College of Glasgow, October 23, 1829.

DEAR SIR, Though the Homoöpathic system has done me, personally, so much good, that I could not find it in my heart to laugh it down, as I might otherwise have been inclined to do, yet I am, I assure you, no implicit believer, and shall be very willing to modify any expressions you will take the trouble to mark as too strong, when the proof-sheets of the article are sent to me. What you say about facts in support of false systems is undoubtedly true, but facts do make a stronger impression upon one's own senses than when arrayed in the liveliest description, and I have certainly seen and felt strange things in this matter of Homoöpathie.1— Believe me, dear Sir, your faithful and obedient,

D. K. SANDFord.

M. NAPIER TO M'CULLOCH.

Edinburgh, October 28, 1829.

MY DEAR M'CULLOCH,-I have now perused your article, and I should not do justice to you, if I did not thank you for this excellent contribution. It contains many new and strikingly applied facts and reasonings. The novelty and appositeness of the information cannot but be serviceable to the Review, and to the cause of commercial freedom. In short, it is one of your most effective articles. I hope you will get up an article on the French Financial System for next Number. I am working to get the present Number off my hands before the commencement of my class. I know not how I shall be able to bear up under the complicated labours of the winter. From being a new editor, I am inundated with correspondence about the Review, by applicants who expect, I suppose, to find me needy and ready to take whatever is offered. I shall

"Williams on

1 Article 10, No. 100, January, 1830: "New System of Cure-Hahnemann's Homoöpathie." Sir Daniel subsequently contributed :-"Sotheby's Specimens of a New Version of Homer," Art. 7, July, 1830. the Geography of Ancient Asia," Art. 2, June, 1831. "Greek Philosophy of Taste," Art. 2, September, 1831. "Greek Authoresses," Art. 8, April, 1832. "Greek Banquets," Art. 4, January, 1833. "Cary's Poetical Translation of Pindar," Art. 6, April, 1834. "Mitchell's Acharnenses," Art. 2, July, 1835. "Greek Idylls," Art. 2, July, 1836.

of Athens," Art. 5, July, 1837.

2 "French Commercial System," October, 1829.

"Bulwer's Rise and Fall

unquestionably increase the phalanx of contributors, but not without proper precautions as to my men. This Number will contain some things which are not to my liking, and some not so good as I had hoped; but it will be an excellent one, if I do not greatly mistake. It will have two articles from Jeffrey, who has behaved to me in the kindest manner. His desire to oblige me is sufficiently manifested by his doing for me what he has not, for a long time, done for himself. Do not blame me for inserting another blow at the Utilitarians. I have softened its severity, and I am bound to say that Macaulay has behaved handsomely. It is easy to blame, but will any considerate person say that a new editor ought to throw the old supporters of the Review into revolt, by premature opposition to their wishes? I shall not be behind any man in determination, when I can act on solid and prudent considerations.-Most truly yours, M. NAPIER.

FRANCIS JEFFREY.

Craigcrook, October 17, 1829. MY DEAR NAPIER,-I now send you a very slight account of the Lady Fanshawe, and along with it two reviews by Brougham. He says he is to send another, on some of his Diffusion of Knowledge subjects, which I daresay you would readily dispense with, but which I take it you cannot refuse. He is exceedingly anxious to have his name concealed as an author, and entreats me to obtest you to secrecy by every form of conjuration. At this rate you will scarcely need Felicia (Hemans), but I shall probably do her since my hand is in, and as you are anxious about short articles, you may perhaps find her of use to stop a gap. Now, I foresee you will begin to suffer from the embarras des richesses, though you have hitherto chiefly apprehended the contrary. But you will find it, as I always did, by far the worst embarras of the two, when your space is limited, and the difficulty of putting off those you have solicited is constantly increasing. God help you well through this and all other embarras.-Ever very truly yours, F. JEFFREY.

October 28, 1829.

Your thanks are
You know how

MY DEAR N., This [Felicia Hemans] I believe will do. You may look over a revise if you wish it. very flattering, but they rather surprise me. sincerely I am interested in the prosperity of the Review, and I hope never have doubted my disposition to serve or to gratify you. Whether I do any real service to the former by these hasty contributions, I must be permitted to consider as more doubtful than you would represent it. But it is, at all events, entirely in the second F. J.

a satisfaction that I have not failed object.-Ever very faithfully yours,

November 5, 1829.

