* * * *

LADY BULWER LYTTON has written two extraordinary letters to the _Morning
Post_, of a review in that paper, of her _School for Husbands_, hinting
at what _might_ have been said about some of the minor faults, had the
book been written by any body else, and going out of her way, to remind
us that her husband is a plagiarist. Repeating one of Mr. Joseph
Miller's anecdotes of a larceny of brooms, ready made, she says. "And so
it is with the great _Bombastes_ of the Press--Sir E. Bulwer Lytton.
Truly, therefore, may he exclaim:--

"----Non ulla laborum:
O Virgo nova ni facies inopinaque surgit,
Omnia percipi atque animo mecum ante peregi."

And well may a _sapient, moral_, and _impartial_ press uphold so great
an empiric."

* * * * *

LORD COCKBURN, one of the Scottish judges, is preparing a _Memoir of
Lord Jeffrey_, with selections from his correspondence. "The ability,
judgment, and taste of Henry Cockburn, as well as political sympathy and
personal friendship," the _Athenaeum_ says, "give him every fitness for
being the biographer of Francis Jeffrey."

* * * * *

The last number of the London _Quarterly Review_ presents a new
candidate for the honor of the authorship of JUNIUS, in the person of
the second Lord LYTTLETON--best known in his lifetime for profligacy,
and since, for the curious circumstances attending his death, which are
well related in Sir Walter Scott's _Demonology and Witchcraft_. The
reviewer proves Lord Lyttleton capable of writing the letters; that he
had motives to write them; that his conduct on other occasions is
consistent with Junius's anxiety to preserve his incognito; and that
there are curious coincidences between his character and conduct, and
many characteristic passages in the letters. This directs research to a
new quarter; but though a good _prima facie_ case of suspicion is made
out, that is all. Positive evidence is wanted. A writer in the London
_Athenaeum_, who long ago demolished the claims of Sir Philip Francis to
be considered Junius (Lord Mahon's judgment to the contrary
notwithstanding), and who has since pretty satisfactorily disposed of
the dozen or more other prominent claimants, has, we think, conclusively
answered the _Quarterly's_ claim in behalf of Lord Lyttleton. We should
like to know who the critic of the _Athenaeum_ supposes to be the Great
Unknown. In one o