My Father certainly does not assert, as Mr. Stuart represents him as having asserted in the _Literary Biography_, that he "made the fortunes of _The Morning Post_ and _The Courier_, and was inadequately paid." He speaks of his writings as having been in furtherance of _Government_. I have no doubt he thought that they were serviceable to Government and to his country, and that while they brought upon him the enmity of the anti-ministerial and Buonapartean party, and every possible hindrance to his literary career which the most hostile and contemptuous criticism of a leading journal could effect, they were unrewarded in any other quarter. There was truth in one half of Hazlitt's sarcasm, "his politics turned--_but not to account_." "From Government, or the friends of Government!" says Mr. Stuart, "Why, Coleridge was attacking Pitt and Lord Grenville in 1800, who were at the head of the Government. In 1801, when the Addingtons came into power, he wrote little or nothing in _The Morning Post_; in the autumn of 1802 he wrote one or two able essays against Buonaparte in relation to the Peace of Amiens, and he published in that paper, at that time, a letter or two to Judge Fletcher." This last sentence is a double mistake, as I have already shown. "At that time the newspaper press generally condemned the conduct of Buonaparte in the severest manner: and no part of it more severely than _The Morning Post_ by my own writings. Cobbett attacked Fox, etc., but _The Morning Post_ was the most distinguished on this subject, and the increase of its circulation was great. The qualified opposition to Government was not given to Pitt's ministry, but to Addington's. To Pitt _The Morning Post_ was always, in my time, decidedly opposed. I supported Addington against Buonaparte, during the Peace of Amiens, with all my power, and in the summer of 1803 Mr. Estcourt came to me with a message of thanks from the prime minister, Mr. A. offering anything I wished. I declined the offer. It was not till the summer of 1804, a year after I had finally left _The Morning Post_ that, in _The Courier_, I supported Pitt against Buonaparte, on the same grounds I had supported Mr. Addington, Pitt having become again prime minister, to protect Lord Melville against the fifth clause. Coleridge confuses things. The qualified support of the ministry, he alludes to, applies wholly to _The Courier_." I do not see the material discrepancy between this statement and my Father's, when he says that _The Morning Post_ was "_anti-ministerial_, indeed, but with far greater earnestness and zeal, both anti-jacobin and anti-gallican," and that it proved a far more useful ally to the Government in its most important objects, in consequence of its being generally considered moderately _anti-ministerial_, than if it had been the avowed eulogist of _Mr._ Pitt; "that the rapid increase in the sale of _The Morning Post_ is a pledge that genuine impartiality with a respectable portion of literary