haste in most of them. With respect to his own articles, he much regrets
not to have had the opportunity of revising them. He thinks the
'Missionaries' very clever; but he shakes his head at 'Sidney,' 'Woman,'
and 'Public Characters.' Our copies, which we expected this morning,
have not made their appearance, which has given us no small anxiety. We
are panting to hear the public voice. Depend upon it, _if_ our exertions
are continued, the thing will do. Would G. were as active as Scott and
Murray!"

Murray had plenty of advisers. Gifford said he had too many. His friend,
Sharon Turner, was ready with his criticism on No. 1. He deplored the
appearance of the article by Scott on "Carr's Tour in Scotland."
[Footnote: Scott himself had written to Murray about this, which he
calls "a whisky-frisky article," on June 30. "I take the advantage of
forwarding Sir John's _Review_, to send you back his letters under the
same cover. He is an incomparable goose, but as he is innocent and
good-natured, I would not like it to be publicly known that the
flagellation comes from my hand. Secrecy therefore will oblige me."]

_Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray_.

"I cannot endure the idea of an individual being wounded merely because
he has written a book. If, as in the case of the authors attacked in the
'Baviad,' the works censured were vitiating our literature--or, as in
the case of Moore's Poems, corrupting our morals--if they were
denouncing our religious principles, or attacking those political
principles on which our Government subsists--let them be criticised
without mercy. The _salus publica_ demands the sacrifice. But to make an
individual ridiculous merely because he has written a foolish, if it be
a harmless book, is not, I think, justifiable on any moral principle ...