as the friend both of the University and its Provost, that the less said about the whole affair the better; and we are not sure but its plan might have been the wisest had it been generally adopted. But the chief burden of the defence seems to have fallen on the Bulletin and the Inquirer. We admit the prowess of both champions; nor do we deny that in this case they have fought with a fierceness worthy of a better cause. Still, when it is borne in mind that they had to do with a "savage' who had made so diabolical an attack on the divinities of the place the venerable and ever-to-be-honored Dii Lares—it may, perhaps, be admitted that after all they were not unduly sanguinary. Nay, some pretend that while the twain pretended to wax most indignant, they laughed in their sleeve at the nature of their case. We are informed that some of their former testimonies loomed up before them like avenging spectres-such testimonies, for instance, as the following from the Bulletin:

"Some particularly fearless and original opinions heretofore expressed in the National have established an almost personal feeling of respect and esteem between its readers and itself. Of this kidney are the views expressed by the author of the paper in the present (December) number on Our Millionaries and their Influence.' The writer puts into words what many of us have been feeling for a long time,” etc.*

*Nay, the literary critic of the Bulletin really spoke in no different spirit when reviewing the number containing the obnoxious article only a few days before the learned Provost and Faculty had commenced hostilities. Thus, the reader may judge for himself, whether, notwithstanding the use of the term "savage," there was not a little irony in regard to our "venerable institution" in the following:

·

"The National Quarterly Review for December is chiefly noticeable for a savage attack upon The University of Pennsylvania and its new Windows,' in which the author-evidently Dr. Sears himself-condemns our venerable institution as inferior to a well-conducted high-school: basing his strictures partly upon hearsay evidence, partly upon cursory examinations of a few of its graduates, but, chiefly, as it would seem, upon the refusal of the Provost to admit the editor of the National Quarterly to his recitation rooms. The paper makes serious charges, but fails to establish them by good evidence. A sarcastic article on 'The Puffing Element in American Literature,' apropos of a recent series of text-books for schools, is in better style and is well deserved."

One article is "savage,” and the other merely "sarcastic," just because the former has to do with the big divinities of Philadelphia, whereas the latter has to do only with a small Jersey divinity!

Now, since it is the same person who wrote all the articles which pleased the critic of the Bulletin so much, that has also paid his respects to the University of Pennsylvania, it must, we think, be admitted that the condition of savagery has supervened rather abruptly and strangely. Even the Darwinian theory will scarcely account for so remarkable a phenomenon. It was all very well, it seems, to attack the frauds and shams of New York and other parts of the Republic;.but it is quite another matter to meddle with the University of Pennsylvania and its new windows! This, it seems, is an affair of altogether a different "kidney"; and yet, of nothing we have ever penned could the Bulletin more truly say in its own energetic, expressive language, that " The writer puts into words what many of us have been feeling for a long time." Nay, in fact it does say, even in the article headed "Savage Sears," what amounts to the same, thus: "Everybody in Philadelphia knows that the Department of Arts and Sciences has been, for some years past, in a depressed condition." Yet, in the same paragraph, we are accused of a "spiteful attack" that was "most ungraciously ill-timed " (!). This is very much like the jury verdict: "We find the accused guilty of murder in the first degree; but we entirely acquit him because the savage prosecutor, being a malicious, spiteful fellow, brought him into court at the wrong time. We recommend, therefore, that the said savage prosecutor be put into the dock in his place, and sentenced at least to the pillory for a month or so, especially as it is notorious that he is an old offender." Happily there is this difference between our case and that in which the above verdict was rendered. The charge against the University of Pennsylvania and its worthy Provost, and of which the ablest and most zealous of their own counsel substantially admit their guilt, is not homicide-they stand arraigned only for murdering both ancient and modern languages, especially her Majesty's English.

So much for our savagery, as shown by the Bulletin. Then we had issued only one number since the Inquirer complimented us still more highly, if possible, than its evening contemporary, as follows:

"The National Quarterly Review, of which Dr. Edward I. Sears is editor and chief contributor, is by far the best of all our American quarterlies, and is at least equal to any of the English. Brilliant, learned, and strictly impartial, it has from its very commencement waged ceaseless war against every species of bigotry and intolerance, fraud, corruption, and imposture."

These are but specimens of the compliments we have been in the habit of receiving from the leading journals of Philadelphia for thirteen years past; and we have always valued them the more highly, partly from their being entirely spontaneous, and partly from the evident marks of culture and ability which they bear. To this day we do not know who either the critic of the Bulletin or the critic of the Inquirer is; but we do know that neither has ever been under the slightest compliment to us; and still more emphatically, if possible, may we say so of the publishers of these journals. In short, both papers have ever been as disinterested and generous in their encouraging words to us up to the day we chose for our subject the University of Pennsylvania and its New Windows, as the Press, the North American, and the Age; or as the New York Herald, New York Times, Boston Post, Boston Transcript, etc., etc.

