The points on which I chiefly insisted with Mr. Gifford were that the Review should be independent both as to bookselling and ministerial influences—­meaning that we were not to be advocates of party through thick and thin, but to maintain constitutional principles.  Moreover, I stated as essential that the literary part of the work should be as sedulously attended to as the political, because it is by means of that alone that the work can acquire any firm and extended reputation.

Moreover yet, I submitted that each contributor should draw money for his article, be his rank what it may.  This general rule has been of great use to the Edinburgh Review.  Of terms I said nothing, except that your views on the subject seemed to me highly liberal.  I do not add further particulars because I dare say Mr. Gifford will show you the letter, which is a very long one.  Believe me, my dear Sir, with sincere regard,

Your faithful, humble Servant,

Walter Scott.

In a subsequent letter to Mr. Ellis, Scott again indicates what he considers should be the proper management of the proposed Review.

“Let me touch,” he says, “a string of much delicacy—­the political character of the Review.  It appears to me that this should be of a liberal and enlarged nature, resting upon principles—­indulgent and conciliatory as far as possible upon mere party questions, but stern in detecting and exposing all attempts to sap our constitutional fabric.  Religion is another slippery station; here also I would endeavour to be as impartial as the subject will admit of....  The truth is, there is policy, as well as morality, in keeping our swords clear as well as sharp, and not forgetting the Gentleman in the Critic.  The public appetite is soon gorged with any particular style.  The common Reviews, before the appearance of the Edinburgh, had become extremely mawkish; and, unless when prompted by the malice of the bookseller or reviewer, gave a dawdling, maudlin sort of applause to everything that reached even mediocrity.  The Edinburgh folks squeezed into their sauce plenty of acid, and were popular from novelty as well as from merit.  The minor Reviews, and other periodical publications, have outred the matter still further, and given us all abuse and no talent....  This, therefore, we have to trust to, that decent, lively, and reflecting criticism, teaching men not to abuse books, but to read and to judge them, will have the effect of novelty upon a public wearied with universal efforts at blackguard and indiscriminating satire.  I have a long and very sensible letter [Footnote:  Given below, under date November 15, 1808.] from John Murray, the bookseller, in which he touches upon this point very neatly.”

Scott was most assiduous in his preparations for the first number.  He wrote to his brother, Thomas Scott, asking him to contribute an article; to Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, of Christ Church, Oxford; to Mr. Morritt, of Rokeby Park, Yorkshire; and to Robert Southey, of Keswick, asking them for contributions.  To Mr. Sharpe he says: