whatever else might be done. The rejoicings of the former, and
the discomfiture of the latter, soon bore witness to the ability and
success of this new-fledged champion. But this one-sided state of things
could not continue always. The Tories, too, must have a mouth-piece
to testify of their devotion to "the good old cause," and silence
the clamors of their opponents. Accordingly, in 1809, appeared the
"Quarterly Review," with Gifford as editor, and Scott, Southey, Croker,
Canning, and others, as chief contributors. Under the conduct of such
men, it became at once an organ of great power, yet still not quite what
was wanted. It did not seem to meet entirely the demands of the case.
It had not the wit, pungency, and facility of its rival, and failed
of securing so general a popularity. Its learning and gravity made it
better suited to be the oracle of scholars than the organ of a party.
Compared with its adversary across the Tweed, it was like a ponderous
knight, cased in complete steel, attacking an agile, light-armed Moorish
cavalier; or, to use Ben Jonson's illustration, like a Spanish great
galleon opposed to the facile manoeuvres of a British man-of-war. For
such an enemy there were needed other weapons. Well might the Tories
say,--

"Non tali auxilio, nee defensoribus istis Tempos eget."

William Blackwood, the Prince-Street publisher, thought, that, to be
successful, the war should be carried into Africa,--that the enemy must
be met on his own ground with his own weapons. Hogg, whose weekly paper,
"The Spy," had recently fallen through, also came to the conclusion that
a sprightly monthly publication, of strong Tory proclivities, could not
fail to do well. So, the times being ripe, Blackwood issued, in March,
1817, the first number of his new monthly, then called "The Edinburgh
Monthly Magazine." Though himself a violent Tory, he, singularly enough,
chose as his editors two Whigs,--Pringle the poet, and Cleghorn. Hogg
lent his aid from the beginning. Scott, too, wrote now and then; and
very soon Wilson made his appearance as "Eremus," contributing prose
and verse. But the new magazine did not prove to be what was hoped,--a
decided success. It was, in fact, quite flat and dull, having nothing
life-like and characteristic. The radical error of attempting to build
on such heterogeneous foundations was soon perceived. Vigor of action
could proceed only from entire unanimity of sentiment. Soon a rupture
arose between