It need scarcely be said that he proved himself an excellent editor, and that he entertained a high idea of the duties of that office.  William Jerdan, who was introduced to Gifford by Canning, said:  “I speak of him as he always was to me—­full of gentleness, a sagacious adviser and instructor, upon so comprehensive a scale, that I never met his superior among the men of the age most renowned for vast information, and his captivating power in communicating it.”  His sagacity and quickness of apprehension were remarkable, as was also the extraordinary rapidity with which he was able to eviscerate a work, and summarize its contents in a few pages.

The number of articles which he himself wrote was comparatively small, for he confined himself for the most part to revising and improving the criticisms of others, and though in thus dealing with articles submitted to him he frequently erased what the writers considered some of their best criticisms, he never lost their friendship and support.  He disliked incurring any obligation which might in any degree shackle the expression of his free opinions.  In conjunction with Mr. Murray, he laid down a rule, which as we have already seen was advocated by Scott, and to which no exception has ever been made, that every writer in the Quarterly should receive payment for his contribution.  On one occasion, when a gentleman in office would not receive the money, the article was returned.  “I am not more certain of many conjectures,” says Jerdan, “than I am of this, that he never propagated a dishonest opinion nor did a dishonest act.”

Gifford took no notice of the ferocious attacks made upon him by Hunt and Hazlitt.  Holding, as he did, that inviolable secrecy was one of the prime functions of an editor—­though the practice has since become very different—­he never attempted to vindicate himself, or to reveal the secret as to the writers of the reviews.  In accordance with his plan of secrecy, he desired Dr. Ireland, his executor, to destroy all confidential letters, especially those relating to the Review, so that the names of the authors, as well as the prices paid for each article, might never be known.

In society, of which he saw but little, except at Mr. Murray’s, he was very entertaining.  He told a story remarkably well; and had an inexhaustible supply; the archness of his eyes and countenance making them all equally good.

He had never been married; but although he had no children, he had an exceeding love for them.  When well, he delighted in giving juvenile parties, and rejoiced at seeing the children frisking about in the happiness of youth—­a contrast which threw the misery of his own early life into strange relief.  His domestic favourites were his dog and his cat, both of which he dearly loved.  He was also most kind and generous to his domestic servants; and all who knew him well, sorrowfully lamented his death.

Many years after Gifford’s death, a venomous article upon him appeared in a London periodical.  The chief point of this anonymous attack was contained in certain extracts from the writings of Sir W. Scott, Southey, and other eminent contemporaries of Mr. Gifford.  Mr. R.W.  Hay, one of the oldest contributors to the Quarterly, was at that time still living, and, in allusion to the article in question, he wrote to Mr. Murray’s son: