To return to "rose-water"--that is, to gentle means of rebuke. Does Mr. Bowles know how to revenge himself upon a hackney-coachman, when he has overcharged his fare? In case he should not, I will tell him. It is of little use to call him "a rascal, a scoundrel, a thief, an impostor, a blackguard, a villain, a raggamuffin, a--what you please;" all that he is used to--it is his mother-tongue, and probably his mother's. But look him steadily and quietly in the face, and say--"Upon my word, I think you are the _ugliest fellow_ I ever saw in my life," and he will instantly roll forth the brazen thunders of the charioteer Salmoneus as follows:--"_Hugly_! what the h--ll are _you_? _You_ a _gentleman_! Why ----!" So much easier it is to _provoke_--and therefore to vindicate--(for passion punishes him who _feels_ it more than those whom the passionate would excruciate)--by a few quiet words the aggressor, than by retorting violently. The "coals of fire" of the Scripture are _benefits_;--but they are not the less "coals of _fire_." I pass over a page of quotation and reprobation--"Sin up to my song"--"Oh let my little bark"--"Arcades ambo"--"Writer in the Quarterly Review and himself"--"In-door avocations, indeed"--"King of Brentford"--"One nosegay"--"Perennial nosegay"--"Oh Juvenes,"--and the like. Page 12. produces "more reasons,"--(the task ought not to have been difficult, for as yet there were none)--"to show why Mr. Bowles attributed the critique in the Quarterly to Octavius Gilchrist." All these "reasons" consist of _surmises_ of Mr. Bowles, upon the presumed character of his opponent. "He did not suppose there could exist a man in the kingdom so _impudent_, &c. &c. except Octavius Gilchrist."--"He did not think there was a man in the kingdom who would _pretend ignorance_, &c. &c. except Octavius Gilchrist."--"He did not conceive that one man in the kingdom would utter such stupid flippancy, &c. &c. except Octavius Gilchrist."--"He did not think there was one man in the kingdom who, &c. &c. could so utterly show his ignorance, _combined with conceit_, &c. as Octavius Gilchrist."--"He did not believe there was a man in the kingdom so perfect in Mr. Gilchrist's 'old lunes,'" &c. &c.--"He did not think the _mean mind_ of any one in the kingdom," &c. and so on; always beginning with "any one in the kingdom," and ending with "Octavius Gilchrist," like the word in a catch. I am not "in the kingdom," and have not been much in the kingdom since I was one and twenty, (about five years in the whole, since I was of age,) and have no desire to be in the kingdom again, whilst I breathe, nor to sleep there afterwards; and I regret nothing more than having ever been "in the kingdom" at all. But though no longer a man "in the kingdom," let me hope that when I have ceased to exist, it may be said, as was answered by the master of Clanronald's henchman, his day after the battle of Sheriff-Muir, when he was found watching his chief's body.