As no copy of the suppressed edition is known to be in existence, and all our certain knowledge of the contents of the volume comes from Stockdale's meagre and mendacious narrative, it is useless to inquire what will probably never be known--what proportion the purloined matter bore to the original writing of the book, and how far the purloined matter was manipulated and re-dressed by the pilferer or pilferers? It is scarcely conceivable that the stolen stuff was lifted from one book to the other without any verbal alteration. Should a copy of the _Original Poetry_ be recovered, I should expect to find the least original of its pieces to be specimens of bold, free, manifest plagiarisms--not verbatim transcripts. That Shelley was a partner to such plagiarisms in 1810 we know from Medwin's candid account of the way in which they made up the cantos of _The Wandering Jew_. That Shelley used to perpetrate such plagiarisms single-handed, and for his own sole use, in 1810, we know from the plagiarism from Byron's _Lachin-y-Gair_ (_Hours of Idleness_) to be found in _St. Irvyne_. Lewis's _Monk_ was boldly pilfered for the benefit of the third canto of _The Wandering Jew_, a canto altered and added to by Shelley after Medwin had rough-written it. Monk Lewis's writings were so much admired by Shelley, and so familiar to him, that whilst he (with a strong taste for literary imitation) may be assumed, almost as a matter of course, to have plagiarized some parts of them at some time or other, he was not likely to have overlooked the quality of any plagiarism from Monk Lewis in the verses given him by his sister for their joint enterprise. It follows that, whilst there is no sufficient evidence in support of Mr. Garnett's account of the affair, several facts point to the probability that, instead of being perpetrated by Miss Shelley, the plagiarisms, which made it needful to withdraw and suppress the 'original poetry,' were done by her brother's own hand. Yet Mr. Garnett declares it not merely clear, but 'too clear,' that Shelley was nothing more than the simple and unsuspicious victim of an unworthy coadjutor. At the same time to minimize the discredit, accruing to Shelley from her misconduct, it is observed lightly that, instead of stealing, she only 'appropriated whatever first came to hand, with slight respect for pedantic considerations of _meum_ and _tuum_.' It is thus that disagreeable matters are glossed for the benefit of the poet, who might have been the Saviour of the World. Mr. Rossetti, by far the most discreet and able of Shelley's apologists, would win a favourable verdict for the poet in respect to this _Victor and Cazire_ business, on the plea that so youthful and unworldly a writer is not to be supposed to have studied the law of copyright.