Lara and Harold contemn the subaltern sneaking of our modern tuft-hunter. The insult which he offered to Lord Byron in the dedication of Rimini,—in which he, a paltry cockney newspaper scribbler, had the assurance to address one of the most nobly-born of English Patricians, and one of the first geniuses whom the world ever produced, as "My dear Byron," although it may have been forgotten and despised by the illustrious person whom it most nearly concerned,—excited a feeling of utter loathing and disgust in the public mind, which will always be remembered whenever the name of Leigh Hunt is mentioned. We dare say Mr Hunt has some fine dreams about the true nobility being the nobility of talent, and flatters himself, that with those who acknowledge only that sort of rank, he himself passes for being the peer of Byron. He is sadly mistaken. He is as completely a Plebeian in his mind as he is in his rank and station in society. To that highest and unalienable nobility which the great Roman satirist styles "sola atque unica," we fear his pretensions would be equally unavailing.
The shallow and impotent, pretensions, tenets, and attempts, of this man,—and the success with which his influence seems to be extending itself among a pretty numerous, though certainly a very paltry and pitiful, set of readers,—have for the last two or three years been considered by us with the most sickening aversion. The very culpable manner in which his chief poem was reviewed in the Edinburgh Review (we believe it is no secret, at his own impatient and feverish request, by his partner in the Round Table), was matter of concern to more readers than ourselves. The masterly pen which inflicted such signal chastisement on the early licentiousness of Moore, should not have been idle on that occasion. Mr Jeffrey does ill when he delegates his important functions into such hands as those of Mr Hazlitt. It was chiefly in consequence of that gentleman's allowing Leigh Hunt to pass unpunished through a scene of slaughter, which his execution might so highly have graced, that we came to the resolution of laying before our readers a series of essays on the Cockney School of which here terminates the first. Z.
The lead which has been taken by the Edinburgh Review in all discussions connected with colonial matters, has given an authority to its dogmas in every question of colonial policy, to which, on more accurate investigation, it will be found by no means entitled. Instead of dispassionate inquiry into the real merits of any case, it uniformly advocates whatever appears hostile to the views of those who, from their local knowledge, are most conversant with colonial affairs, and attempts to stigmatize them with every odious epithet that can be conceived. This is so contrary to the true spirit which ought to influence discussions on which the happiness of so many depends, that it is a paramount duty in every individual, however humble his attainments, to counteract such mischievous and injurious proceedings, by boldly proclaiming whatever facts he may possess. This duty is rendered still more cogent when that individual is a decided abolitionist both in principle and practice; who wishes for the attainment of all the good that the most enthusiastic disciple of the African Institution can anticipate, but who will not compromise truth and integrity. This general impression has been fully confirmed by an article in the 56th Number of the Edinburgh Review, which professes to be a critique of a medical work by Dr Williamson; but which in fact is, as is too often the case in that Journal, a summary of the peculiar tenets of the Reviewer, in which little notice is taken of the work itself, except to pervert the statements and reasonings of the author. The examination which it is now proposed to make must consist of two parts.
First, A brief analysis of the general principles adopted by the Review-er; and
Second, An inquiry into the use made of Dr Williamson's Observations.
In both of these a few general and
