Mr. Lang was right when he called it “blameless”; and it is not surprising that Blackwood made some suggestions in regard to the second number. We know that his suggestions were not cordially received by Messrs. Pringle and Cleghorn, and it appears equally probable that they were not acted upon. The second issue, May 1817, is no more resilient and has gained no more momentum than its predecessor. The contents are cast in the same mould: an “Account of Mr. Ruthven’s Printing Press”[47], another on the “Method of Engraving on Stone”[48], and “Anecdotes of Antiquaries”[49], and the like. [47] Ibid., V. i, p. 125 [48] Ibid., V. i, p. 128 [49] Ibid., V. i, p. 136 If Blackwood was disappointed over the first number, he was irritated at the second; but when a third of no more vital aspect appeared, his patience gave way, and Pringle and Cleghorn had to go! It is easy to imagine that the man who did not hesitate to criticise the “Black Dwarf” would not be overawed by the two mild gentlemen in charge of his pet scheme. William Blackwood’s ideal had indeed been to startle the world with a periodical which in modern terms we would call a “live wire”. And now with the magazine actually under way, it is not likely that a man of his stamp would sit by unperturbed, and watch one insignificant number after another greet an unresponsive public. After the appearance of the third number, he gave three months’ notice to Messrs. Pringle and Cleghorn, which somewhat excited those gentlemen, but was none the less final. They had done all they could to evade Blackwood’s “interest in the literary part of his business”, and intended to keep the publisher “in his place”. William Blackwood was not made that way, however. He himself illuminates the situation in a letter to his London agents, Baldwin, Craddock and Company, dated July 23, 1817[50]. [50] Mrs. Oliphant: _Annals of a Publishing House_, V. i, p. 104