It will be admitted, therefore, that we could afford to wait three months to vindicate ourselves from the charge of savagery, as well as from that of having been actuated in the window

* When the conservative and dignified Philadelphia North American has expressed any opinion of our journal it has spoken as follows:

"This periodical approaches nearer, in design and execution, to the great English standards, the Edinburgh, the Westminster, the London Quarterly, Blackwood's, the Dublin University, etc., than any other American magazine or review."

Or, thus :

"The National is an interesting and valuable review, and one that does honor to the spirit and scholarship of the country."

Even in its review of our last number-that containing the obnoxious "window" article-it pays us the compliment of saying that, in our preface to the article on Pope Alexander VI., we give "expression to the enlightened sense of Christendom, Catholic as well as Protestant."

case by the most diabolical motives. Besides we had long since become well used to be called hard names; we had been honored with such by the quack doctors, the quack insurers, the quack patriots, the quack ring-leaders, etc., etc. Had it been otherwise, we might have excused ourselves on the ground that did we undertake to defend ourselves from those who accuse us of having done grievous injustice, through spite, or "malice prepense," to themselves or their ancestors, we might do nothing else from the day we issue one number until it is time to issue another. Thus, for example, our Philadelphia readers at least can tell that we should have been kept pretty busy for six weeks of the time, had we attempted to answer the avalanche of fierce articles hurled at us in that hitherto courteous and hospitable city. In various other quarters we stood arraigned for, that we, "in a certain rhapsody, styled 'The Puffing Element in American Literature,' did maliciously, etc., without the fear of God before our eyes, make an unprovoked, atrocious and felonious assault on sundry great authors and authoresses, including several members of the renowned Smith family." Elsewhere, the rabble in the back streets have assailed us with those foul, unsavory weapons congenial to that interesting class, for having libelled certain illustrious divines, living and dead, the former of whom has since been promoted for his piety, learning and meekness! Let our Philadelphia friends please remember that the worst language used by the Bulletin and Inquirer, in defence of the University of Pennsylvania and its learned Provost, was mild and gentlemanly compared to that of the vindicators of the saintly and infallible Alexander VI., and the almost equally saintly and infallible Father Corrigan, now by the grace of God, and the recommendation of his learned and pious Grace of New York, promoted to be the Right Reverend Bishop Corrigan. For just the same as we are declared guilty of having attacked the whole good people of the Keystone State, especially all patriotic Philadelphians, in venturing to make some observations on the University of Pennsylvania, so are we declared guilty of having attacked the whole Catholic Church, because we could neither take part in the reha

bilitation of St. Borgia, nor in the white-washing of St. Corrigan, so as to make him a fit and proper companion of that other great Seton Hall luminary, St. McQuade.

It will hardly seem strange, then, that the only instance in which we have ever written to any paper in defence of ourselves, or our journal, in regard to any criticism we have made, is that in which Mayor Hall issued his celebrated proclamation against us in the New York Herald, headed "The Cat out of the Bag." His Honor, seeing no other way of hurting us, or weakening the force of our criticism, manipulates a private letter and embodies it in his manifesto to show that we were actuated by spite and malice in attacking such highminded, incorruptible and patriotic statesmen as his worthy colleagues. All the Ring papers were directed to copy this proclamation from the Herald, and in all city and suburban papers not belonging to the Ring it was published as an advertisement. In each of the former it was accompanied with more or less editorial abuse—all for our being such vile slanderers as to pretend that New York was not in a happy condition under "Ring-leader rule." As the Ring was just in its glory at this time, the majority of our good credulous people regarding it as quite the right sort of government, we thought it proper to reply to his Honor. In this letter we admitted that he was entirely right in proclaiming "the cat out of the bag," but added that he and those high-minded people whom he defended so well, would find ere long that it was the wrong cat! This brought on us fresh storms of abuse, which continued for weeks, and this failing to frighten us, or prevent us from advertising our "malicious libel on honesty. and integrity," now issued separately, in pamphlet form, and extended to the third edition, another member of the feline tribe was let loose against us disguised in a petticoat. To be attacked in this fashion is, to use the language of Provost Stillé, "an event of great significance in the community in which we live." But fortunately, in this case, the event was "rightly apprehended;" so the only mischief it did us was to afford our editorial friends a fresh excuse for hurling mud and garbage at us. Not that they had any mortal spite against us,

VOL. XXVI.-NO. LII.

8