n be met with."
Murray, who had already entertained the idea of establishing such a
review, naturally welcomed the prospect of so powerful an ally. Like a
good Tory, Scott felt that the "flashy and bold character of the
_Edinburgh's_ politics was likely to produce an indelible impression
upon the youth of the country." He ascertained that William Gifford,
formerly editor of the _Anti-Jacobin_ newspaper, was willing to take
charge of the new review, which Scott desired to be not exclusively nor
principally political, but a "periodical work of criticism conducted
with equal talent, but upon sounder principle than that which had gained
so high a station in the world of letters."

In February, 1809, appeared the first number of the _Quarterly Review_.
Three of its articles were by Scott, who continued to contribute for
some time and whose advice was frequently sought by both editor and
publisher. Canning, Ellis, and others who had written for the then
defunct _Anti-Jacobin_ became interested in the _Quarterly_; but the
principal contributors for many years were Robert Southey, John Wilson
Croker and Sir John Barrow. This trio contributed an aggregate of almost
five hundred articles to the _Quarterly_. In spite of its high standard,
the new venture was a financial failure for at least the first two
years; later, especially in the days of Tory triumph after the overthrow
of Napoleon, the _Quarterly_ flourished beyond all expectation.
Gifford's salary as editor was raised from the original L200 to L900;
for many years Southey was paid L100 for each article. Gifford was
distinctly an editor of the old school, with well-defined ideas of his
official privilege of altering contributed articles to suit himself--a
weakness that likewise afflicted Francis Jeffrey. While it appears that
Gifford wrote practically nothing for the review and that the savage
_Endymion_ article so persistently attributed to him was really the work
of Croker, he was an excellent manager and conducted the literary
affairs of the _Quarterly_ with considerable skill. His lack of system
and of business qualifications, however, resulted in the frequently
irregular appearance of the early numbers.

On account of his failing health, Gifford resigned the editorship of the
_Quarterly_ in 1824, and was succeeded by John Taylor Coleridge, whose
brief and unimportant administration served merely to fill the gap until
an efficient successor for Gifford could be found.