ferior artist in every respect to Seymour, and had not forgotten
the tribute which the foolish editor had previously paid to the talents
and ability of the latter. Conduct like this could only recoil on the
head of the person who was injudicious and spiteful enough to be guilty
of it. The "Notices to Correspondents" in subsequent numbers continued
to be filled with references and allusions to Seymour, dictated by a
malice which was alike silly and childish. They are not worthy of
repetition here, and we must refer the reader for them to the numbers of
"Figaro in London" of 20th September and 15th November, 1834, or (if he
have not access to its pages) to the short biographical notice prefixed
to the latest edition of the "Sketches" by Mr. Henry G. Bohn. We have no
doubt whatever that the interval between these dates was employed in
fruitless endeavours on the part of A Beckett to arrange terms with the
artist, who, however, steadily refused to give the failing publication
the indispensable benefit of his assistance. Left as it were to its own
resources, the circulation, in spite of the graphic help accorded by
Robert Cruikshank, steadily declined, and A Beckett finally retired from
the editorship and proprietorship on the 27th of December, 1834. Seymour
wielded a far more effectual weapon of offence than any which A Beckett
possessed, and dealt him blows which at this time and in his then
circumstances must have been keenly felt. One of Seymour's satires is
aimed specially at the "Notices to Correspondents" already mentioned,
and shows us a heavy, vulgar fellow seated at his desk, habited in a
barber's striped dressing-gown _a la Figaro_. His features are distorted
with passion, for he has received a letter the contents of which are
anything but flattering, addressed "To the Editor of the nastiest thing
in London." This sketch bears the following descriptive title: "An
editor in a _small way_, after pretending a great deal about his
correspondents, is here supposed to have received _a_ letter." A second
skit shows us a critic examining a picture representing "the death of A
Beckett, Archbishop of Cant." A figure in armour, with its vizor down
(obviously intended for the artist) is depicted in the act of cutting at
the "archbishop" with a sword, the blade of which is inscribed "debts
due." His first blow has severed the mitre labelled "assumption," and
the pastoral staff, inscribed "impudence," with which the victim vainly