90 



The part found had the appearance of having been torn oflF 

 from the rest of the letter. It contains the address ; a com- 

 plete copy of the ode ; a sentence mentioning to Mr. Taylor 

 that his praise of the stanzas first written led him to com- 

 plete the poem ; a few words of a private nature at the end of 

 the letter ; and the signature. There is no date on the part 

 preserved; but the post-mark of September 6, 1816, fixes 

 the time at which it was sent. Dr. Anster read passages 

 from Captain Medwin's " Conversations of Lord Byron" and 

 Archdeacon Russell's "Remains of Wolfe," in which men- 

 tion is made of the various guesses as to the author, when the 

 poem first appeared, without the author's name, in the news- 

 papers and magazines. It was attributed to Moore, to Camp- 

 bell, to Wilson, to Byron, and now and then to a writer in 

 many respects equal to the highest of these names, whose 

 poems have been published under the name of Barry Cornwall. 

 Shelley thought the poem likely to be Campbell's ; and Med- 

 win believed Byron to be the author. When Medwin's book 

 appeared in which this was stated, several friends of Wolfe's, 

 among others Mr. Taylor, to whom was addressed the letter, 

 of which an important part has been fortunately found, stated 

 their knowledge of Wolfe's having written the ode. One 

 gratifying result of the controversy was the publication, by 

 Archdeacon Russell, of the Remains of Charles Wolfe, with a 

 memoir written with great beauty, and, what constitutes the 

 rare charm of the work, describing with entire fidelity the 

 character, and habits, and feelings of one of the most 

 pureminded, generous, and afi'ectionate natures that ever 

 existed. 



The question as to the authorship of the ode was for ever 

 set at rest to any one who had seen either the letters of Mr. 

 Wolfe's friends, at the time of Captain Medwin's pubHcation, 

 or Archdeacon Russell's book. Were there any doubt on the 

 subject of authorship, the documentnow produced would com- 

 pletely remove it ; but for this purpose it would really not be 



