, the foul ribaldry of opprobrious contumely, nor the petty chicanery that purposely* keeps out of sight one part of an argument, and wilfully misrepresents another.

Your opposition exhibits none of these little arts of literary warfare. Your letter is at once argumentative, manly, good-humoured, and eloquent.

I am afraid, however, that if those whom I have lately encountered might have thought that “your “Lordship would decide the contest at once,”-in short, “ hit the nail in the head, and BOWLES “in the head also,"—they will be somewhat disappointed.