MONTHLY REVIEW OF LITERATURE. 605 



" ' I'm not a bit hungry/ said Ned. 



" ' Take a slice ; there's a good fellow/ 



" ' Well, if I do,' said Ned, ' let it be only the bigness of a bee's knee.' 



" * Holloa, Jack, is that you ?' said one country-looking personage with a 

 smock-frock to another in the same dress, while both Houses of Parliament 

 were on fire in October 1834. 



" ' Vy, Jem,' said the other, ' I did not expect to see you in this here 

 crowd.' 



" ' There's a fine go of it eh !' meaning the conflagration. 



" ' Vy, yes, Jem, I calls that a little bit of a blaze, and no mistake. It will 

 soon take the shine out of those there engine-men.' 



" ' I should think so. They'll never put it out j they might as soon think 

 as how they could extinguish it by spitting on it.' 



" ' Put it out ! Heaven bless you, Jack, they wouldn't put it out, though 

 they were to pour the whole Thames on it like a sack of potatoes.' " 



We now turn to the second volume, which we shall be compelled to despatch 

 more hastily, for want of space. 



The second volume initiates the world in the mysteries of newspaper and ma- 

 gazine editing. As this is a subject which comes peculiarly within the province 

 of our author, probably we shall not meet with so many incongruities as in 

 the former sections. The general estimate of the qualities, good and bad, of 

 the different newspapers, is given with singular impartiality, and the account 

 of their origin, progress, and present state, interesting enough, particularly to 

 those whose occupations have not made them acquainted with the machinery 

 by which this powerful engine is set in motion. One remark on the Observer 

 we feel inclined to cavil at, namely, that " It is an excellent paper for families, 

 the greatest care being always taken to exclude any thing which could bring a 

 blush to the cheek of female modesty." Now the Observer is notorious for 

 always publishing the best and most accurate accounts of crim. con. and 

 seduction cases, to administer a satisfactory dose to the prurient curiosity of 

 middle-aged virgins and elderly gentlewomen, who are understood to be its 

 staunchest supporters. There is, however, no question as to' its excellence 

 as a Sunday paper, and its superior means of information on Saturday sub- 

 jects of interest. 



The reporters, as a class, are men of undoubted ability and fairness, but 

 with an excusable esprit de corps, Mr. Grant attributes to the "gentlemen 

 of the press," an influence which they certainly do not possess. As to the 

 nonsense of their reports being the medium through which the public are 

 informed of what is going on in the Houses of Parliament, and therefore that 

 they might, if it so pleased them, misrepresent the sentiments of our senate, 

 and produce a mischievous effect on public opinion ; all the world knows that 

 if a reporter be accused of incorrect statements and the charge be proved, he 

 is liable to be, and in some cases actually has been, discharged from his situ- 

 ation. One might as well say that our judges have license to be corrupt, and 

 could, if not restrained by a sense of justice, pervert laws from their true 

 meaning and intent without incurring any responsibility. That the parlia- 

 mentary reports are so excellent, so correct, so copious, and so rapidly pro- 

 duced, is indeed matter of astonishment ; but that the reporters should do their 

 best to be impartial and exact is a necessary consequence of their engagements. 



In the statistic* of the Quarterly Review some assertions are made highly 

 laudatory of the present Editor's severe impartiality. 



As for Mr. Lockhart's impartiality, we thought it was generally understood 

 that the fault of that gentleman as Editor of so important a periodical as the 

 Quarterly, was a too great tendency to gloss over the failings of his personal 

 friends in lieu of dealing out to them with unsparing severity the lash of cri- 

 ticism. But we speak only from report, and we rather think Mr. Grant has 

 no better authority. Some other stories of the Quarterly we believe to be 

 incorrect, but so strict a secrecy is preserved with regard to the contributors 