MY DEAR N.,-I think you have determined wisely as to Brougham, and I assure you you have done no more than I should have done in the same circumstances. I do not think it at all likely that a similar embarras will occur again. I do not pretend to understand Brougham's whole game. But the very worst I surmise is, that he is keeping aloof till he sees what sort of a Number you bring out, and how it is received and supported, and I anticipate that he will either fly off, or come cordially round before the next. At all events, let me beg that you would not turn your thoughts to giving up the Review, if otherwise prosperous, on this account. If a necessity should arise for resisting Brougham, and this leads to a rupture, it will be much easier and better for the cause to throw off him than the Review. But we should not familiarise ourselves with these extremities.-Ever yours,

F. JEFFREY.

November 23, 1829.

MY DEAR N.,-I have run hastily over the No. [October 1829], and say privately to you that I think it does you great credit, and is clearly above the average of late Numbers. Macaulay 1 I think admirable. The beginning is too merely controversial, and as it were personal, but after he enters on the matter, he is excellent. It is out of sight the cleverest and most striking thing in the Number. Your American

1 “Utilitarian Theory of Government."

reviewer 1 is not a first-rate man-a clever writer enough, but not deep or judicious, or even very fair. I have no notion who he is. If he is young, he may come to good, but he should be trained to a more modest opinion of himself, and to take a little more pains, and go more patiently and thoroughly into his subject. Cousin2 I pronounce, beyond all doubt, the most unreadable thing that ever appeared in the Review.3 The only chance is, that gentle readers may take it to be very profound, and conclude that the fault is in their want of understanding. But I am not disposed to agree with them. It is ten times more mystical than anything my friend Carlyle ever wrote, and not half so agreeably written. It is nothing to the purpose that he does not agree with the worst part of the mysticism, for he affects to understand it, and to explain it, and to think it very ingenious and respectable, and it is mere gibberish. He may possibly be a clever man. There are even some indications of that in his paper, but he is not a very clever man, nor of much power; and beyond all question he is not a good writer on such subjects. If you ever admit such a disquisition again, order your operator to instance and illustrate all his propositions by cases or examples, and to reason and explain with reference to these. This is a sure test of sheer nonsense, and moreover an infinite resource for the explication of obscure truth, if there be any such thing. The Chemistry is more shallow than I expected, and omits in a great measure the great topics of Heat and Galvanism. But it is clear, direct, and, for its compass, very concise. I like Brougham's. They are not brilliant, but they are strong, straightforward, and, to my taste, not tiresome, even the Useful Knowledge.-Now, there is my word on the whole. thing, and I have only to add Imprimatur and macte virtute. -Ever yours, F. JEFFREY.

1 Hazlitt (article on Dr. Channing).

2 By Sir William Hamilton.

"I think the review of Cousin has no fault but that of not being in the least degree adapted to English or British understandings, for whom it should have been meant. But the writer is a very clever man, with whom I should like to have a morning's tête-à-tête."-Sir James Mackintosh.

4 66 History and Present State of Chemical Science," by the late Dr. Thomas Thomson of Glasgow.

5 "Lord King's Life of Locke." "Auldjo's Ascent of Mont Blanc."

Society of Useful Knowledge." "New French Ministry."

T. B. MACAULAY.

London, December 1, 1829. MY DEAR SIR,-I ought before this time to have answered more at length the kind letter which I had from you some weeks back. I have been busy with a long and complicated Parliamentary case, of which I have at last got rid, and I hope that I shall be able to do something for the next Number. I will try my hand again on Southey's book. What is your latest day? I should like to have the last place, if possible. I have not spoken to anybody about Niebuhr, or rather, I have not made any agreement on the subject. I mentioned it to a man of great knowledge and abilities, who declined it, because he was not sufficiently intimate with the original German. He will, however, write an article on Lord Redesdale's new edition of Mitford's History; and I really expect from him an elegant, learned, and popular essay on Greek history and literature. I am glad that the new Number is well spoken of at Edinburgh. It is not yet out here. I cannot say that I am quite satisfied with it; for, though very respectable in general, it seems to me. rather deficient in energy and animation.-Ever yours very truly, T. B. MACAULAY.

GEORGE CORNEWALL LEWIS.

3, Lincoln's Inn Fields, December 1, 1829. SIR, Though not having the honour of being personally known to you, I take the liberty of troubling you with this communication, not only in your public character of editor of the Edinburgh Review, but also under the authority of the letter which Mr. M'Culloch has been kind enough to write for me. It is my object to prepare an article on the subject of Education at Eton. I had the good or bad fortune to pass several years of my life at that school, and having conceived. a strong opinion against the system of the English Public Schools generally, but being only acquainted with the system of Eton in particular, I have thought that public opinion is sufficiently advanced to bear an exposure of its system. I