It would be hard to understand the strong feelings that John Gibson Lockhart's name produced in London literary circles in the year 1825, if we did not know a few facts about his reckless behaviour as literary critic in Edinburgh. The name of John Gibson Lockhart appears closely linked to that of Benjamin Disraeli's, but more closely still to that of his father-in-law, Sir Walter Scott, for whom he felt a profound devotion.

Lockhart's is a complex personality marked by conflicting attitudes, almost as if two different beings coexisted within his person; one, a faithful and loving family man, and the other, an incarnation of insolence, sarcasm, and cruelty. Notably, this last trait was evident only in his writings, because he invariably seemed shy or aloof when in society. He was a man of few words, and to prove it we have Sir Walter Scott expressing misgivings in his private journal about his son-in-law's lack of social skills: ‘But notwithstanding a handsome exterior and face, I am not sure he will succeed in London Society; he sometimes […] withdraws his attention from the company, or attaches himself to some individual, gets into a corner, and seems to be quizzing the rest’. In his memoir, Charles Knight defines Lockhart as ‘cold and proud’, although it may have been shyness that made him appear so. The famous circle of John Murray's friends would have appeared intimidating to any newcomer.

Lockhart's life-story is also troubled, and his actions, character, and personal connections had a major impact on the story of the Representative. All through his life he exerted great influence as a literary critic, but also caused soul-shattering damage to authors not of his liking. In the warning letter Canning received about a newspaper about to be set up to fight his policies, Lockhart was already named as one of the editors probably because he was a Tory and a well-known and influential literary critic, although not universally liked. His presence as editor of the Representative at first, and later his disengagement with the newspaper, certainly contributed to its failure. The following account can tell us why this is so.