right to force from me, since I alone was concerned in the matter.  The alternative of rendering a doubtful answer must have left me open to the degrading suspicion that I was not unwilling to assume the merit (if there was any) which I dared not absolutely lay claim to; or those who might think more justly of me must have received such an equivocal answer as an indirect avowal.  I therefore considered myself entitled, like an accused person put upon trial, to refuse giving my own evidence to my own conviction, and flatly to deny all that could not be proved against me.  At the same time I usually qualified my denial by stating that, had I been the Author of these works, I would have felt myself quite entitled to protect my secret by refusing my own evidence, when it was asked for to accomplish a discovery of what I desired to conceal.

The real truth is, that I never expected or hoped to disguise my connection with these Novels from any one who lived on terms of intimacy with me.  The number of coincidences which necessarily existed between narratives recounted, modes of expression, and opinions broached in these Tales and such as were used by their Author in the intercourse of private life must have been far too great to permit any of my familiar acquaintances to doubt the identity betwixt their friend and the Author of Waverley; and I believe they were all morally convinced of it.  But while I was myself silent, their belief could not weigh much more with the world than that of others; their opinions and reasoning were liable to be taxed with partiality, or confronted with opposing arguments and opinions; and the question was not so much whether I should be generally acknowledged to be the Author, in spite of my own denial, as whether even my own avowal of the works, if such should be made, would be sufficient to put me in undisputed possession of that character.

I have been often asked concerning supposed cases, in which I was said to have been placed on the verge of discovery; but, as I maintained my point with the composure of a lawyer of thirty years’ standing, I never recollect being in pain or confusion on the subject.  In Captain Medwyn’s Conversations of Lord Byron the reporter states himself to have asked my noble and highly gifted friend,’ If he was certain about these Novels being Sir Walter Scott’s?’ To which Lord Byron replied, ’Scott as much as owned himself the Author of Waverley to me in Murray’s shop.  I was talking to him about that Novel, and lamented that its Author had not carried back the story nearer to the time of the Revolution.  Scott, entirely off his guard, replied, “Ay, I might have done so; but—­” there he stopped.  It was in vain to attempt to correct himself; he looked confused, and relieved his embarrassment by a precipitate retreat.’  I have no recollection whatever of this scene taking place, and I should have thought that I was more likely to have laughed than to appear confused, for I certainly