recognized and he proved the most versatile of the early reviewers. In
the first twenty numbers are eighty articles from his pen. A story that
does not admit of verification attributes to Brougham a whole number of
the _Edinburgh_, including an article on lithotomy and another on
Chinese music. Later he became especially distinguished for his
political articles, and remained a contributor long after Jeffrey and
Smith had withdrawn. A comparatively small portion of his _Edinburgh_
articles was reprinted (1856) in three volumes.

Although the young men who guided the early fortunes of the review were
Whigs, the _Edinburgh_ was not (as is generally believed) founded as a
Whig organ. In fact, the political complexion of their articles was so
subdued that even stalwart Tories like Walter Scott did not refrain from
contributing to its pages. Scott's _Marmion_ was somewhat sharply
reviewed by Jeffrey in April, 1808, and in the following October
appeared the article by Jeffrey and Brougham upon Don Pedro Cevallos'
_French Usurpation of Spain_. The pronounced Whiggism of that critique
led to an open rupture with the Tory contributors. Scott, who was no
longer on the best terms with Constable, the publisher of the
_Edinburgh_, declared that henceforth he could neither receive nor read
the review. He proposed to John Murray--then of Fleet Street--the
founding of a Tory quarterly in London as a rival to the northern review
that had thus far enjoyed undisputed possession of the field, because it
afforded "the only valuable literary criticism which can be met with."
Murray, who had already entertained the idea of establishing such a
review, naturally welcomed the prospect of so powerful an ally. Like a
good Tory, Scott felt that the "flashy and bold character of the
_Edinburgh's_ politics was likely to produce an indelible impression
upon the youth of the country." He ascertained that William Gifford,
formerly editor of the _Anti-Jacobin_ newspaper, was willing to take