ONCE AGAIN.

DEAR MAGENTA, - I regret having been compelled to leave so long unnoticed a recent contribution to the Advocate commenting on, or rather criticising, my article on Bulwer. This would-be critic opens with, and again repeats, an opinion that my ideas are wholly erroneous concerning two, at least, of Bulwer's novels. Not having read "Eugene Aram" for some years, I took occasion, recently, to look it through again, and I see no reason "why it should not have been censured at the time of its publication because the characters were taken from Newgate." Although the remark might apply equally well to "Paul Clifford," I had not this book in mind, nor was I, as the author of "Lord Lytton" insinuates, totally ignorant of the story of "Eugene Aram" when I made the above-quoted comment. On the contrary, I then considered, as I still do, that this story, whose interest culminates in the unravelling of a mysterious murder, in which a long chapter is devoted to the trial, and another to the confessions of Aram; a story in which such men as Hauseman and Clark play leading parts, - such a story, I say, is not entirely exempt from the charge that its "characters are taken from Newgate." Hauseman is certainly a villain, and Clark, the murdered man, was little better. Even Eugene Aram, whom my critic seems to rather admire, is not a good man; for, despite his good traits, - his love of study, fondness for animals, etc., - we ought not to admire a man who becomes deliberately the accomplice in a most shameful murder, I care not what may be his motives. Lytton himself, when afterwards alluding to this novel, speaks of the constant attacks on its morality. The character of the heroine is certainly a lovely one; still, even she seems to serve the purpose of making blacker the crimes of the others, and of causing Aram's fate to appear more disagreeable.

No one can be a greater admirer than myself of Bulwer's writings, and I consider "Eugene Aram" at least one of his average productions. Still, I see no reason to correct a former opinion expressed concerning a story, a great part of which is occupied in narrating the events leading to, connected with, or growing out of a murder.

The Advocate's correspondent would have obliged me much more had he desisted from a criticism of my view of what is at best an open question, and had he corrected a mistake which I must beg permission to do myself. I relied on an imperfect memory when I stated that "Calderon the courtier" was an attendant on Charles V. He was the power behind the throne during the reign of Philip III., and played much the same part in Spain that Richelieu did at the court of Louis XIII. of France. This little story of court intrigue would repay the perusal by any one, and I recommend it to the author of "Lord Lytton." Many works of Bulwer's, besides those already spoken of by either Magenta or Advocate, deserve extended mention and praise. But sufficient space has already been devoted to this subject.

The synopsis of the life of Bulwer by the Advocate's correspondent will be found interesting to those who do not read the daily journals.

It is my desire, dear Magenta, to avoid a controversy in so trivial a matter, and I have only attempted a vindication of an opinion I had expressed, but the soundness of which has been questioned.

H. B.