Professor Saintsbury observes: “Scott was always a rapid worker, but it was only now, under the combined stimulus of the new-found gift, the desire for more land and a statelier Abbotsford, and the pressure of the affairs of Ballantyne & Co., that he began to work at the portentous rate which, though I do not believe that it at all injured the quality of his production, pretty certainly endangered his health.” The only systematic check on Scott’s rapid production was that introduced by James Ballantyne, who read his proofs, and frequently saved him from oversights and inconsistencies. In this connection the following entry is to be found in Scott’s “Journal,” June 22, 1828—no doubt when he was in failing health:—“Had a note from Ballantyne complaining of my manuscript, and requesting me to read it over. I would give £1000 if I could; but it would take me longer to read than to write. I cannot trace my _pieds de mouche_ but with great labour and trouble; so e’en take your own share of the burden, my old friend; and, since I cannot read, be thankful I can write.” When the manuscript or “copy” was transcribed the original was preserved with great care. As the novels were frequently begun to be set in type before they were fully written, only a few compositors were required to keep pace with author and amanuensis; and it is remarkable that there was not an instance of treachery during all the years these precautions were resorted to, although various amanuenses were employed at different times. Double proof-sheets were regularly printed. One was forwarded to the author by Ballantyne, and the alterations which it received from Scott were copied by him upon the other proof-sheet for the use of the printers; so that even the corrected proofs of the author were never seen in the printing-office. In this way the curiosity of such eager inquirers as made minute investigations was baulked, though the authorship was an “open secret” with many of the compositors. The following Notice, however, shows that sheets of the work in hand must have been finding their way out of the printing-office:— “NOTICE “Having reason to believe that the Workmen in the PRINTING OFFICE AT PAUL’S WORK are in the habit of Abstracting Sheets of New Books in the progress of Printing,—more especially those of the Original Works of the Author of ‘Waverley,’—Notice is hereby given, that the most effectual steps are taken to detect those offending in this manner; and the utmost Punishment of the Law will be executed on those proved guilty of so flagrant an offence. “255 HIGH STREET, _20th April 1822_.”