Page 12. produces “more reasons,”—­(the task ought not to have been difficult, for as yet there were none)—­“to show why Mr. Bowles attributed the critique in the Quarterly to Octavius Gilchrist.”  All these “reasons” consist of surmises of Mr. Bowles, upon the presumed character of his opponent.  “He did not suppose there could exist a man in the kingdom so impudent, &c. &c. except Octavius Gilchrist.”—­“He did not think there was a man in the kingdom who would pretend ignorance, &c. &c. except Octavius Gilchrist.”—­“He did not conceive that one man in the kingdom would utter such stupid flippancy, &c. &c. except Octavius Gilchrist.”—­“He did not think there was one man in the kingdom who, &c. &c. could so utterly show his ignorance, combined with conceit, &c. as Octavius Gilchrist.”—­“He did not believe there was a man in the kingdom so perfect in Mr. Gilchrist’s ‘old lunes,’” &c. &c.—­“He did not think the mean mind of any one in the kingdom,” &c. and so on; always beginning with “any one in the kingdom,” and ending with “Octavius Gilchrist,” like the word in a catch.  I am not “in the kingdom,” and have not been much in the kingdom since I was one and twenty, (about five years in the whole, since I was of age,) and have no desire to be in the kingdom again, whilst I breathe, nor to sleep there afterwards; and I regret nothing more than having ever been “in the kingdom” at all.  But though no longer a man “in the kingdom,” let me hope that when I have ceased to exist, it may be said, as was answered by the master of Clanronald’s henchman, his day after the battle of Sheriff-Muir, when he was found watching his chief’s body.  He was asked, “who that was?” he replied—­“it was a man yesterday.”  And in this capacity, “in or out of the kingdom,” I must own that I participate in many of the objections urged by Mr. Gilchrist.  I participate in his love of Pope, and in his not understanding, and occasionally finding fault with, the last editor of our last truly great poet.

One of the reproaches against Mr. Gilchrist is, that he is (it is sneeringly said) an F. S. A.  If it will give Mr. Bowles any pleasure, I am not an F. S. A. but a Fellow of the Royal Society at his service, in case there should be any thing in that association also which may point a paragraph.

“There are some other reasons,” but “the author is now not unknown.”  Mr. Bowles has so totally exhausted himself upon Octavius Gilchrist, that he has not a word left for the real quarterer of his edition, although now “deterre.”

The following page refers to a mysterious charge of “duplicity, in regard to the publication of Pope’s letters.”  Till this charge is made in proper form, we have nothing to do with it:  Mr. Gilchrist hints it—­Mr. Bowles denies it; there it rests for the present.  Mr. Bowles professes his dislike to “Pope’s duplicity, not to Pope”—­a distinction apparently without a difference.  However, I believe that I understand him.  We have a great dislike to Mr. Bowles’s edition of Pope, but not to Mr. Bowles; nevertheless, he takes up the subject as warmly as if it was personal.  With regard to the fact of “Pope’s duplicity,” it remains to be proved—­like Mr. Bowles’s benevolence towards his memory.