erit at all will die of themselves,
they require no killing. The Review to which I was attached was, as has
been already intimated, established on an entirely new plan; it professed
to review all new publications, which certainly no Review had ever
professed to do before, other Reviews never pretending to review more
than one-tenth of the current literature of the day. When I say it
professed to review all new publications, I should add, which should be
sent to it; for, of course, the Review would not acknowledge the
existence of publications, the authors of which did not acknowledge the
existence of the Review. I don't think, however, that the Review had
much cause to complain of being neglected; I have reason to believe that
at least nine-tenths of the publications of the day were sent to the
Review, and in due time reviewed. I had good opportunity of judging. I
was connected with several departments of the Review, though more
particularly with the poetical and philosophic ones. An English
translation of Kant's philosophy made its appearance on my table the day
before its publication. In my notice of this work, I said that the
English shortly hoped to give the Germans a _quid pro quo_. I believe at
that time authors were much in the habit of publishing at their own
expense. All the poetry which I reviewed appeared to be published at the
expense of the authors. If I am asked how I comported myself, under all
circumstances, as a reviewer, I answer, I did not forget that I was
connected with a Review established on Oxford principles, the editor of
which had translated Quintilian. All the publications which fell under
my notice I treated in a gentlemanly and Oxford-like manner, no
personalities--no vituperation--no shabby insinuations; decorum, decorum
was the order of the day. Occasionally a word of admonition, but gently
expressed, as an Oxford under-graduate might have expressed it, or master
of arts. How the authors whose publications were consigned to my
colleagues were treated by them I know not; I suppose they were treated
in an urbane and Oxford-like manner, but I cannot say; I did not read the
reviewals of my colleagues, I did not read my own after they were
printed. I did not like reviewing.

Of all my occupations at this period I am free to confess I liked that of
compiling the _Newgate Lives and Trials_ the best; that is, after I had
surmounted a kind of prejudice which I originally entertained.