opposition to the _Review_ which “Maga” assumed from the first. Quoting him again, "_The Edinburgh Review_ cared very little for what might be done, or might be hoped to be done, provided it could exercise a despotic authority in deciding on the merits of what _was_ done. Nobody could ever regard this work as a great fostering-mother of the infant manifestations of intellectual and imaginative power. It was always sufficiently plain, that in all things its chief object was to support the credit of its own appearance. It praised only where praise was extorted--and it never praised even the highest efforts of contemporary genius in the spirit of true and genuine earnestness which might have been becoming”.[7] Lockhart never quite forgave Jeffrey for failing instantly to recognize the genius of Wordsworth. He continues, of the Reviewers: “They never spoke out of the fulness of the heart in praising any one of our great living poets, the majesty of whose genius would have been quite enough to take away all ideas except those of prostrate respect”.[8] Taking all of Lockhart’s impetuosity with a pinch of salt, the fact remains undeniably true that the _Edinburgh_ assumed the patronizing air of bestowing rather than recognizing honor when it praised. [6] J. G. Lockhart: _Peter’s Letters_, V. ii, p. 130 [7] J. G. Lockhart: _Peter’s Letters_, V. ii, p. 207 [8] Ibid, V. ii, p. 208 Among the builders of the _Edinburgh_ Henry Brougham stands one of the foremost. In five years he contributed as many as eighty articles, an average of four each number, and it is said that he once wrote an entire number. He was capable of it! Brougham was a powerful politician, but unfortunately did not limit his contributions to political subjects. He wrote scientific, legal and literary papers as well, with the air of one whose mandates go undisputed. Undisputed they did go, too. In fact Brougham just escaped being a genius! He made a big splash in his own little world and age, but his fame has not outlived him. Another prominent contributor was Sydney Smith, a man of no small reputation as a humorist. He earnestly applied his talents to the forwarding of serious causes, and talents undoubtedly he had; but the wit of his style, according to the Hon. Arthur R. D. Elliot, erstwhile editor of the _Review_, its cleverness and jollity, prevented many from recognizing the genuine sincerity of his character.