“I cannot endure the idea of an individual being wounded merely because he has written a book.  If, as in the case of the authors attacked in the ‘Baviad,’ the works censured were vitiating our literature—­or, as in the case of Moore’s Poems, corrupting our morals—­if they were denouncing our religious principles, or attacking those political principles on which our Government subsists—­let them be criticised without mercy.  The salus publica demands the sacrifice.  But to make an individual ridiculous merely because he has written a foolish, if it be a harmless book, is not, I think, justifiable on any moral principle ...  I repeat my principle.  Whatever tends to vitiate our literary taste, our morals, our religious or political principles, may be fairly at the mercy of criticism.  So, whatever tends to introduce false science, false history, indeed, falsehood in any shape, exposes itself to the censor’s rod.  But harmless, inoffensive works should be passed by.  Where is the bravery of treading on a worm or crushing a poor fly?  Where the utility?  Where the honour?”

An edition of 4,000 copies had been printed; this was soon exhausted, and a second edition was called for.

Mr. Scott was ample in his encouragements.

“I think,” he wrote to Murray, “a firm and stable sale will be settled here, to the extent of 1,000 or 1,500 even for the next number....  I am quite pleased with my ten guineas a sheet for my labour in writing, and for additional exertions.  I will consider them as overpaid by success in the cause, especially while that success is doubtful.”

Ballantyne wrote to Murray in March: 

“Constable, I am told, has consulted Sir Samuel Romilly, and means, after writing a book against me, to prosecute me for stealing his plans! Somebody has certainly stolen his brains!”

The confederates continued to encourage each other and to incite to greater effort the procrastinating Gifford.  The following rather mysterious paragraph occurs in a letter from Scott to Murray dated March 19, 1809.

“I have found means to get at Mr. G., and have procured a letter to be written to him, which may possibly produce one to you signed Rutherford or Richardson, or some such name, and dated from the North of England; or, if he does not write to you, enquiry is to be made whether he would choose you should address him.  The secrecy to be observed in this business must be most profound, even to Ballantyne and all the world.  If you get articles from him (which will and must draw attention) you must throw out a false scent for enquirers.  I believe this unfortunate man will soon be in London.”

In reply, Mr. Murray wrote on March 24 to Mr. Scott, urging him to come to London, and offering, “if there be no plea for charging your expenses to Government,” to “undertake that the Review shall pay them as far as one hundred guineas.”  To this Scott replied: