emselves, than to pin their faith upon reviews, is certain;
nevertheless, when what is termed a "_slashing article_" upon a popular
work makes its appearance, the public are too apt to receive it without
scrutiny. Satisfied with the general effect, as with that produced in a
theatrical representation, they do not bear in mind that that which has
the appearance of gold, would prove upon examination to be nothing more
than tinsel.

Were all reviewers to be reviewed by authors as well as all authors by
reviewers, the authors would have the best of it in the _melee_. Again,
were reviewers obliged to put their names to their several articles,
there would be a great difference in their style; but, secure in their
_incognito_ from the disgrace of exposure, they make no scruple to
assert what they well know to be false, and, coward-like, to assail
those who have seldom an opportunity, whatever may be their power, to
defend themselves. Never, perhaps, was there a better proof of the
truth of the foregoing observations than is afforded by the article in
the Edinburgh Review upon the first portion of my work on America; and
as I have some pages to spare, I shall now take the unusual liberty of
reviewing the Reviewer.

First, let me introduce to the public the writer of the article--Miss
Harriet Martineau. My readers may inquire how I can so positively make
this assertion? I reply that it is owing to my "craft." A person who
has long dealt in pictures will, without hesitation, tell you the name
of the painter of any given work: a shepherd with a flock of three or
four hundred sheep under his charge, will know every one of them
individually, although to people in general, one sheep is but the
counterpart of the others. Thus, there are little varieties of style,
manner, and handling of the pen, which become evident to practised
writers, although they are not always so to readers. But even if these
peculiarities were not sufficient, the manner in which the article is
managed (the remarks of Miss Martineau upon the merits of Miss
Martineau) in my mind establishes to conviction, that the major portion
of the article, if not the whole, has proceeded from her pen. This is a
matter of no consequence, and I only mention it that my readers may
understand why Miss Martineau, who forms so prominent a feature in the
Edinburgh article, will also occasionally appear in mine. My reply,
however, is not addressed to her, but to the Edinbu